Rationalism vs. Irrationalism

Believers to a specific religion usually (1) do accept the previous religions and the same time (2) believe that their own religion is perfect, and people believing to chronically previous religions should be converted to theirs, and (3) do not accept religions chronically after their own religions. I have seen these three stages between each sets of religions.

Simply look into the relationship between Jews and Christians.
Christians accept Jews, but believe that their religion is better and more complete, but they do not accept Islam in heart (which started more than 600 years after their religion), and believe that Islam is a fake belief. They also believe that Mormonism is a fake religion (which started 1800 years after their religions).

Muslim accept Jews and Christianity, but believe that their own religion is more perfect than those two, and they do not accept Bahaism (which started about 700 years after their religion) and believe that it is a fake religion.

Mormonism also accept Christianity and Judaism, but believe that their own religions is more perfect for humans. ……

Does this pattern tell us something? Doesn’t it tell us that all the conflicts between religions and those believers to them simply is because of maintaining the existing power and not letting the new power become present?
Indeed this is not just limited to religions, it can be applied to any sort of belief and ideology. In fact, the above hypothesis is true for majority of believers to the above religions not all of them, especially it is true for the ones who do not ‘think’ about what they believe but just ‘feel’ it, and then believe that nothing else will be true. I can call them Irrational people against Rational people.