There's no denying that there are places in the world today (including in America or the UK) that use religious texts as justification to hurt people who are different from them. After studying these texts for much of my life, I can confidently say that violence is not a key tenant of these traditions. There are verses here and there that taken out of context appear that way, but that's just the issue: it's out of context.
You would need to know Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, and Greek, not to mention an articulate historical understanding of culture, economics, politics, etc., to even begin to understand what the texts actually say. Radical, violent organizations pray upon scared, young individuals without many other options. They don't have proper jobs, education, aspirations, and humanitarian aid. When they feel powerless, these kinds of missions make them feel powerful.
This is to say that religion is a tool. If presented in a certain way, it can be a destructive, awful tool. But that doesn't make it inherently evil in its own right. Just as there is a minority population that uses it for evil, there is, too, a minority population that uses it for true, non-bigoted, non-agenda'd good. The people who are trying very hard to provide opportunities for the hurting.
Granted the 'tool-ish' nature of religion, it is impossible to disregard it's utility as a weapon. I would liken it to the national conversation surrounding gun violence. How might our perceptions of religion change if we were to compare it to something like a lethal weapon? Do we permit certain models of it in everyday life but restrict others? How would we go about quantifying the hurt done to individuals through the 'weapon' of religion? Certainly, there are cases of individuals who have been physically hurt or killed in the name of religion. But should we stop there? What about mental, emotional, verbal, etc abuse? This is especially true for minority groups including LGBTQ+ populations but also, perhaps, race or political ideology within communities.
I don't have answers to these questions, but I do think it's an interesting way to consider such an issue. I still do believe that sometimes blaming such violence on the guise of religion gives people a covering to duck under. It lets them believe it is the religion spreading hurt, not individual humans who have skin, mouths, eyes, and hands like us. For me, that's even scarier.
Empathy must be the antidote; it goes both ways — obviously not to excuse any of these behaviors in any way or fashion. Pushing these communities to the fringes will only perpetuate these issues and feed into their desires to feel like victims with a cause to fight. Empathy must win.
This is a human issue; not a textual issue. Putting the blame on 'religion' excuses ourselves from the real, fundamental issues — human issues, class issues, economic issues, national issues, etc. If we were to meet the needs of those struggling and high targets for enlistments in violent terrorism or toxic religiosity then we might be able to make some headway.
In this way altruistic action, today, is much more important than hoping someone else (whom we have no control over) will 'change their mind' or 'change their situation.' If we are willing to step out and aid in the areas I've mentioned (education, public health, economic stimulation, etc) then perhaps we will slowly see the world changed for the better.
It's on us too. 'Us and them' will only bring us so far.