This will definitely head into a philosophical discussion and I'm not going to go into that. That's too much and time consuming.
By Authoritiarianism being a good thing I mean the rule of law. Following scripture to the letter then goes into complicated territory of who's interpretation is right. There are times when there is leniency in the scriptural law, due to circumstance or overriding principles and if follows to the letter it wouldn't be right. You'd have primary principles and secondary principles. In essence the law is incorruptible where's humans are, it's not bound by our whims and desires but by it's own principles.
I'm saying a person's ideals decide whether something is right or wrong. Something may be right in the eyes of one person and at the same time wrong in the eyes of another. Who and what decides something is right or wrong? Humans, who are influenced by their own ideals/agenda/goals amongst other things? Then people would argue the divine is the only legitimate source as it's not influenced by us and is neutral towards all. So the source of law would need to be the divine.
It's going to remain vague, I was only pointing out religion is not responsible for Xenophobia. Peoples personal experiences, cultural differences, environment, nature and even preservation of species etc are the true influencers.