To government “religious tolerance” makes sense; the regime claims it will limit its attacks in some way. But in terms of a personal program of action, I fail to understand the term in any way but as an anti-religious subterfuge.
Those who support the notion suggest one say to himself as follows: I will observe Sabbath for it seems moral, but I will not circumcise my newborn son for that seems immoral although the only reason for doing either is a desire to perform God’s will.
If you believe religion in and of itself is a viable option, then explain this: How can anyone conceivably decide to pick and choose which of God’s words he wishes to retain based on his understanding?
What type of religion is this where man is himself the real arbiter of what’s acceptable?!
(The above, edited, was once sent as a letter to an organization promoting “religious tolerance”.)