>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).

so you think it comes down to what the 'state' allows? what if the 'state' is ruled by maniacs hell bent on killing people who dont believe in what they do?
>
>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.

you would be assuming incorrect of course. i meant the exact opposite...but i would expect no less from the people on this board to assume otherwise.