The 2016 Crusades and the immunization of science part 3

The premise of my arguments about religion is that people are mostly educatable and that it is less expensive (emotionally and economically) to  educate them than to kill them.
It has flaws.  If you educate the public about one organized religion, you are educating them about all organized religions.
I'm not talking about denying the existing religions or even forbading religious education or  indoctrination.   I'm merely suggesting that we provide them a basis for understanding the true, viral nature of religions and that a proper understanding of space time (or the lack of it) means that a beleif in a specific religion is just indoctrination.  The imans with their beards and the popes in their dresses have no better idea what god is than the agnostic physicist.
Of course I've convinced myself that god is potential, a likely blind experiment in all possible outcomes including those which we cannot readily imagine (one and three state information theories, for example.
But to think god would give a rats ass what we think or have nny need to come visit when all events are necessarily created together and in a fashion which is unchanging is ludicrous.
Kill them all or educate them?  If we are forced to accept one god vs the other, the choice is clear, that's religious war.  The alternative is to kill most of the superstitions we live with and all the organized relgions.  what then would we turn to in tmies of trouble?
There are, of course, other alternatives:
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-pakistan-blast-20160327-story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/world/asia/explosion-lahore-pakistan-park.html?_r=0
All disbelievers must kill or be killed.