Ah, but that post is a great example of rhetorical slight of hand -- I said that pointing out
censorship is a red herring, as it's not limited to any one side.
"Censorship" is not analogous to "religious intolerance."
What are commonly known as "the 10 commandments" are directions to believers from their deity: if folks who believe in A are told not to believe in B, it's not inherently hostile to those who do believe in B. The commandment is directed
internally.
The other passage you refer to (since it's not referenced, I'm having to kind of guess where exactly it occurred), is dealing with what amount to military marching orders, and those directives were to be carried out
after all of the inhabitants of the land in question had been killed: men, women and children (another practice that historically has not been limited to any one party). As such, breaking down the trappings of those other religions was also under the heading of the believers keeping themselves faithful to their beliefs.
As it happens, they didn't do as they were ordered, and as a result ended up following all those other religions, so the orderer might have had something of a point.
If you look at the New Testament, these points are much clearer: all the teachings in it are directed at the individual getting his or her heart right, not at forcing anyone else to comply with their beliefs.
The differences between the focuses of the Old and New Testaments are far too complex to tackle here ... or for me to do justice to such an attempt, for that matter.