May I challenge the assertion, widely held, that intolerance is bad?
As an adult, I encounter conflicts I had until now avoided, because I am beginning to recognize real limits. I have become increasingly aware of my mortality and of the limits of my own mind, and of how these limits affect my willingness to do certain things. Traditionally, religion counteracts this disintegration, allowing defeated souls a strategy and/or mechanism for being productive and feeling happy. In a sense, to have faith is to be intolerant of views that conflict with your belief: I have faith, so in principle I do not not have faith.
Intolerance is necessary to happiness. Religion exists for a reason. What compels me, and many of you, to reject it? Why, when offered a shed full of hammers and vices and anvils and work gloves, would one pound a nail with one's skull? Surely a hammer is just as real as a skull, just as craving truth is just as real as craving happiness.
Someone parse intolerance for me. Distinguish between religious intolerance and, for example, racial or gender-related intolerance. Explain the difference between a tool and a mechanism.
The best thing someone ever told me was, "So all these really smart people deduced all these true things that coincidentally make you very depressed and anxious - now what?"