The Tolerant Society

How would one create a perfectly tolerant society much like the one that Clark desires?  It would be very hard to create, more so if the nation is very diverse.  It would be easier if the nation that was trying to create a tolerant state was homogeneous.  However, if the people weren't prone to killing each other since they are ideologically similar, it isn't much of an achievement.  It might take centuries for a diverse nation to learn to come grips with each other however.
A republic or any government built upon democratic ideals might not be the right form of government for creating a tolerant society.  Representatives can be elected if they appealed solely to Christian conservatives. However, if followed logic, and Clark agrees, that someone cannot win a general election by playing to a specific demographic bloc, but that might be upset, seeing how Santorum has become a serious contender for the White House and is beating Obama in some polls.  Such a reactionary will not help create an unbiased and neutral government space for people to come together.

Q&A: Is it tolerant to force Tolerance?

Clark focused on making a tolerant society, even including people who have intolerant philosophies.  However, Clark points out that these groups must respect the neutral state and never resort to violent means.  Isn't ironic how the tolerant state must force tolerance and even resort to the ways it abhors in order to protect its neutral space?  It's just how the French Revolution needed tyranny and fear to create freedom.  Of course it is insensible to just allow the government to fall to a violent uprising, but how to ensure this protection doesn't became a form of censure and what happens to those who commit a 'crime of intolerance?'  

Scienctists and Faith

Despite the surface appearances of the conflicts of science and religion, many scientists have been able to accept both their empirical studies and supernatural beliefs.  Issac Newton, one of the most famous men in the field of physics, believed in the existence of a God.  To him, the arrangement of planets and stars were too perfect not to have been done by God.  Albert Einstein, arguably the most famous physicist, was a deist and perhaps, a pantheist, when he said: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."  In our modern day, physicists like Michio Kaku still believe in the existence of God even after their various inquires into the universe.  In Kaku's case, he believed the organization of the universe was too beautiful to have been created by random chance and must have been influenced by God in some way.

Q&A: A Compromise of Faith and Empiricism

Clark's essay, briefly, in one sentence, goes over the religions that combine theology and empiricism.  It is surprising how Clark just glances over this area where naturalism and supernaturalism are so beautifully combined. Faiths like Confucianism and Platonic theology call for the collection of knowledge.  Confucianism isn't very other-worldly, as its focuses (or at least the book did) on human interactions and virtue.  Plato focused on rational human thinking and despite all his spiritual thinking, his philosophy focused on human society and ethics.   Deism, as a basic pillar of the religion, believes in a rational God.  Buddhism, even with its spiritual elements of reincarnation, Buddha advocated personal mediation and enlightenment.
Regardless, Clark's essay is focused on creating a tolerant society.  It wouldn't really be tolerant if everyone was forced into tolerant religions; that wouldn't be a viable solution.  But it would still be an interesting point, like who ever heard of genocide committed in the name of Buddha?