We can define truth as, a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. With this definition we can say that truth is singular, that its interpretation should be homogeneous If there is subjectivity involved, we may say we are no longer dealing with truth.
We can go on to define an interpretation of something as an explanation or conceptualization by a critic, that is to say one who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter. To put this more bluntly, an interpretation is the communication of the subjective experience of an object.
I think we can agree, then, that the sheer amount of interpretation of religious scriptures is a demonstration of the essential untruth of the documents. Indeed, we can see that an interpretation itself is merely a subjective viewpoint, and thus removed from truth. Metaphorically, it is closer to an opinion piece than a news report.
The fact that these texts can be interpreted in a way that legitimizes violent behavior, oppression and intolerance demonstrates that there is something fundamentally flawed with the text itself. No system of morality should make allowances for violence, discrimination, intolerance, hatred, bigotry, arrogance, oppression or censorship. These behaviours have been shown over time to be deleterious to the progress and cohesiveness of the human race.
So, knowing that religious texts cannot be understood in any adult fashion as objective fact, or truth, and understanding that the behaviors that are legitimized by these texts are harmful, we can look to developing a solution to this problem.
What I am proposing is a reform of all religious doctrine that supports these behaviours. A partial rewrite of these texts to eliminate the possibility of a violent interpretation, to remove all scriptural support for such behaviour.
The religious claim to stand for peace, unity and tolerance. If they truly support these values, then this should be seen as a logical step towards that end.