Here's my assignment, I just left out the answers I recorded from the replies posted. Thank you all for answering, I promise I wasn't trolling (I love that that's one of the guidelines on this website):

In Inazu’s conclusion of the book that transitions the reader into the practicality of the real world, he leaves three imperatives of confident pluralism that incorporate the three virtues of tolerance, humility, and patience (128). Inazu’s view of collective action does exclude social media protests, “hashtag activism costs us little” (128). This is actually comforting to me and gave me more hope in addition to the hope Inazu adds to the three virtues in his vision of the future of confident pluralism (133). Recently I posted in an atheist forum to obtain answers as a way to receive the differing viewpoints, in which I was met with a lot of uncalled for accusations. Although my reaction was amusement and not discouragement, I read through the other forums on the website, and other Christians engaged in conversation on different topics, one of which was directly addressing Christians. The consistent ad hominem attacks made any attempt to continue a reasonable conversation appear hopeless. This was the perfect example of what politics have been lately in that from our perspective there is a lack of unity that comes from the differences and unwillingness to be patient or tolerant, or even humble (pride was a common theme from a lot of the posts in the forums that I read). Yet the Christian replies were not taken down from the website, differing opinions could still be heard, regardless of public reaction. This contrasts with past politics in that there was unity but “a good deal of [earlier] coherence was only made possible by suppressing or excluding dissenting or unheard voices” (131). Inazu’s warning about collective action imperative could be portrayed through the example of my ignorant learning experience in that the pressure and intolerance of the majority belief discouraged the minority belief from further dialogue (128). Although in one post there were questions with the position to engage in debate and appeared to be asked with the intention of mutual understanding, the attempt of peaceful conversation was destroyed by other intolerant comments of other individuals of the collective majority. This experience did not discourage me from future dialogue, but it did dissuade me from future dialogue over the internet in which the opposing side on any issue can hide behind a protective username and avatar. I would much rather discuss anything deeper than a grocery list in person. I’ve had many conversations about religion and beliefs with atheistic and some agnostic friends, but those conversations were definitely a lot more pleasant and respectful towards my beliefs in that they did not lead to the frustration of online conversation in which there is no relationship on the line. In future conversations with atheists (in person of course) I will bring up the arguments read on the other forums to hear their views and see with what they agree and disagree.