Note: I've been scrambling to write this in response to a growing conversation on facebook, and I've had to squeeze it in between other things. In a desire to get in and say something, this thing is kind of a hack-job; I've not had the chance to edit it 100% properly, so the ideas may seem a little choppy at points, and I feel I bounce around a little. I've gone up and down it a few times, but it still feels unpolished and somewhat incomplete. Consider it merely a contribution, instead of a definitive statement.
In any debate with passionate people, the question of tolerance comes up. The Left has a sort of monopoly on tolerance - typically, they are painted as the side that wishes to be sensitive to the needs of the disenfranchised groups. Of course, this stance becomes more tricky when the Right comes along and begins to question the Left's capacity for tolerance by suggesting an intolerance towards, for instance, religion. This is a rather strange sort of meta-approach to a given conflict. How long must we suffer the ignorance of our opponents? How can we handle an opponent whose perspective demands the violation of our principles, while our principles demand the respect of their right to their beliefs? When someone is suggesting that another's entire perspective, the way that person interacts with and navigates the world, is false, the accused will undoubtedly feel oppressed. What level of tolerance is necessary when two ideologies come into direct conflict?
