The writer of this is Quaker (I used to be) and a visiting scholar at Yale Divinity School. My personal take on any religion is “no, thanks,” but I am a firm supporter of freedom of religion. And of tolerance, defined as follows: I will tolerate you, your quirks, and your beliefs, if you will tolerate me, my quirks, and my beliefs, and if nothing you do imposes on the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of lawful happiness. I, in my part, will not impose on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of lawful happiness.
I will not pretend to be someone I’m not in order to have you like me under false pretenses. I ask that you return the favor.
And I don’t tolerate child molesters, rapists, murderers, or factions of religions whose only happiness can be achieved if I am subsumed into their religion, or killed for not joining.
This is, I think, a reasonable definition of tolerance. It may not be perfect, but neither am I.
Some of what she had to say made me think of Talyn. Some of it made me think of Hawkspar.
Thanks to Jim for the link.