Zizek, starting with the Rotherham case, but pointing out that it is just an example – some would say political correctness – where the elephant in the room needs to be addressed for what it is. (The Ashya case too, it is quite apparent that the religious connection is being played down, not even mentioned in BBC stories, lest it be proven not relevant – damned if you do, damned if you don’t – as Michael Cashman tweeted.)
At this level, of course, we are never tolerant enough, or we are already too tolerant. The only way to break out of this deadlock is to propose and fight for a positive universal project shared by all participants.
In my own agenda: “I’m against religious fundamentalism, because I’m against fundamentalism of any kind, including scientific (scientistic) fundamentalism. I don’t define myself by what I’m against, I define myself by what I’m for. So, more specific than mere “tolerance” is respect … ”
[Post Note : And a powerful follow-up from Sam @Elizaphanian.]