"Others say it is not politic to rouse religious opposition.
This much-lauded policy is but another word for cowardice."
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton (Women's Suffrage Leader)
Of course, it should go nearly without saying to any fairly civilized person nowadays that we should tolerate the religion(s), rituals, philosophies, and lifestyle choices, such as "sexual orientation" of other individuals, particularly when the activities do not adversely impact us. A good student of liberty would realize further that (1) drug use, including the use of "psychedelic" drugs, ought to be included in the "lifestyle choices" category, and that (2) we ought to set the bar for "adverse impact" from others activities fairly high. For example, I might rather never hear another word of Christian proseletyzation; it adversely affects me by wasting my time. But it is within my neighbors free speech right(s), under certain circumstances, to try to convince me of the need to believe in Him. Likewise, my neighbor might feel that it would be in their better interest that I never consume alcohol simply so as to be a more productive contributor to the military industrial complex, which they may feel serves their interests. But I ought not be the slave of my neighbor; I do not exist principally to serve what they may perceive to be their interests. Clearly there need to be limits to these rights; it would be adverse if my neighbor chose to wake me in the middle of the night (or even interrupts me far too often during the day) with their Divine Message, or if my "lowered productivity" results in maintance of my household exterior below a minimum community standard.
But at the same time, we should be concerned and we ought to take some limited action if our neighbor's religion (etc.) is detrimental to their life or well being even within the value choices they nominally subscribe to. The most appropriate action in nearly every case is to exercise our free speech rights to at least try to persuade them that there is a better way. It is important that we only do this in a very limited way, so as not to create a climate where unfettered or continuous proseletyzation is the norm. Making more than a few unsolicited comments a month can be unpleasant, and becomes an "adverse impact" itself. Calling in authorities of any kind, especially law enforcement officers, ought only be done as a last resort and only if there is a serious adverse impact on us which needs to be rectified. (It should be recongized that in many cases in our fundamentally corrupt society that punishment or "correction" is often far worse than the crime, especially for drug offenses. It shouldn't be this way, but unfortunately it is.)
Of course, we also have to be sure that there is a better way, and before we start giving proseletyzing or correctional speeches we ought to be living that "better way" ourselves. The first step is always to set a good example of how life ought to be lived by living that life ourselves. (This is, of course, a standard that the most dedicated proselytizers, whom Eric Hoffer called the "True Believers," rarely follow in fact.)
Proselytizing Christians take for granted that they have a mission to "save" others souls by converting them to their religion. In contrast, most unbelievers would rather simply leave their neighbors to their folly, to the point where they might even repeat or recite the word "God" when convenient, even if they don't actually believe in "God," such as in the "Pledge of Allegiance." (BTW, the U.S. Supreme Court, during World War II, found it unconstitutional for anyone to be compelled to recite the pledge. The best thing is to not utter one word of what has become religious nationalist supremacist drivel.)
Altruism requires us to be concerned about others wasting their time, resources, and ultimately, their lives, to honor a divinity which doesn't exist, and worse yet, persuading others to go down this fruitless path. These are lives truly wasted, lives which could have been devoted to the pursuit of real truth and happiness. We ought to have compassion for our neighbors and be concerned with their wasting their lives.
So, especially when convenient (such as in not reciting the Pledge, and not using the word "God") unbelievers ought to at least resist the tide of creeping religiosity, and even seek to reverse it, in a limited way, as described above, by exercising their rights to freedom of speech. Where applicable, law suits defending the people from government establishment of monotheism are also quite appropriate.
To not do these things displays not only a lack of courage and/or compassion, but ultimately a lack of respect for our neighbors, which is the very thing that tolerance is ultimately about.