I enjoyed the read.

There are, it seems to me, two models for tolerance that are active in our current state of public discourse.

One claims a tolerance based upon basic human rights of existence and freedom of thought which does not infringe upon other's rights to do likewise.

The other, more common one (especially here it would seem) is that tolerance is based on the accepted notion that everyone's beliefs (especially the religious) are equally invalid in objective terms. The irony is that this is not tolerance at all. What toerance is needed if, as accepted, all beliefs are equally invalid? And it fails to take into account that...

1. the first model for tolerance makes the second unnecessary, and

2. it is very condescending, and lacks basic understanding of people of faith.