Religious tolerance and religious intolerance almost go hand in hand; both have a long history. The modern notion of religious tolerance rests upon the principle of equal treatment for different religions with no establishment of a single overarching religion. But not all religions want to be equal. Their own literature shows some degree of religious intoleration. Such intoleration can be summed up as either convert, pay a poll tax (jizya) or prepare to die which is the case with Islam (maybe not anymore). Of course Christianity is not without its own history of intoleration and brutality.

Amongst world religions Buddhism is perhaps one of the most tolerant of religions. India, it has to be said, can be considered as the birthplace of religious tolerance—although it is not perfect. Still, its history is far better than that of the West or Middle East where religious intolerance is often the norm.

Part of what drives religious intolerance is the need to proselytize. In the example of Christianity, it is a religion which rewards for belief and punishes for unbelief. Such a religion calls on its member to save all before they die who will certainly face eternal damnation if they are not converted.

Such a proselytic drive cannot be confined to those who are already converted. There is no advantage in this. It must expand to the heathen or the same, the unconverted. The proselytizer must go where he or she is not wanted; to where there are the unconverted. As history shows us, the proselytizer is also at the vanguard of colonialism. To proselytize also means using all forms of media such as television and radio for purposes of conversion.

Islam like Christianity also feels strongly that it must proselytize. In the history of Islam there were periods when it tolerated other religions like Buddhism but under the condition that a poll tax had to be paid by the non-Muslim. This is a grey area of religious intolerance which means non-Muslim religions are treated differently. They are not equal to Islam, in other words.

The link between religious intolerance and the need to proselytize the heathen is certainly unbreakable. It is hard to even imagine a tolerant religious proselytizer who respects another's faith who, nonetheless, is always trying to undermine it. It also follows that a religious doctrine that believes it must proselytize in order to save the unconverted is going to be intolerant although the proselytizing may not be overt. If you live in the Bible belt of the U.S. this is easy to see.

In this same light, looking at Buddhism, it almost sells itself. It doesn't really need proselytizers which means it is much more religiously tolerant. We can think of it as the mature religion that will always be there when we finally decide that the religions of Abraham don't address the inner being of man where the true religious path begins.