&gt; people they see as ultimate sinners who could soil them and send them to hell for eternity is completely disregarded and not tolerated at all.<p>And if that were true, this could be an actual problem (don&#x27;t think &quot;soiling&quot; is a thing in Christianity). In any case, no one who wants to tolerate <i>anything</i> means that it takes precedence over <i>everything</i> else. Some cultures allow murdering unfaithful women. Even the most tolerant of free societies would not tolerate that, yet that doesn&#x27;t make it intolerant. Society doesn&#x27;t operate according to boolean logic and values have relative importance.<p>&gt; The issue stems from you not being tolerant or understanding of their religious beliefs.<p>But I <i>am</i> tolerant of their expressing their beliefs. I&#x27;m all for Reddit allowing intolerance. I&#x27;m against it allowing mobs of intimidation.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s that arguing between right or wrong will depend entirely on beliefs.<p>Except I&#x27;m not arguing about right or wrong. I&#x27;m arguing about building an effective community (or a society) that can function well, given the composition of its members.<p>If someone feels uncomfortable in a community where threats of rape are <i>not</i> acceptable and would rather spend time in a community that enjoys bullying and threats, it stands to reason that they should form a separate community and not spend time with the 99.9% of people who feel different.