What would Jesus do? That question is answered in as many different ways as there are people to answer it, based on the personal belief held by that individual.
A better questions is; What DID Jesus do?
Jesus taught a doctrine that had the religious leaders of the day so angry, that they conspired to commit murder, and induced people to perjure themselves in order to accomplish that murder (Jesus was murdered on the cross at Calvary). Was that a teachng by Jesus of tolerance for dissenting religious beliefs? I don't think so. Jesus condemned the religious teachers of the day, comparing them to Satan. He told his followers; Do not cast your pearls before swine (meaning that some people would never accept the word of God, and perform acts of obedience).
Jesus assaulted the moneychangers in the temple, and drove them out with sticks. Was that a teachng of tolerance for criminal or dissenting religious actions? I don't think so.
A person who is trapped in false doctrines will never be converted as long as that person's belief is tolerated, and not challenged. A person has to be convinced (usually against their will) that they are not acceptable to God, before they will give up ways that seem good to them, but fail to please God.
If what you are interested in is acceptance and harmony of purpose, you must agree to ignore (or accept without challenge) religious beliefs, and concentrate on secular issues. That is how we happen to get along with fellow employees at our places of business, and how we get along in our recreational endeavors. A common rule of getting along is to not discuss certain issues, such as religion and politics.
It is possible to discuss relgious doctrines in an unchallenging way for purposes of learning the differences in various doctrines, but that knowlege is useless if not later utilized for the purpose of converting persons of differing belief.
If a person never tries to teach others what his faith is, either by word or deed, he is worthless as far as God is concerned, and will suffer eternal punishment.
This country was founded to provide a nation where all religious doctrines were tolerated by the government, and none were banned (essentially a secular nation - not a Christian Nation as so many claim); there is no such thing as the commonly referred to "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution - there is only a rule that the government will not "establish" a religion by showing favoritism to any religious doctrines or organizations. We work together in the national sense, to make this nation stronger, by ignoring the religious aspect (how do we please God) when we pass laws, using instead the concept of morality (which every religion has) and ethics to determine what is acceptable conduct for the people of this land.
Every Good person recognizes that murder, assault and rape, robbery, false witness and lying, cheating and defrauding, etc. is wrong and needs to incur punishment. The problem is in dealing with the severity of the consequences, and the subtlety of the distinctions we are faced with today. An example of this problem is the issue of abortion. People of strong religious conviction who believe that abortion is murder, are referred to as "Kooks and Nuts from the Religious Right". Those that favor abortion on demand for convenience of the mother, think that the child is not alive, so it is not murder.
Scientifically, there is no defintion of when Human life begins, even though laws have been written to protect the life of non-human species before they are fully born (or hatched). The US Supreme Court ruled in Roe V Wade that some abortion is legal, because they could not determine when Human life begins (there was a failure to reach consensus between the religious and scientific consultants the Court used). The condition of protecting the mother from physical or emotional harm caused by carrying the child to the point of birth, was the basis the Court used for allowing abortion. As the years have gone by, we have seen the restrictions lifted to the point where it is now acceptable to have a child aborted when there is no danger at all to the mother; that is why there are so many challenges being brought to the court on this issue.
My own perspective on abortion is that it is too easy; there needs to be a rigorous process to determine if the death of the child is more important than the risks to the mother of delivering the child at the end of term.
There are other contentious issues that divide the country. Some of these involve the right to self-defense, because deadly force is often a part of defending oneself from violent attack (this is related in an obscure way to the matter of abortion - right to life). A part of this conflict is the issue of dependency vs. personal responsibility; do we do the dirty work ourselves, or hire someone (police/military) to kill in our defense. Those whose religion does not allow them to defend their own life from lethal attack, often do not seem to concern themselves with the thought that they are paying someone in a uniform (police/military) to possibly kill an attacker in their defense.
There is a time and place for accepting/tolerating people of differing religious beliefs, and a time and place for challenging those same people because of their beliefs. The problem is knowing which time and place we are in, and thus which action is appropriate.
