All the intellections that human being gave to the humanity as a standard of living will not be valued till we apply them. Coz there is no meaning to the greatest of the intellections and no matter how effective it’s if we failed applying them.

And western minded produced a great civilization and strong revival. From the emergence its trend to control the world, it was the start to divide between the doctrinaire and applying it is intellections in real.

The French revolt believed in “ brotherhood, equality, justice” the declaring of the revolt dictated in its first sentences that “ people are arise and live free and equal in rights’ , but this motto which include a modal notion that have been worded by the thinker, not applied in Egypt, Algiers and Tunisia and others Islamic and non Islamic countries.

And today, they start to forbid ladies from wearing head scarves.

This is one of tolerance definitions:

"Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures... It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement." [Including dangerous lifestyles that clash with our faith?]
“tolerance is respect aceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, it is support the communication, freedom of speech and worship… it also means that we have to accept people who differ from us in appearance, languages, values and relegions as they are. It gives the right to all mankinds to be like wat it is and to live in peace…”

Tolerance involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism...." [Biblical truth?]
"Tolerance... means that one's views are not to be imposed on others." [Would this end freedom to share the gospel with others? Could the UN still share its views?]

I think we will not find any difficulties to prove the western failed in applying the tolerance because its people not completely believe in this notion.

The tolerance notion is believe in diversity of our world’s cultures. It accepts the variety kinds of lives and customs. But the praxis in reality destroyed this notion.

For example, if any one wants to live in western country, then he has to melt in western cultural life. For Muslims they have to give up their culture and their belief, and their values which are absolutely the opposite of the tolerance that western defined.
Another example, the issuance of “head scarf” that has been rump recently is a shameful breach to “freedom of worship”, as the tolerance notion defined. While French prime minister that the Islamic scarf -and not any other religion scarves- is a new challenge against French values which is respect the tolerance… this is exactly the opposite of it.
The media has contributed heavily to the negative image of Muslims. Naive interpretations of Muslim laws and customs are reported out of context. Arabs are equated with terrorists and Muslims with fundamentalists. Islam, in general, is perceived as a Middle East phenomenon with Pakistan thrown in for good measure. This is not a recent trend. Biased and negative reporting has tainted media reports on Lebanon and Iran for years. But when a prestigious international news magazine like Newsweek chooses to run a cover story on the rise of "militant Islam" to the exclusion of most other aspects of the faith, it becomes the recurrent image in most people's eyes. Rarely, these days, will you find articles in mainstream magazines or newspapers on Islamic art, architecture, philosophy or poetry.
The Western media can continue to react to Islam with hostility, fear and ignorance. Or it can try to understand the faith, its traditions and its history. Instead of portraying Muslims and Islam in derogatory terms, the West should seek to explore the positive. There is so much they would appreciate and learn."
Islam in relationship to the Western media or even human rights is an old issue for ethnic minorities, particularly those with a Muslim background - and especially for those from the developing world, living in the West. There are many questions which need to be addressed, many answers to be sought, and a lot of soul searching to be done.
Why so, one may ask?
Why should the West bother to question the established truth, the hard facts, the huge quantities of research papers which tell the Western audiences the story of the sorry state of affairs in the so called Islamic World: the fanaticism of the Mullahs, the ignorance of the Muslim masses, the strict Sharia laws practiced in Saudi Arabia or the violence in Algeria, Palestine or Indonesia.
The answer is threefold. The first factor is to balance the discussions about Islam, which are taking place on all levels of the European societies. The second fact is that Muslim minorities are an integral part of the European reality now. One may like it or not, but the presence of 10-12 million people can not be ignored. Their lawful needs must be met and they must enjoy the same rights as every one else in the society. Most important of all, they must not be discriminated against because they have another religion, lifestyle or geographical association. The third factor is that the journalists have a moral duty to uphold their own integrity, professionalism and neutrality. They are the providers of the information which can result in harmony in the society or destruction of the whole fabric of civil society, which they are a part of.
Most of the media published letters, comments, articles and news which were clearly meant to inflame the situation. A reputed British Professor, Micah Dembo, wrote in the newspaper The Independent on 5 October:
"The cultural and intellectual foundations of terrorism in Islamic societies can only be destroyed by westernizing them".
All this happened with the help of the media. Flag waving and emotional and biased reporting replaced objectivity. Highly respected American author and critic Susan Sontag heavily criticized the media in her article in The New Yorker on 19th September. She wrote:
"The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing."
The defaming of Islam in Western and Americans Media is a great example for depreciation between the notion of tolerance and applying it. A lot of reports were mocking its worships, which exactly means the opposite of respecting the differences between others as the tolerance was defined.
The issuance of “head scarf” that has been rump recently is a shameful breach to “freedom of worship”, as the tolerance notion defined.

The characterize that have been posted in Denmark’s newspaper and other countries about Muslims Prophet is a obvious example for ignoring the tolerance while shooting one of news channel office in Iraq wasn’t a crime coz it has done by US armies. Or killing some journalists or controlling the media as it serve our benefits couldn’t be followed under restricts the freedom.
In France itself there was a trial to close Almanar TV broadcasting while this have never been considered as fighting the freedom of speech.
A lot and lots of examples for broken the rules which is serving our benefits following “SEPARATE THEM, CONTROL THEM”
And the truth is that all kind of media spread bad image for Muslims, it always shows that Islam is aggressive religion, Muslims men are terrors, and Muslims women are retarded. As Hoffman said that there were no nations or religions in world defamed in that way in America like Islam.

The idea is that, the thoughts that have been built in western minds about Muslims and Islam is very strong, and can’t be removed from their minds easily (which the media, books and cross wars played a role to built it). As a result, as Murad Hoffman said that western can tolerate with all religions and all beliefs, but will never show any with Muslims. Every thing is allowed accept to be a Muslim!!
So it will be impossible for western and Americans tolerate with Muslims if all what around them is feed their minds with hate ness and the negative side about them. However we even not try to give ourselves a chance to know about them.
Any way, the tolerance notion held a lot of ethics that shouldn’t be related with benefits and materials. So I think it couldn’t be applied in good way in societies that depend basically on benefits and materials. If we tolerate with Muslims and leave the choice for them they will chose Islam as a system, and way of life, which it is absolutely will not be accepted by western benefits in the Islamic world. we have to separate them to control them.

So the western ideology that depends on benefits and materials will not put in mind the importance of the ethics, coz the benefits is take precedence than the ethics. Voltaire said: “If God did not exist, one would have to invent him. I want my attorney, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, and I think I shall then be robbed and cuckolded less often".

Finally, all one who will deny the Holocaust will be punished. Any one who does that might send to the jail, maybe for 20 years like in Nemeses. Then the issues will not be a freedom of speech it will be a civilized devotion to Jewish against the “ hostility to all what belong to Islam” then we will realize the silliness, naivety to what they called it “ religions talk” or “civilization talk” so what will be the importance of all these mottos in front of all these fact.