Writing in the August 2010 edition of Scientific American, the internationally renowned physicist, Lawrence Krauss, recounts the following incident:

"...Last May I attended a conference on science and public policy at which a representative of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences gave a keynote address. When I questioned how he reconciled his own reasonable views about science with the sometimes absurd and unjust activities of the Church—from false claims about condoms and AIDS in Africa to pedophilia among the clergy—I was denounced by one speaker after another for my intolerance."

I always thought tolerance meant you have the right to believe and say whatever you like and I have the right to do the same. It seems where religion is involved believers have the right to spruik whatever misinformation they like and I have the right to remain silent!

What makes this incident so extraordinary is that, as he makes clear elsewhere, many of those castigating Lawrence Krauss for his alleged "intolerance" were his fellow scientists.

Why scientists of all people should seek to stop one of their fellows pursuing a legitimate line of enquiry escapes me.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Krauss' questions appear reasonable to me and I hope he will not allow himself to be cowed into silence. I do not think his questions indicate "intolerance.

The title was supposed to be:

"What does "tolerance" mean?

What does tolerance mean? Wow tough question. We would all like to think that it is the acceptance of the right of people to have an opinion that is different to our own, irrespective of the validity of that position. Or there is this from the Farlex online dictionary;

"The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."

No matter how you look at it it means you have to put up with the whole fantasy that is religion. But don't expect much from them history is clear on that.

I think you might find that these scientists were trying to protect their funding.
Richard Dawkins tells of an event at Cambridge where most of the scientists giving dissertations were of religious bent - except for him. The Templeton Foundation (religious) paid not only the speakers to attend but also the audience. No doubt some big bickies come from the Vatican Academy of Science as well.
Dawkins points out that earlier scientists identified themselves as Christian because they really had little choice in their time. Most undertakings of note in the world of knowledge were facilitated through the church. Science got away from them a little in the nineteen and twentieth centuries - perhaps they are trying to grab a little control back through the generous funding of scientific research.

what tolerance/means..is accepting
everyone has/the..right..to be heard/..NOT OBEYED..but heard...

the price/of..being heard..IS HEARING OTHERS/..BACK..
seems those..who want to be heard..dont like listening..to the reply..rebuttall..!

quote..<<,,I always/thought tolerance/meant..you have the/right..to believe>>..no..you have/the right to be tole-rated..regardless/of your/belief...

[as long as..your not causing hurt/injury...a
nd tolerate OTHERS/having..their opposing/beliefs..also

<<and say/whatever..you like>>..yes..we must/tolerate..
that EVERYONE..has the right/to be heard..

even those/who re-act..
to your right/to be heard...

its EITHER..we ALL have the right/to be heard..
then the duty..to/listen...or no-one does

<<and..I have/the right..to do the same.<<<
rights come with duties

when you speak/others have the duty..to listen
when they speak/you..have/the..same DUTY

if there is/no duty..there/can be..no right..!

<<It seems/where..religion is involved/believers have/the right..to spruik whatever/misinformation/they like..and I have/the right..to remain silent!>>>

clearly you were heard/..because they listend
THEN YOU DIDNT/BOTHER...LISTENING TO THEM..!

which is typical/..of those following/the athiest creed
under..the guise/..of science claim..to be herd

it is also/equally so..by any who follow..any fanatic/creed
they have only..their dogma/..they want all to hear
yet go deaf/when its THEIR turn...to listen

you must/have known this steven.!

you seem to love speaking/spruiking..from your high-hoarse
but then..also love..not listening
when others..take their turn/..right..to be heard too

im not sure/what you expect..?

if you go to a gay-bar..and denounce..homo-sexuality
you just know/..your going to get..a re-action

its a two-way steet
this way/we can converse...
not condem..others beliefs
[however wrong they may be]..

we ALL..have rights..of belief
but also rights/to espouse our beliefs/diss-beliefs..as do you
but then/duty..to listen..!

much the churc.. does..is wrong/but churches arnt human'[s]

churches are dead/incorperations..
try to talk..only to those who listen/to what..you want all to hear..and..soon.,,your talking to-yourself..alone

no one agrees..100 percent/in every-hing

your whine..is only seeking/
a common point of athisetic/concensous

to make athiest...apear...unified...
but really/they are..as divided as the fathers-house is..by all these/divergent creeds/of disbelief

just wait my brother/

in time the athiest/house of diss-belief..
shall become as divided as christs has..further divided gods...
your only/not seeing..the bigger picture...yet

one day the homo-phobic/athiests..
shall rally/against the homo-athiest..[s]

its just the/nature of the beast/
that seeks to divide/
seeks/desires..needs/feeds off disharmony

According to the English dictionary "Faith" is a belief founded on authority. Believers in their god feel that this authority is unassailable and therefore his/her word cannot be disputed even though there is no proof that he/she exists. Consequently any alternative view is automatically regarded as intolerant. It is impossible to argue against faith as it is not based on logic and reality.