cypher197

I have a question here that's a bit more fundamental.

If religion is philosophically ungrounded, what makes religious tolerance a virtue? In fact, what makes religious tolerance a virtue in the first place, given that most religions are necessarily exclusive and many contend that all non-followers will be condemned to eternal damnation?
Tolerating other religions seems to either result from pragmatism, lack of faith, or both.

I feel like this thread so far has been wandering through a variety of different stances and positions, and examining them, without addressing the fundamental underlying questions.

I've never seen a suitable justification for religious faith in a specific doctrine; I've certainly never seen one that could survive nesting of realities. (A situation in which all religious texts are purely fabricated, and one which is impossible to absolutely disprove. It's possible to construct a moral theory that survives reality nesting, but I'll save that for a later post.)

Why *should* France tolerate something which is detrimental to national function and security, and which most likely acts as a barrier to cultural integration, which is based on an expression of faith in something which isn't really testable, will never be testable, and basically has little to no predictive power in relation to this world we all live in?

Edit: That is to say, this item of garb is noticeably detrimental in that it hides the wearer's face; a key component of identification. This can become relevant even in situations where you don't go in expecting it to be, such as identifying which witnesses were present at a crime scene.