I joke that my peers are stuck in the 1960s with their anti-Vietnam (read Iraq), hate Nixon (read Bush) rhetoric. But I went to a talk by Sam Harris (author of the End of Faith) and I now think my peers may be stuck in 1775, the year before Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations.
Harris’ talk is summarized by the wonderful Stewart Brand, the host of the lecture series. Harris argues that religious faith is irrational and we should get in the habit of confronting people who hold views that are not empirically based. The dark cloud of Islamic Fundamentalism lends Harris a basis for his audience appeal. He also gains points by not confronting Lefty Fundamentalism or New Age spirituality; faiths that his audience holds dear.
Harris suggests...
Harris suggests that reason and science should prevail in serious conversation.
Harris has inordinate faith in Science, which has wreaked much damage in the hands of its faithful subscribers (think eugenics, thalidomide and Paul Erlich’s end-of-the-world scenarios).
The tolerance that Harris wants us to reject has been a subject of study by some brilliant theologians in the past century, among them Martin Marty and David Tracy. The source of tolerance seems elusive to theologians and many philosophers. Harris is not seeking religious tolerance, he is rejecting it.
Adam Smith was highly disturbed by the religious wars of his era. The 18th century wars make our world pale in comparison. Smith believed that commerce would be the lubricant of cooperation that would override religious intolerance.
Adam Smith could not have imagined the incredible truth of his
understanding. He had no idea of the extent to which our world, 250
years later, would be permeated by corporations, commerce and global
trade.
People in America are still religiously intolerant, which is evident in
our urban-suburban divide and our Red state-Blue state schism. What
forces us to be tolerant is the need to have a job and work alongside
every imaginable creature, to open a business and have to welcome all
customers, and to run a business that requires us to cater to customer
desires. 
Fellow employees and customers who are vital to our survival
and well being are the source of our tolerance. We adopt behavior and
coloring that create our mutual tolerance (regardless of what goes on in our mind).
This is a strong argument for global commerce and supports the sensible international policy of welcoming every nation into the WTO in exchange for meeting the domestic rules of international trade (protection of private property, rule of law, sanctity of contracts, et cetera).
Three cheers for commerce… the miracle lubricant that engenders tolerance. Maybe the only source of tolerance.