What is the potential tension between any religious tradition and the principles of democracy?

What will be an ideal response?

As democracy requires majority rule and recognizes that the interests or preferences of the majority can change over time, democracy poses a difficult problem for any religious tradition. Many people with strong religious beliefs regard the principles of their religion as timeless, unchanging, and morally binding. People with strong religious beliefs the world over confront the possibility that a majority of their fellow citizens might vote for policies that contradict their moral principles.
When religious people believe that a policy or law violates their moral principles, they frequently get involved in social movements or interest groups to press for political change. In a democracy, the losers must accept the outcomes of the process and mobilize their energies toward winning the next election. Yet, sometimes, a group of people finds a policy so offensive to their religion that they reject the principle of majority rule and seek to overthrow the democratic system as a whole.
People the world over differ as to how strictly they interpret their faith's principles. In other words, every religion has liberals and conservatives. Yet, democracy requires a certain degree of liberality: not just freedom of expression for everyone, but a "live and let live" attitude. Democracy by definition requires tolerance for a variety of beliefs that extremists within some religions may be unwilling to accept.
Most democracies are in areas where Christianity dominates. Yet several non-Christian democracies exist, such as Japan, Israel, and India. Moreover, several predominantly Christian countries remain non- or only partially democratic, such as Russia and Belarus (which are predominantly Eastern Orthodox Christian); Venezuela and Colombia in Latin America; and most countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In contrast, nearly all predominantly Muslim countries are non-democracies.