I think this is exactly right, and is why the first amendment's free exercise clause isn't really practicable in the long run. You can't guarantee the freedom for everyone to act on all their beliefs if their fundamental beliefs clash with each other.

The only way forward, I think, is to settle on some democratically established axioms, that, even if everyone doesn't necessarily believe all of them per se, that at least we would all know we have to debate as if they were true, within the context of public policy. In other words, I think we need to accept a certain tyranny of the majority to find a certain "least common denominator" on a few beliefs that would be generally intuitive to most people.

Personally, I'd suggest the following as a good starting point:

1. Good and bad / evil are only recognizable by someone feeling happiness / pleasure or pain. And the goal of society (and every law within that society), therefore, is to help each other pursue pleasure and avoid pain.

2. All public truth claims must have publicly, democratically observable evidence. Personal spiritual experiences, and books written millennia ago don't count.

3. Everyone's actions are always done entirely in hope of happiness, or in fear of pain. So don't judge people as "deserving" success or punishment - everyone is just like you, and can't help what they need, fear, and desire.

4. Logical debate is the only acceptable way to settle a dispute about truth claims. Ad hominems and other logical fallacies are completely worthless.

If we all believed those things, or at least debated in public as if we did, then public policy could be more like solving a math problem, since there would actually be right and wrong answers within the context of those axioms. Public discourse could actually be collaborative.

As it is now though, public debate is often largely pointless, since people aren't using the same axioms. The only way to make it NOT pointless, is to have axioms.