1.   In this chapter, Walzer considers a series of politically sensitive issues and how the various regimes of toleration deal with them. Be conscious of which style of regime presents the most appealing approach for each particular case.

2.   When there are groups of unequal power, what keeps the stronger from coercing the weaker? (This will vary regime to regime.) How (and why) is an immigrant society able to move "beyond tolerance"?

3.   What does Walzer mean by the idea of ‘parallel hierarchies’ of class? Why is this to be preferred to a state where difference coincides with class?

4.   Why is toleration highly unlikely where there is a clear link between difference and class? (Does this speak to the American situation?)

5.   What is Walzer’s analysis of affirmative action? What does he mean when he says that, "Affirmative action is egalitarian only at the group level…"? What dangers does he think it presents?

6.   Why has the infusion of gender issues made the search for toleration much more difficult?

7.   Why are nation-states and immigrant societies the least likely to tolerate diversity in gender practices? (In a related vein, why are imperial, international and consociational regimes unable to effectively deal with gender questions?)

8.   What is Walzer’s argument against tolerating ‘female circumcision’? (Note here whether or not his argument would pass Rawls’ test of public reason.)

9.   How is this different from demands of religious groups for a "(modestly) multicultural public sphere"?

10.   Why is the education of children such a crucial issue for minorities? (Note the Quebec case here with its insistence upon French-only education.)

11.   Why does religious tolerance work well in the US? What are the limits that Americans set for tolerating religious groups that are significantly different than the norm (e.g. the Amish, Hasidim)?

12.   Walzer notes that there might be two different goals of multicultural education. One is to open the classroom to a greater variety of cultural ideas, another to "strengthen threatened or devalued identities". Why is he friendly to the former but hostile to the latter?

13.   What does Walzer mean by ‘civic religion’? How does it serve to knit communities together?

14.   Walzer thinks that we should tolerate the intolerant. Why? Nonetheless, Walzer thinks that there needs to be restrictions placed on the intolerant. What are they? (Are they justifiable?)

1.   The education of children is a thorny issue. On the one hand, we have a strong presumption in allowing parents to decide how their children will be raised. However, if such children are raised in an intolerant, racist and sexist environment, there is a legitimate concern about the welfare and future of the children. What role should the state assume here? (Make sure you respond to the arguments presented by Walzer in your paper.)

2.   Compare Walzer’s analysis of multiculturalism with Taylor’s. Who has the most persuasive account? Explain and justify.

3.   Walzer is fairly positive about the American version of ‘civic religion’. Others are not. There are groups that maintain that US history is skewed to ignore or denigrate their group. Others maintain that the ‘official’ story covers up grave injustice or worse, celebrates it; take for example the controversy over the 500 year anniversary of Columbus ‘discovering’ the New World. What dangers does the promotion of civic religion carry with it? What could be done to guard against these dangers? Has the US an acceptable civic religion?