The article’s point was learning and understanding religion is necessary nowadays to citizenship. You see different religion everywhere, and religion is key that brings conflict among different viewpoint about anything such as justice, freedom, etc.
As McGuire said in the book, religion brings not only conflict but also cohesion. But in order to have debate that walk towards cohesion rather than attack each other, knowing and understanding other religion is so important that “In educational theory, religious literacy could be considered a ‘threshold concept’ for 21st-century citizenship”.
This article uses the word tolerance, but in Levitt word I think it’s more pluralism. As tolerant (in Levitt definition) people are afraid, the article says that becoming more religiously literate can change “will not necessarily lead to more agreement – indeed, it might even steel our convictions. But it will lead to being able to ‘disagree better’ (the aim of the Scriptural Reasoning movement) by tampering cheap stereotypes and petty caricatures”. I define myself as tolerant person. I sometimes wonder why I want to study religion anyways if I don’t like to be changed by religion. Want to know about something I don’t know is one, but I think “disagree better” also makes sense to me. I don’t mean I want to disagree with people to attack, but want to disagree to get something out of it, so I can become more pluralistic.