Religions don't believe things, people believe things. Many religions, if the text of their holy books are taken literally, support violence, sacrifice, slavery, etc. And religions are practiced in different ways in different times, and different places. Not every religious person is an extremist.
My opinion is that you should judge people by the way they actually behave, not by the worst possible interpretation of how their religion says they should behave. Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here.
Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible.
Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ.
But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic.
At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud)
Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.
I would argue that a western perspective is to wait for harmful action to connect with harmful intent or harmful planning. Then, for the act of harming, a person should be held accountable by society in a reviewable way.
