"Educate your child according to your beliefs? Not if that means indoctrinating the child that non- believers are hateful"
I think everyone will educate their children according to their own beliefs - not only is it natural, it is inevitable. I don't think it's possible for anyone to tell children, "what I sincerely believe is this...but you must believe that..." Children - at least - would spot the contradiction immediately!!
If you educate your children not to think non-believers are hateful, it is precisely becuase you believe that too. Then you don't see it as 'indoctrination' as it is simply what you believe and what makes sense to you. As Oscar Wilde might put it - "indoctrination is people teaching other people beliefs we do not hold ourselves" ;-))
"So I respect those beliefs, as long as those others don't try to stop me acting in accordance with my own"
It depends on what you mean by 'trying to stop you acting in accordance with my own'. Of course we all have free will and Jesus (for example) never put a gun to anyone's head. It would have defeated His whole purpose of course if he had. But 'trying to stop you' could mean many things. If I saw you doing something that conflicted with my beliefs, or I thought was harmful to society, yourself or me (and that insight was inspired by my beliefs) I might try and reason with you, to stop you through the power of the word and my viewpoint. If you persisted, I could only let you go ahead, couldn't I? Then there are legislative means of 'stopping people'. If I believe something to be evil, I have to vote according to my conscience for politicians who will not legislate to allow that kind of action and to make my opinion publicly known through the press etc., when debate on the topic is aired.
At the end of the day, I don't think pluralism should simply mean 'a free for all' where everyone does exactly what they like, as this is simply sociopathic as opposed to society building. Meaning and limits to freedom need to negotiated for any society to exist. This should be so obvious as to hardly need stating. For example we can't have a society where some people believe it's ok to murder because it's in accordance with their beliefs and refuse to accept any constraint on their behaviour. That obviously represents the extreme end of the spectrum, nor does it mean we should murder these people in turn.
"Some in the Catholic Church (it's the official line; many who style themselves Catholic do not follow it) believe that all abortion is a crime and an obscenity, regardless of the circumstances. Many others agree with me that to force a raped woman to carry the foetus to term is itself a crime and an obscenity"
This is a tricky one and a good example of what I'm talking about above. You believe abortion is OK in some cases, I believe it's wrong in most cases, so where do we go from there? Obviously it makes no sense if I were to try and stop people from committing abortion by bombing them etc., (as I understand has happened in the US at abortion clinics etc.,) as this simply perpetrates the very murder I am trying to stop. What I can do is take part in the debate on abortion to try and show other people why I believe it's generally wrong. I don not believe - as I often hear - that in this kind of instance our religious beliefs ought to eb something for private behind closed doors. If this were so I would no longer be 'acting in accordance with my beliefs'.
[I should add at this point that there is a difference between judging a person and their actions. God has told us not to judge people and we will not be judged, but He does not expect us not to discriminate between what's good and evil either nor to keep our opinions to ourselves when the need arises. Unless we walk in someone's footsteps we can't know what drove a person to abortion or suicide or murder and so should be careful of condemning them. But we can know that abortion, suicide and murder as acts in themselves are wrong, and say so].