When the European Union wrote the human rights with Freedom of religion in mind, it extended the same protection under the same section to political views, philosophical views, ideology, live experience and world view.

The European court clairfied that it covered "views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” or ”a coherent view on fundamental problems”."

Article 9 is titled: Freedom of thought, belief and religion. They very much view political and religions belief to be completely similar in the eyes of the law. An Atheism has just as much protection to believe and practice their belief as an Christan.

The law does not distinguish between a person speaking politics in the town center and a religious leader speaking religion. The same rights and restrictions apply, which is why for example a religious leader can get thrown in jail if they encourage violence against non-belives, just like how someone that encourage violence against people with dark skin will also be charged and thrown in jail.

Why not? The OP was defending that berating someone for their political beliefs was just fine.

Why are we expected to put the line at religion when "berating" someone's beliefs?

The article in the human rights declaration defending the individual freedom to a particular religion and a political view is exactly the same. Therefore I expect the exact same treatment to be applied in both cases. It's you that should explain how do you see one having special status over the other.