The Paradox of Tolerance

Unfortunately, if I inform you that this is an identity fallacy, you would counter and say I am making a no true scottsman fallacy.

But I will say it anyway. Killing people for their beliefs is not Christian.

At least you seem to know what you're doing.

I know we live in an age where self declaration is proof of identity, but if I were to call myself a pacifist and then start killing people, it would not in anyway show that pacifism is a murderous ideology. Even if I gathered up a large community of murderous "pacifists".

Christianity at its core is incompatible with religious persecution. 

"For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

 

Tolerance is necessary to act reasonably through less than ideal conditions.  Suppression doesn't come into play until after civilized discourse has failed irreparably, which is inevitable if an institutional declaration of hate speech is defined by the recipient.  It is theoretically possible to avoid suppression with proper implementation of legal rights barring other externalities.

The founding fathers drew a clear line at "fighting words".

How might you propose we differentiate between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" speech?

Differentiate? That sounds like discrimination.

Hate speech.

Bwahaha