I disagree with Rajan Zed's central premise, which I think is incorporated by the following statements:
Andy Chalk said:
If developers cannot "accurately and authentically deliver religious imagery and symbolism," he said, then they should not "unnecessarily poke into religion."
"No faith, large or small, should be plundered," Zed said.
Despite disagreeing with his central premise, I don't have a problem with this guy.
He doesn't seem to want to implement a legal ban on the use of religious lore in video games, even if they deviate from the common interpretations of the followers of that religion. He's just using his right to free speech to state that Capcom's right to free speech was used to produce a work he finds ignorant and offensive, and wishes that this was avoided in the future in regards to all religions.
He obviously holds religious beliefs in a higher regard that I, as an atheist, do. As a result, he finds gross misinterpretations of religious tenants/beliefs/lore to be more offensive than I do.
I found his statements to be mature, reasonable and both respectful and worthy of respect, even if I disagree with them.