QUESTION: is religious tolerance bad?

QUESTION: is religious tolerance bad?
modern religions have eradicated human sacrifice. however a bit of benefit does not justify other crimes.
i recently answered a question about aztecs which reminded me that aztecs practice human sacrifice. aztecs would never "murder" and this was different for them,  it was not murder because human sacrifice was different from murder.
it is politically correct to say "Aztecs do not deserve religious tolerance" now that they are extinct. now nobody would say "aztecs are a holy good religion because they have beautiful legends",  because we recognize the crime of immorality and the religion which mixes 90% good with a bit of cruelty is still a crime so it is "impure" from cruelty and contains cruelty.
now we can more easily comprehend the same flaw in the crimes of "modern" religions which also contain criminal cruelty.
there is no distinction between larger crimes and "relatively smaller" cruelties because even smaller cruelties are cruelty and in other contexts are already recognized as cruel crimes. a mixture which contains crimes=impure and therefore they deserve condemnation. all impure cruel religions whether jewish infant circumcision [genesis+leviticus] or catholic chastity [corinthians] which leads the men to young boys or islamic jihad [at least seven times in the noble quran in the current state before editing] all these ideas which are truly quoted from the religious books which do contain those ideas, not only "do not deserve tolerance, but also it would be EVIL to tolerate any religious book which is impure-from-cruelty=contains cruelty.
only AFTER each religious book is edited and the cruelty which they have been basing on the book-quote is removed from the books, can we reconsider tolerating any such religion.
humanity, if we condemn cruelty and discourage it, must recognize that religions are not pure and hence deserve condemnation. moral humans should also recognize that the followers who call books with cruel message "holy" or guidance are people who stubbornly perpetuate cruelty and deserve condemnation and even severe punishment- severe punishment.
we must encourage the editing of books to remove the cruelty whether it is jewish infant circumcision which attacks a healthy baby with a knife often ignoring the cruel pain, recognized as a crime if done to any other limb besides the genital while in fact that circumcision is the same crime and worse as sexual assault and whether catholic chastity which leads the men to young boys- some we catch and others we have not yet caught, or whether islamic jihad, which is quoted from the book and even those who do not do the action refuse to remove the idea from the book therefore until each of these are edited and also all other cruelty removed, they all deserve condemnation humanity if we respect morality must recognize the crimes and cruelty and condemn the bad ideas and the intolerable people who perpetuate and homor cruelty.
not only followers who act on these cruelties but also even followerrs who say that an impure book is honorable, all deserve severe condemnation and somehow- some severe punishment for inciting cruelty.
only AFTER the removal of cruel ideas from these books, at least the measurable cruleties to the body, as the case of young boys etc., can we reconsider.
the way the religions are today, when the sources are quoted from the books, we must prefer morality and recognize the evil of the ideas which leads to the evil of the people who perpetuate such impure books.