There's no need to tolerate everything. Intolerance is a good example of something not to tolerate.

People need to realize others are always going to disagree on topics and issues. We just need to compromise and coexist/protest peacefully. Unfortunately in 2017 this is an empty promise and coming to terms, this may never happen. The problems in USA isn't that we disagree we are just all a bunch of dickheads about disagreeing. Pick your battles wisely. When someone has an opposing view...let them (unless they plan to burn someone on a stake for disagreeing with them). They have this view because of lack of critical thinking you are arguing with a "fool" and that only makes you a fool. If they have this view due to critical thinking they will not "budge" and you shouldn't expect them to and you know you won't so it is a pointless exercise.The only exception would be someone coming to you and asking you to explain your views so they could consider your opinion and give it some thought...which doesn't sound like the case here. It is a shame that someone will shut someone down for the "one" thing they disagree with rather than continuing with it because of ALL the things which they hold in common with you...Its a good thing we can't all agree all the time(even one Christian with another Christian when discussing religion!!!) .... otherwise the world would consist of only ME and then there would be little expression / creativity / growth ;). For instance, a radical Islamic shouldn't be allowed to encourage their followers to hurt or kill people with opposing views thus leading to closed mindedness and it's this behavior that lead them down that road. Although if everyone agreed with everyone on every conceivable topic/issue what a strange world it would be. Healthy debate is essential for progress and without it we might still be living in the dark ages.

An original act of intolerance is based upon someone's prejudice against different opinions, practices, or beliefs; it is it self an act of prejudice and I would contend that it is not hypocritical to refuse to tolerate a prejudicial view (particularly where it harms others). I think one has to be careful in identifying intolerance, of course, so that one does not merely become intolerant themselves. Additionally, I think that there are different ways to demonstrate an intolerance of intolerance - voicing one's own objection to the intolerance, supporting the target of someone's intolerance, etc. Banning speech or other similar approaches are likely to be counter-productive and on their own are generally undesirable.

"Ah, paradox of tolerance. ... If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies"

In the paradox of tolerance, there is wavering equilibrium between the rights of the tolerant and the intolerant and the receivers of both ends of the spectrum. If the state is tolerant of the intolerant, it puts the rights of the intolerant above the rights of the people that it abuses. If the state is intolerant of the intolerant, then it runs the risk of violating the first amendment. However, there is a middle ground, and it comes in the form of "clear and present danger", a precedent set by the Supreme Court. If a group of people are endangering the speech of another group, they violate the first amendment more so than would the government for silencing them. Free speech is not only infringed upon by the government, and when private groups such as churches and mosques endanger speech, it is the government's duty under the first amendment to stop them

I am all for free speech and civil rights, but I do not believe we should let people who intend to bring harm to others and radicalize other people to do the same. While there is a blurred line between where we should tolerate the intolerant or step in and stop them. The best place to start would be the radicalization of people trying to justifying killing other people with their religion. Freedom of religion is a prized civil right but when it becomes dangerous speech, it needs to be regulated to a degree. It is important to keep everyone safe and protect everyone's liberties as best as possible.

Have a tolerance level which can't be tolerated.

Be free. Express your views.

I think we must try to fight racism or similar views if we do not want a group like the nazi party to rise again, we can not just stand by and let hate breed and take over, we must fight for equality and justice as so many great men have done before us.

No, intolerance should not be tolerated. Yes, there will be arguments defending basic rights and laws set in place, such as freedom of speech or religion. However, where is the line drawn? If a Christian were to be killed by a Muslim, and it could have been prevented by some intolerance, or supervision, would precautions not be taken? In no way is this restricting the first amendment of freedom of religion, but simply protecting the average person from any danger that can be originated from tolerating the intolerant.

Let's take the example of a sermon during time of worship in a mosque. During the sermon, the people are being convinced that they should act violently towards men of other religions. Later, a Christian is killed based on what they heard earlier. If the person is to be arrested, who says that this will not happen again? If this is tolerated, then it very well might happen. Another innocent person could be killed. However, this could be prevented by having some intolerance. By having some restrictions, while still allowing freedom of religion and speech.

In the end, it boils down to absolute freedom vs. the safety of the average person. Does having total and absolute freedom worth the lives of innocent people?

