>the point of this thread is to discuss how the idea of
>religous tolerance is bunk. if religion 'A' preaches to kill
>religion 'B' then should religion 'B' be tolerant toward that?
> sp again, what does it mean to be exercise religous
>tolerance?

You're referring to ecumenicalism, then. Religious tolerance refers to the purvey of the state in matters spiritual. Under the established rubric of religious tolerance, the state can allow the existence of other religions (if there is a state religion) or prohibit the establishment of any particular religion (if there is no state religion).

And if religion 'A' (I presume you're referring to Islam) preaches violence against religion 'B' (I presume you're referring to Christianity), then I have to say that you are intellectually lazy at best, willfully and maliciously ignorant at worst.