Personally, I grew up with religious diversity, and intuitively accept it as the norm : in New Zealand, all of the British Protestant denominations, plus catholicism, were represented, with Anglicanism being the mainstream but by no means hegemonic (other than a handful of Jews, I knew no non-Christians until Buddhism, Baha'i, Hari Krishna and other such hippy shit became fashionable in the 70s). It was undoubtedly a "Christian" nation, but not dogmatically so.

For my own part, I was brought up without religious indoctrination from my parents, which led to me being defined by others, to my amusement, as an "atheist".

As an adult, I discovered that most countries have a hegemonic religion with centralised doctrine that has, or has recently had, strong influence over professed moral standards and laws. This is unconscionable to me, and my considered conclusion is that it is necessary to put a muzzle on religious influence in the public sphere.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

Well - that's progress, I guess.

Now, for extra credit, tell us which religious point of view is more common - the repressive one, or the liberal one?