Though freedom of religion and speech is important and needed in a society, it only extends as far to where you aren't saying anything or doing anything to harm others. It is an essential part of democracy for people to feel protected and safe. Some speech and religious beliefs can cause for other groups of people to be put in danger. For example, Muslims are turning on other Muslims and killing them based on their beliefs. Freedom of religion and speech should only extend as far to not break the boundaries of the law. The law should be held above religion because the law is made in order to protect the people. Society can be better protected when the law is held above religion. If we were to completely accept intolerance, who is to stop another Hitler from arising? "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Welcome to the paradox of intolerance. Now the question is should we as a people or should we as a government tolerate the intolerance of others and the answer to both is no. Allowing people freedom to pray to whichever God they choose is their business. However there is no chance that our freedoms can infringe on the freedoms of others. We as people have a responsibility to stop the intolerance of bullies and bigots in their tracks. If you are walking down the halls of a school and see a student getting assaulted for being christian would you believe the rights of the bully out weigh the rights of the victim? Hopefully no. In the same breath would you expect teachers to allow the bully to continue? Again. No. The government acts as the teachers and principals of a society. They stop one student from stepping too far and taking advantage of other students. We should protect the majority and stop groups from infringing on the rights of others therefor no, neither the government nor should people tolerate the intolerant.

The issue of tolerating intolerance is a paradox that doesn't really have answer. Supporting intolerance and by extension freedom of speech a religion may seem alienable just and right, yet one must understand what is allowed by tolerating intolerance. The freedom of speech is not limitless, for lines must be drawn. To tolerate intolerance provokes bigotry and allows injustices towards the minority. Freedom of religion has a line, these freedoms, these RIGHTS are no longer rights when they harm another human. One must have the empathy and the humanity to realize that tolerating intolerance breeds a system of injustice. Whether it's regarding faith or race or sexuality matters not, for intolerance from any fundamentalists should not be tolerated. Tolerance for the intolerance could propagate the idea of intolerance, such as the hackneyed example of Hitler. To not condemn the fascists and intolerant is to allow injustices to continue and perhaps grow into a more pressing matter.

Although is may be hypocritical not to tolerate the intolerant because then we are being intolerant, but to allow to extremist to extend their freedom of speech and successfully suppress the speech of others with opposing views is contradictory as well. So, intolerance should be tolerating in some situations, but the line needs to be drawn when people are getting harmed and hate speech is being blasted influencing other generations to hate. Such as Muslims preaching to their followers to kill people and justify it with their religion. But allowing someone to voice their opinion on how they hate gays is a step back from what America has worked so hard to get, although their speech in this case shouldn't be limited. A healthy alternative is they should be made aware of their illogical beliefs with a rational discussion.

While it may seem hypocritical to claim to be on the side of the tolerance and not tolerate intolerance, the intolerance of intolerance is a very sensible idea. Intolerance that threatens or negatively affects someone's life also must be limited at least in public. If we supported intolerance that affects people's life in negative or extreme ways then we'd see a decline in tolerance. Of course where allowed not to like something but as a reasonable person living in a world we have to deal with it. Of course a certain limit of intolerance in your own private life and home is natural. If you believe something your bound to be less tolerate about another in your home but as reasonable people we have to be able to understand that people are not always gonna see the world our way. We have the freedom to voice our opinion but we can't band we can anyone's intolerance to deny someone else that freedom.

I don't think we should tolerate everything because thats is a form of oprression. Telling they can't do something because its ridiculous or extreme is taking away their freedom. Religion is a very complicated thing to try and tolerate and people should be free to do as they please within their religion. What they practice and believe is something we can't just take from them. Taking it from them would only make matter worse and put us in even more trouble.

I agree that everyone has a right to freedom of speech, religion ect.. however when those beliefs directly suppress or harm another individual or group, such as the radical sect of Muslims in London harassing women, then it should not be tolerated. Allowing groups like this to continue with their behavior is harmful to those around them expressing their opposing views. No one should be allowed to impose their beliefs onto another person when it is unwanted. I don't agree, however, with completely suppressing their freedom of speech or expression. They can say whatever they like, but when that speech begins to directly cause harassment and harm, then they should be subject to some form of censorship or punishment in order to protect those they mean to effect.

We should not tolerate religions that encourage hatefulness to others. Allowing religions to spread hatefulness is only negative to our society as it discourages cooperation between people and only divides our country to where there is building social tension as the minority has less gov't control and eventually the minority becomes volatile.

Religion is religion, and I acknowledge that. Religion should remain remotely untouched, and religious tolerance is important, but there comes a point where enough is enough. When other groups are being intolerant towards US, it is not the time to be tolerant towards them. When it's in someone's religion (or being promoted by someone's religion) to hurt the citizens of this country, or any country, and go against everything we believe in, actively and violently, it is time for our government to step in and shut it down. I still think religion should be respected and protected, but to certain extents; everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to promote and participate in basic components of their religion (etc. wearing burkas, wearing crosses, public worshiping), but if these actions cross over the line and into the area of harming anyone, without their consent, it should not be tolerated. There is no justification for the removal of basic human rights, and as a democracy we should work to protect them. Intolerance should not be fought with tolerance; it should be fought by the government with dedication and consideration for the country's people.

