With tolerance I mostly meant the spread of ideas. You could consider that an action. 

I also don't think that anyone should be arrested, just that it's defendable to put blocks to prevent you from spreading your beliefs if they do not follow certain rules (I proposed 4, but that's of course something that needs to be debated upon.)

Quick question: in your hypothetical anarcho-communist society, how do you imagine that we can all get accessto stuff like computers? Just the general outlines, like ressources to transformation to manufacturing to distribution.

Mostly, I'm curious on how you think people will get motivated to participate in all these procedures, how it is organized, and how demand for these products is met.

Every religious bigot thinks they know the absolute "truth" ... because a book written however many thousands of years ago tells them so. 

I think that a bad and/or stupid belief will ultimately die out provided that superior ideas can also be permitted, and thus compete with them. If anything, openly showing a bad idea makes it subject to more scrutiny and criticism. Besides, controlling speech without interfering with personal liberties seems like a difficult task at best.

I recognize that my opinion sounds a bit overly optimistic, but I truly believe that if one belief is better than another, it can come out ahead by default.

I could name a few examples in history where that was not the case, with devasting consequences.

animals don't have economies... how do you explain competition in nature?

All I want from Religious groups is to stay far away from Politics because it's already bad as it is, it gets even worse when both are in bed.

Of course, I didn't answer the op's question with that xD

I did say "tend to be", plus he's probably long dead.

And that's the problem. You can't put your rules on free thought, otherwise, it's no longer free.  People must be completely free to express thoughts, and encourage similar thoughts in others, no matter how offensive.  We as individuals then respond accordingly.

Your rules are flawed:

1. One must not sell superiority, through faith or any arbitrary quality among believers (see: caste system.). It must not give the right to judge others because of their beliefs, or instigate excessive fear of the lack of belief, attacking the irrational.  What if the superiority is justified?  What if the fear is justified?

 
2. One must not oppose the fundamental rights of any human, can not take away their right to free speech, and more importantly, free thought.  This conflicts with points 1, 3, and 4.

3. One must not promise you rights which are not yours according to law.   I have free speach in point 2.  I should be able to promise you whatever I want.  I'm allowed to be lousy at keeping my promises.  Also, laws are meant to be changed.

4. One must be open to debate, questioning. It cannot sell itself as infallible, and must allow, or even encourage the exploration of other ideas, particularly amongst youths.  What if my ideas are infalable?  Who are you to say they are not?


If a philosophy/religion/sytem of beliefs fails to fulfill any of the above, I believe it must be adjusted accordingly, and only then tolerated by society.

Yes, these are flawed. I did write them down rather quickly. I do think that a certain set of rules needs to be made, though.

1. I don't think that it matters if the superiority is justified or not. People believing that they are inherintly superior to others leads to useless conflict, and kills debate. If there is actual superiority, believing it will not be necessary for it to shine through.

Remember, this is for the spread of ideas, not what individuals believe. It is fine to make a hierarchic ranking between people - but that is something that each person should do by themselves, not by instruction of another.

I'll need to think a bit to make a good way to categorize the fear part - it's a bit difficult. But fear is generally dangerous, in itself, and can cause more dammage than what is feared - I do think some kind of mechanism is necessary to block it, as it is a thought that spreads incredibly fast.

2. I support free thought. With the free speach part, I think that I may have formulated it badly - you cannot promote punishing someone for saying something that you don't like. You can, however, prevent their message from spreading, in my opinion.

3. See point 2. Also, laws can and must be discussed - but as long are still in application, in a proper democratic society, you cannot tell people that it is fine to disrespect the law.

4. This is again something that I believe should be determined by each individual by themselves. You can not spread a belief which includes that everything said can not be questioned. 

Generally, 

a) With tolerance of beliefs, I want to say allowing a belief to be spread. 

b) This is not an attempt to find an absolute truth. This is a list of rules to prevent the spread of ideas which can be highly harmful to society, irregardless of if they are true or not.