I get that the author is trying to make the reader look at both sides, and I praise him for that. But the picture is not so pretty.

You know that paradox of tolerance that Popper talked about? The real deal, not the one that you’d see in Reddit, or in that misleading comic? That applies to the Roman religion vs. Christianity: the Roman religion was abler* than Christianity to tolerate faith differences, as exemplified by the existence of a temple for Isis (an Egyptian goddess) in the city of Rome. And it was tolerant towards Christianity at the start, even if mildly mocking it with things like this:

(That’s from ~200 CE. It shows how clueless some Romans were towards Christianity - “they worship donkeys lol”.)

And the whole process was a lot like the social version of lead acetate. Christianity offers you some sweet bullshit, like “your relative is not-so-dead, as long as he was a Christian he’s happy in the sky; you should accept our bullshit too if you want to see him”. But it’s still a slow-acting poison.

In 1749, Pope Benedict XIV consecrated the Colosseum, ancient Rome’s most recognisable monument, as a shrine to Christian martyrs. An inscription made clear its role in Christian history: ‘The Flavian amphitheatre, famous for its triumphs and spectacles, dedicated to the gods of the pagans in their impious cult, redeemed by the blood of the martyrs from foul superstition.’

It’s kind of hilarious a Christian priest calling someone else’s beliefs “foul superstition”.

*I hope that I don’t need to explain that a comparative does not convey an absolute value. I’m saying “abler”, not “completely able” - there were still disputes and dead people. Still a far cry from Christianity’s “convert him into a human=Christian or kill/enslave it like a filthy animal”.