> I don't buy it.
How about reading the exact sources in order to avoid even being in position of having to "buy" anything? For example the core texts? Just get one and read it. Don't let anybody tell you anything, especially don't trust any claimed "interpretations," read it yourself, in your language, undiluted, not just one sentence, but at least the whole chapter where it appears, take notes, then discuss.
And then if you question the translation you read, there are enough online sources which display the different translations which can be then compared. You can even search where any word is used through all the texts. Just don't believe anybody who says that you can't do that.
Just like I don't have to know ancient Greek to understand what's written in the Odyssey.
Then investigate if there are any known interpretations by the influential scholars that are equivalent to western approach to other religions "that it shouldn't be taken literally." Investigate the practices and how the ideas are actually applied in real life. Study history to know how they were historically applied and which effect they had. Know the context.
(I'm not going to discuss this further here, this is my only post, but I stand to my claim that everybody can read and understand the sources and research how they are viewed by the influential scholars, and that these facts can be calmly discussed, and that the discussion should not depend on the groupthink or faith but the actual knowledge of the topic discussed. Don't write "I don't buy" this or that, discuss the facts you actually know, then somebody can contribute to your knowledge by stating the facts he knows etc).
Moreover I haven't seen anybody else who wrote what I see only you write: "You and many others seem to post that there is a mental cancer infecting 1.5 billion people on this planet, and at any time it could transform its host into a bloodthirsty murderer seemingly at random."
Careful readers are advised to read what others really wrote (e.g the post to which you respond wrote just "I would argue that religion is the variable that plays the dominant role in this war of ideas"), not what you claim (or somebody else claims) it is supposed to mean.
Analyzing your post in this light, it appears to be strikingly manipulative and dishonest, distorting what others actually wrote and promoting non-thinking and blindly believing (your attempt to discredit somebody with something he hasn't even written).