I'd be open to dating someone from most other religions (save maybe satanism and the likes) but they can't be die-hard religious and forcing their beliefs on me or others. I would even be okay with attending a church or helping with their religious practices on occasion. As an agnostic I believe any religion could be true and I don't mind learning about religions so long as I'm not expected to convert.

The biggest problem I can think of is with a long-term serious relationship. I've found that most people that practice a religion, even if they aren't that serious about it, want their children to practice the religion and tend to force it on them, maybe unknowingly.

Mutual acceptance is the key, for example if my partner wanted to go to mass, fine with me. Same if I wanted to go to a match, should be fine with her. But not stopping each other doing those things, or forcing each other to join in.

Sure I could. The very first rule of scientific method is a falsifiable hypothesis, whilst fruitful social interaction necessarily deals in accommodating intrinsic variation. Intolerance can only be applied to behaviour, such as criminal activities for an extreme example, but also actions which compel you to intervene for conscience and disturb your sense of self worth if you tolerate.

In context I cannot tolerate picketing protests outside abortion clinics as it is malicious as a form of social interaction and justifying it with a religious claim doesn't change the fact wilfully malicious acts are only done by malicious personalities in general. It's not the religious claim that bothers me, it's the malicious act which will compel my direct and summary intervention. So if a dating prospect was to do that things probably wouldn't go so well when I knocked them on their proverbial arse for assaulting vulnerable women for things they just made up in their head.

But that's nothing to do with religion as far as I'm concerned. It's just a coincidence that the most cowardly type of criminal calls themselves religious to go around being arsehats. I mean all you have to do to call yourself religious is call yourself religious, stands to reason most are full of crap. It shows the minute you lay out some actual document and linguistics research and start discussing their religion with some academic accuracy on point matter.

The reality is denominational religious devotion is, by and large a political devotion and describes the kind of social rules you prefer in your home or familial community. It's the extremists you want to avoid but any kind of extremist is, to some degree sociopathic. Again despite using religion as the selected environment it's not about religion, but the extremist wielding it. A Catholic extremist who justifies misogyny with their version of it in their head, would do exactly the same thing if they were a Eugenicist instead, twisting whatever system is available and manipulable to suit their predeterminent, aberrant behaviour.

On the other hand you can have say, a Catholic theologian schooled enough in archaic linguistics and relevant academia to hold perfectly intelligent conversations, which neither diminish their sense of faith nor challenges scientific method. The Anglican Church formally attempted this as a policy when Archbishops declared the bible to be interpreted as allegories and parables, as metaphors shouldn't diminish the value of their morality.

So long as they understand me.

Yes, if that person is respectful and non colonizer.

I could date, but I doubt they could tolerate me not having their beliefs. Everything would be about controlling what I think rather than loving me. the intolerance would be on their side....and was. long story