Who says that you need? We were talking about the origins of tolerance, however. User The_Tyrant wrote that tolerance is a value that is rooted from Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition. He is right. In the Roman Empire prior to Christianization, tolerance was by no means a positive value. It was considered as a sign of weakness. Yes - religion, particularly Christianity, was somehow fundamentally distorted after it became state-sponsored and subordinated to the state. So basically the process of negative changes in Christianity started during the rules of Theodosius the Great. He institutionalized religion and determined which gospels are "true" and which gospels are "heresy", etc. He also started the state-sponsored discrimination of other religions, by prohibiting other religions. State & religion is not a good combination - state is exploiting religion to its own political purposes and causes radicalization of religion. That's why state & religion should be separated and religion should be up to personal choice of every person. But I support the German - so called "friendly" - model of separation, rather than the French - so called "hostile" - one. Western Europe should be banned - they are too intellectually challenged - not able to properly understand my points... Traitorfish claimed that a nation is "not an empirically observed social grouping", but an ideological one. Contrary to family, which - according to him - really is an empirically observed social grouping, but not an ideological one. This is simply wishful thinking. There are no such differences. In fact, both family and nation ARE social groupings existence of which can be proved empirically. Just like for example pupils of one class. And all these social groupings - be it a family, a group of pupils of one class or a nation - CAN be empirically observed... Existence of a nation can be proved empirically just like existence of a family or a class. Both are empirical. And both are also ideological at the same time - all humans are related, we all have common ancestors, so claiming that some of humans do form one family and some don't, is ideological. I showed you that each nation has a national football team - which is clearly an empirical symptom of existence of these nations. There are of course a lot more of such empirical symptoms of existence of nations. All of them prove that nations are empirically observed social groupings. A non-existant nation cannot have its national football team. And the fact that it has one, means that it is an empirically observed entity. You also called the national football team of Finland "my team". If a Finnish nation does not empirically exist - then you cannot claim that national team of Finland is "your team", because you have no national team - because you have no nation. There cannot be a team of something / belonging to something that doesn't exist. Your principal mistake is that you consider them as ideas, rather than as entities which really exist. I already explained you, that a nation is certainly no more an idea than a family - or any other known social grouping - is. And if I go into a registry-office, I will see a female of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and a male of Homo Sapiens Sapiens sincerely addressing each other and the official, who will say "I now pronounce you man and wife". Then, they will sign a piece of paper. Then they will have a sexual intercourse and a Homo Sapiens Sapiens will be born as the result. And they will spend some time together, in one structure called "house". And in most cases they will claim they "love" each other. Therefore, a family exists? BTW - try to find a different example rather than with God. You constantly use God in your examples to prove every point.