I have noticed a common response to criticism, of belief systems of a religious, philosophical or ideological origin, is to assert that the beliefs is equal to or just as valued as any other type and is therefore protected from scrutiny.
Advocating protection of the belief systems will ensure a more peaceful and non intrusive society to live in. Beliefs themselves do not harm people, harm is the responsibility of the individual carrying it out. Extreme beliefs are just that, extreme and cannot be used to criticize similar or connected views. Attacking beliefs causes offence. Tolerance is only achieved though respecting ones beliefs. Intolerance of beliefs equals intolerance of said person. A persons beliefs are personal and therefore cannot be criticized without harm to the person. Challenging ones beliefs usually entrenches them deeper into it.
It is possible to examine ones beliefs without attacking the person. Beliefs influence a persons bias and actions when interacting with others. A persons beliefs can be objectively judged as harmful. Respect is reserved for a people but not always their beliefs. Dogmatic following of beliefs, without evidence stunts personal growth. Challenging a person or group beliefs may cause others in society to examine their own. Having a personal belief does not protect one from being criticized for partaking in a negative action.
I personally am a strong proponent of challenging religious, philosophical and ideological beliefs (including my own). If a belief is to be deemed valid, it is only fair to examine that belief as objectively as possible. Accepting a majority or tolerating an aggressive belief out of respect, is intellectually dishonest and only protects people with a unchallenged agenda that is enabled by our passivity. (an extreme example) Through critical thinking and debate, we have an open market for society to choose our values. Instead of unchallenged and uncritical acceptance of beliefs that, if were adopted, might take that right away or deem it unquestionable.