Is a secular, pluralistic attitude not wiser than religion?

No. It is not religion that justifies intolerance but people who later misuse it. Religions come precisely to call human nature to morality, and each one leaves humanity at a higher moral level.

The concern is understandable. Throughout history people have persecuted others in the name of almost every religion. Yet a look at the beginnings shows a different picture. The first followers of the prophets were persecuted everywhere, but they themselves persecuted no one. Intolerance always came from the other side. When later followers became harsh and intolerant, the fault lay with them and not with the religion itself.

So Islam should not be judged by the conduct of some who speak in its name today. The first verse above says plainly that there is no compulsion in faith.

And what if intolerance runs deep in human nature? That is exactly why religions come. They call people back to the foundations of morality. Yet God forces no one. He makes clear what is right and what is wrong, and leaves the choice to each person, as the second verse says. Many choose wrongly, and God does not stop them by force.

Even so, the effort is not wasted. Each new generation falls short of the ideal, but it stands a little higher morally than the one before. What was once normal is later seen as inhuman. A Pharaoh tormented his opponents without any justification. Later harsh regimes at least had to present their crimes as lawful. Today many societies regard it as inhuman to punish someone physically for holding a different conviction.

This insight did not come from nowhere. Civilisation is like a building raised layer by layer from the moral teachings of the religions. Every religion leaves behind a lasting deposit of morality that lifts the standard of humanity. A tolerant society is therefore not the opposite of religion. To a large extent it is its fruit.