In a world where we are more connected than ever, it is a priority that we protect ourselves from the vast threats that are posed against us. When people say that it's in the constitution that we must protect freedom of speech, they are not incorporating today's world. When the founding fathers drafted the constitution there was no threat in the world by radical Islams in mass terror attacks. I respect a religion that may persecute against a person that goes against their beliefs as long as it isn't physical. Once you bring in physical harm to a person, the question of should we respect it is discarded almost in a sense. The few radical extremist who practice killing other "fake" Muslims in the UK should not be accepted, because you are ending a human life just because he is practicing his own religion. Any society that promotes democracy should allow freedom of belief and practice, but should not permit these practices once it causes physical harm to other people.

Religion is religion, and I acknowledge that. Religion should remain remotely untouched, and religious tolerance is important, but there comes a point where enough is enough. When other groups are being intolerant towards US, it is not the time to be tolerant towards them. When it's in someone's religion (or being promoted by someone's religion) to hurt the citizens of this country, or any country, and go against everything we believe in, actively and violently, it is time for our government to step in and shut it down. I still think religion should be respected and protected, but to certain extents; everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be allowed to promote and participate in basic components of their religion (etc. wearing burkas, wearing crosses, public worshiping), but if these actions cross over the line and into the area of harming anyone, without their consent, it should not be tolerated. There is no justification for the removal of basic human rights, and as a democracy we should work to protect them. Intolerance should not be fought with tolerance; it should be fought by the government with dedication and consideration for the country's people.

When another group infringes on another's rights is when our tolerance should end.  To be tolerant of intolerance defeats the purpose of democracy anyways.  By tolerating others to practice their believes that take away, either speech, life, property, privacy, etc., then we are loosing our democracy.  We should definitely allow freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly, but when it becomes dangerous to others and negatively threatens someone's rights then it should be intervened. It would not make sense to allow murder, for example, to take place because it is someone's religion, which is something we have the freedom to practice. If precautionary measures can be taken to protect the safety of our citizens, then let's do it!!!!

Religions are often pitted against eachoter. If one religion thinks it is its duty to abolish men of a different religion and commits violence agiainst it, then it should monitored in order to prevent any dangerous actions it seeks despite religious beliefs because in the end I think most if not all of us can agree that bombings and murders and vandalizing and more are not acceptable. Yes, people should be able to freely practice their beliefs but not to the point of threatening society!

There are some forms of intolerance we can't approve of, intolerance of skin color, intolerance of belief, intolerance of gender....We are all different and we should celebrate our differences. Looking down on those who are intolerant isn't exactly being intolerant ourselves, or if it is then I suppose in that instance intolerance is a good thing.

Especially in a country that is suppose to be "free" people should be allowed to be who they are no matter their religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else. The only thing that should be limited are the actions of those people that could violate others liberties such as life. The safety of the people is the most important thing and should be held as the highest importance despite religion, race, ect. As long as the safety of others is respected people should have the ability to be "free". Just because a criminal is of a certain race, religion, gender, ect. does not mean everyone of the same category is a criminal it just means that particular person is in the wrong.

I believe that we continue to tolerate intolerance, more people will be hurt. If it is in your religion to kill your sister if she sleeps with a man out of wedlock, we absolutely will not allow you to do such a thing. We have to keep a sort of moral standpoint when it comes to our country or even our world. I do believe, however, that this standpoint should apply to everyone and every religion, not just those whose ideas are thought of as radical.

You have to draw the line somewhere or you're not going to get anywhere. You don't have to agree with everything but you have to accept that others are entitled to be different. You don't need to join them but you must accept them. People need to know when their behavior is out of line. If someone's intolerance is a tool of injury or control, we all have the right to say something.

People should be able to express themselves for their beliefs and of course people should be able to express their opinion that may be against, but there are certain ways to do that. Killing somebody or harassing them is not they way to do it. Simply respect each others opinions or beliefs and let it be. Acting in violence because one does not believe the same thing you believe in is very illogical.

There is a limit to where we as Americans can tolerate no more. We are granted rights as citizens of the United States, so we should be held accountable to follow that code. People should be allowed to practice their religion, but if that practice becomes an actual danger to those around them then they must be stopped. The role of the government is to protect the people, and that especially includes against murder, no matter the reasoning behind it. More government isn't a bad thing. Complete freedom is not possible, so we need to accept stop having that picture in our mind. It is better to be well protected than striving for a false sense of complete freedom.