Tolerance is a good thing. How do I know? Because intolerance is against my religion. By the pen of His blessed Apostle, the Lord tells me plainly "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." (Romans 12:18). Therefore, I believe, tolerance is a good thing, and intolerance is a sin.
But not everyone agrees with this simple fact. There are a great many people in this world who are quite incapable of living peacefully with all men. Some people are excessively violent. If you disagree with them, they will seek your very life. Others lack either the capacity or the backbone for violence, and so they would rather sue you for dissent. Whatever the case, intolerance is a very common sin.
And a sin it is! Although I believe this because of my religion, I also have enough confidence in my religion to say that whether you believe my religion or not, intolerance is a sin. But the irony of this is that those who give the most aggressive lip service to "tolerance" will actually do so in the least rigid ways possible.
We often hear things like "you can't legislate morality", an ironic statement that overlooks the fact legislation is morality. The law, by its very nature, is a long list of "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not", designed to control those who are inclined to disobey it. No matter what happens, if you're going to have any kind of law, you must deal with the fact that it will control people who disagree with it.
This means there must be a distinction between "tolerance" and "neutrality". The law can never be truly neutral, nor can any principled man. In other words, those who suggest we should base our laws on "tolerance" are being, at best, naive, and those who oppose certain laws because it "discriminates" against a certain group are similarly confused.
I remember in particular debating the concept of gay "marriage" in college. One of my fellow students argued that it is discriminatory to oppose gay "marriage", until I pointed out that it's actually applied equally: "straight" people cannot "marry" someone of the same sex either. "But why would a straight person want to marry someone of the same sex?", he asked.
Now, I don't know about you, but personally, I've never had the urge to snort cocaine. I don't particularly enjoy the smell of cannabis, either, so that's never been an option for me. I don't smoke, so laws against smoking indoors never affected me. Rape is not in my nature, so I need no law to threaten me out of it. I even believe the age of consent in my country (UK) is too low, so no matter what the law says, I'm not about to hop into bed with a 14 year old. All of these laws apply equally, even though I, personally, have never been inclined to break them. In the same way, just because there are only a small portion of gay people who desire to call their relationships a marriage does not mean a more natural legal system is discriminatory.
But it gets worse. See, the standard objection to "legislating morality" is "if this person can't do this because of your religion, then you can't have a cookie because I'm on a diet". But rather than being a compelling argument in favor of a given law, it is actually trivialising the law. Think about it this way: Most people believe it should be illegal to kidnap a person and force them into lifelong servitude. In fact, I'm willing to bet all the money currently in my wallet that, at least for the first few years of its existence, this article will not reach an exception. (And on the off chance it does reach an exception, repent, what's wrong with you?). Now tell me, what sort of an argument is "if I can't kidnap and enslave someone because of your religion, you can't have a cookie because I'm on a diet"?
Kidnapping is against my religion. In fact, it is so against my religion that in pre-Christian, Theocratic Israel, it was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16). But it's not just against my religion. It is evil. If your religion allows kidnapping, your religion is wrong, and the law should oppose it. And if you claim you have no religion, and can therefore justify kidnapping if it happens to be your inclination, you're still wrong, and the law should still oppose you.
You see, then, that tolerance is a virtue, not a useful legal standard. It isn't about caving to the demands of certain groups, it's about living peacefully in a diverse society. If you want to argue for, or against a law, it shouldn't just be "I believe" or "I don't believe". Rather, you should be able to make solid arguments for your beliefs.
Now, I do not want a Theocracy, mainly because I literally do not believe it is possible to have one until God Himself sets it up. That is the definition of a Theocracy. Nevertheless, I have absolutely no problem with saying Christianity is true, that which opposes Christianity is a lie, and the closer a society gets to Christian values, the more prosperous it will be.
But as important as I believe this life is, I believe the next life is significantly more important. See, the Earth, and everything in it, is the Lord's. That does mean the government has a responsibility to make good laws, but it also means we have a responsibility to live good lives.
And we failed.
See, the whole reason we need laws is because we are all opposed to God in some way. As Paul tells Timothy, "But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust." (1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Remember earlier how I said a law is not discriminatory just because people have different inclinations to obey it? The law of God does not discriminate, it applies equally to all men. However, Scripture says the law is "weak in the flesh": "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4). Why is it weak in the flesh? Simply because "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).
We all break God's law in different ways. And that includes Christians. Think of it this way: If we're in a crashing plane, and I encourage you to put on a parachute and jump, I'm not saying I can fly. I'm saying we're all going to die if we don't. In the same way, when a Christian says come to Jesus, because you're a Hell-bound sinner, we are not claiming to be perfect. We're merely pointing you to the only human being who has ever walked this Earth without sin. Scripture tells us "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21).
No matter what kind of government is in power, that is the God who will ultimately judge us. He will not accept "what I did was legal" as an excuse for sin, because His law is higher than our laws. Neither will He accept "I was not a Christian", for His word tells us we are without excuse (Romans 1:18-21). We are even told that when we, by our nature, obey His law, we become a law unto ourselves (Romans 2:1-16). In the end, God will judge us according to what we have done, not according to whether or not we wanted to do it.
But Paul's epistle continues: "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (1 Timothy 1:12-17).
Paul did not begin as a Christian. Rather, Paul began as a violent persecutor of the Christian faith. The blood of many brethren is on his hands. But those same brethren cheered as He entered the Kingdom of God as their brother. Why? Because God forgives all sins! There is nothing you can do that God cannot forgive, all because His Son was pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53). Therefore, even a sinner like Paul can be saved. In like manner, so can you.
Death is inevitable. You will be extremely lucky to go 100 years before you finally enter God's judgement. But you will. How that judgement goes depends entirely on your religion. If you believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, you know you have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but those who do not believe stand condemned already (John 3:18). The choice is yours.