Banning things gets awkward. Consider the large amounts of history of religious persecution Drug wars prohibition etc.

A religion is an abstract thing. It cannot persecute anything or anybody, because it is abstract. Only a State where a certain religion is dominant can persecute people of other faiths etc.

Of interest, the US Constitution is particularly silent on many issues regarding morality or principles of right/wrong (as opposed to lawful/unlawful) because, at the time it was written, the US was in every sense a God-fearing country where paganism was unknown, and essentially everyone was a member of one or the other God-fearing religions. The Founding Fathers believed that it was the right and domain of God, and God alone, to judge morality and the 'goodness' or 'evilness' of individuals at judgement day and that Americans would always govern their behavior out of their fear of God.

The target result is that Paganism, Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Wicca, and a large set of other non-warring religions should be allowed. ... clearly you aren't aware of some of the history of some of these. This question also seems to conflate monotheism as an automatic instigator of violence, which isn't guaranteed or always true historically, any more than being a polytheistic religion would make them accepting of other religions.

The US is already headed in this direction. Why not just copy and paste?

@JustinThymetheSecond: While I'm not an American, and I have no special interest in the history of the American Revolution, I do seem to remember than Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were very prominent among those Founding Parents. Calling them "God-fearing" is a rather large stretch. (And, in general, legal norms are most usually completely silent on issues regarding morality or principles of right and wrong; that's the province of ethics and would be out of place in a law.)

Frame challenge: polytheistic religions can have massive outbreaks of intolerance and persecution just like monotheistic ones. I recall mentions of war involvement of "red" and "yellow" tibetan religious orders, including mutual harrassment and fighting, as an example.

@toolforger They can. But the people in this particular scenario are specifically targeting monotheists for revenge-persecution. It's not meant to be fair, it's meant to be a reversal of fates.

It's religion, FFS! You don't need any reason other than "The TRUE GODS say so"

Judaism does not "punish non-believers" for believing in other gods than the god of Israel. It calls for the punishment of disloyal Jews and the submission of foreigners, which is quite different. Similar distinctions apply to other Abahmanic religions.

Arguably, what Abrahmanic religions have in common is rather that the trueness of their faith will give believers a military edge, should religious controversy turn to armed conflict. They unanimously regard war a business for non-clerics, though.

If you are inventing the world, there is no reason you have to justify such a ban. That is the rule in this society. There may be historical reasons for it, there may be religious reasons for it, there may be philosophical reasons for it, there may be no justification at all except "that's evil, that's icky, that's unreasonable, we don't do it that way."

"And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' "

ctd "And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? "

ctd "We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." [Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209.]" Same reference

@AlexP "Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity." str.org/w/the-faith-of-our-fathers – Justin Thyme the Second

@@AlexP Also from the same source "The Founders understood that fear of God, moral leadership, and a righteous citizenry were necessary for their great experiment to succeed." 'Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's. and onto the Lord what is the Lord's.' was their guiding principle, and any such morality issues around abortion, homosexuality, honesty, truth, lying, killing (capital punishment), racism, discrimination, female equality, and such were the Lord's domain, not Caesar's. God was the ultimate authority in these matters, not the State.

You do realize that "non-standard lifestyles" have been persecuted by every known type of religion?

@Therac I highly recommend reading up on Sikhism. It’s a pretty concrete counterexample to the assertion that monotheism inherently breeds persecution of nonbelievers. And, at the same time, read up on some of the internal conflicts that have occurred within Hinduism or other polytheistic religions, they often have led to just as much violence as monotheistic zealotry tends to.

@AustinHemmelgarn Thanks. But that really digs deeper than I expected. The idea isn't a perfect world, but one where having a "true faith" is punished rather than vice versa.

@AustinHemmelgarn I don't see that assertion being made anywhere in the question.