Well that’s the paradox of tolerance. You’re an anarchist, you know what I’m talking about. I’m happy for anyone to worship or not worship as they please. To believe in whichever gods they want to believe in.

1. I'm friendly with anarchists, but I'm not an anarchist myself.

2. That's not what the paradox of tolerance is.

But if someone doesn’t believe in a god, and acts accordingly, then they’re blinding themselves to important cultural information which could be crucial to understanding how to justly treat religious people. Here in Australia, we get a LOT of that. We get lots of people, nice people, who don’t believe in the Indigenous metaphysical perspective. And it leads them to commit violence. We have white people putting up fences over Aboriginal land, stopping people from living the way their ancestors lived, from fulfilling their sacred responsibilities to Country.

But why is that religious view more valid than others? You claim to believe in the existence of all gods equally, but then why is the behavior of other people according to their religious norms considered unprivileged, while that of aboriginal folks is considered privileged in your worldview? Is the ancestral belief that YHWH wishes the land to be divided up and put under the care of individual wardens invalid in comparison to the ancestral beliefs of aboriginal folk that it should not? Why is YHWH's wish less valid than that of Aboriginal gods? What is the criteria you use to make the distinction between one being valid and one not without engaging in rank hypocrisy?

The Rainbow Serpent made the land and it’s the people’s responsibility to care for it, not to take it for themselves.

But many religions disagree with that. Even your statement here asserts that it was the Rainbow Serpent who made the land, yet there are many other religions with many other creation myths, and many other views on how land is to be treated. You aren't acknowledging all gods equally, you're picking and choosing just like the 'religious denialists' you claim to oppose.

Your freedoms end where someone else’s freedoms begin. Other people have the right to believe in their gods, their spirits, their magic. I don’t think you or I have the right to deny that from them.

But the entire issue that this debate started over was precisely that the traditional Roman religio didn't deny anyone the right to believe in their gods; but you asserted that, all the same, the fact that their worldview had a definite view of the gods of others rendered it genocidal and evil, and a form of 'religious denialism'.