> The whole notion of tolerance is based on the idea that we might sometimes find it expedient to work alongside people we don't agree with about everything.
There's a difference between disagreeing about something in theory, and acting maliciously in order to exclude someone from your group because they disagree with you. As you said, the whole idea of tolerance boils down to tolerating disagreements. Someone who doesn't tolerate disagreements cannot work with others who do.
It's not agreement that must be enforced in order to have a tolerant society, it's tolerance to disagreement.
> There's a difference between disagreeing about something in theory, and acting maliciously in order to exclude someone from your group
The main difference is that preventing malicious actions is generally feasible, via tweaking institutional rules (such as by outright forbidding tests of religious/ideological conformity like the ones OP discusses). That's still not enforcing anything in any substantial sense; it's just a direct tweak to the "rules of the game", meant to drive improved outcomes.
There's a difference between disagreeing about something in theory, and acting maliciously in order to exclude someone from your group because they disagree with you. As you said, the whole idea of tolerance boils down to tolerating disagreements. Someone who doesn't tolerate disagreements cannot work with others who do.
It's not agreement that must be enforced in order to have a tolerant society, it's tolerance to disagreement.