"...the requirement is to be less strident so as to create alliances with moderate religionists on specific topics..."

It always strikes me as hypocritical to judge a religion by how "moderate" or how compatible with a country's rules and customs it is.

"I respect your religion. As long as what your god happens to want is within my laws and you don't take His word over mine!"

That sounds ludicrous. It leaves the impression that the person has already accepted that each and every religion is made up, interpreted and filled with "life" by humans, that, of course, there is no "divine" truth in it, nothing holy or important enough to challenge, question and overturn secular laws and mundane facts. So, why not be consistent enough to say:

"I do not respect your religion. But I respect your right to belief what you wish, as long as you adhere to my laws and customs."

Fear of alienating too many people? An aquired, though unwarranted, respect for religion? A cynical lie because it's easier to deceive people than to try and reason with them?

The religion that claims it's god asks for mercy, compassion and happiness may be easier to coexist with than the relgion that demands blood, war and sacrifice. But to think that makes the claim that the former religion is "true" any more feasible shows either a warped definition of truth, or simple dishonesty.