Okay, I think we're mostly on the same page. And we completely agree that looking for a winner/loser in terms of "most violent religion" is a stupid and futile exercise. Not least of all, I think, because religions aren't really cohesive homogeneous units, especially when time and cultural divisions are factored in. You're absolutely right about the article being flamebait.

I'd amend your "waxes and wanes" description of violence over time with a long-term decrease, such that modern waxes tend to be less corrosive and widespread than ancient waxes.

There was a book I read a few years ago, which I sadly can't remember now, which made a compelling case for turning the vengeful-old-testament/merciful-new-testament stereotype on its head. Which I think I actually got from a Professor of Buddhism. Maybe you know it? I really wish I could remember it right now. In any event, know that I mostly agree with you about the vengeful-old-testament, nice-new-testament paradigm being mostly bunk.

Good talk :-)