all or none

[cultural extinction][https://msmunatunagb.wikispaces.com/file/view/Cultural+Extinction.pdf]

When I get into arguments about freedom of religion and freedom of speech, people often argue in a way that confuses me.

They want THEIR view forwarded and adhered to by the law and society, yet those who have the opposite view cannot be tolerated. Those who don’t CARE either way are called ignorants. And people are lumped into groups based on hate and fear, ignorance and selfishness or what is missing from their life, rather than the ideals of their religions. Ideals such as love and peace. And mostly by people who claim to be educated, no less.
Historically, religions have taken their turns being the emperor who tried to kill or enslave in the name of their gods. And the temple leader who lived in riches, while the followers starved and their children died.
Historically, the treatment of the common people by the leaders seemed more torturous or demonic than divine, or divine inspired. Yet people were imprisoned and martyred because they DARED to speak against the throne or the altar.
So it comes to a point where I wonder, why would ANY of them be tolerated by an erudite society? Why don’t we raze them ALL and begin again?
Or deny religion and crown ever existed, ever had good purpose?
That is where I fall on the line of political and religious discussions. I’m more anarchical than liberal.
But I don’t rule the world.
If I did, we’d all live in small villages of like-minded and take care of our own.
Well I’m not likely to ever be the ruler of the world. So that means to ME that the opposite has to be true. ALL religions have to be allowed equal space, equal value in our systems, whether we are their political ally or they are our current enemy. ALL religions should be taught to the following generations, in the context of “people can get nuts about religion” or “common values”.
That is if YOU want to have your freedom? Because IMO you should only be as free as you allow others to be.