I expressed myself badly.
"I need to show some tolerance to others with procedures born of fear that I consider to be illogical."
Should have been differently sequenced to avoid ambiguity, maybe something like.
"I need to show some tolerance to others with procedures that I consider to be illogical but which are born of fear."
Or
"I need to show some tolerance to others with procedures born of fear, where I consider those procedures to be illogical."
Given that fear is on one level an emotional reaction to perceived threat, logic doesn't come into it. On the other hand, continuing to be afraid can vary massively in its logic. I have, more than once, been attacked by strange dogs, to the utter shock of their owners. I am aware that people working in the sad business of having dogs that attack people put down say that owners almost always react, seemingly genuinely, with "But my dog's never done that before." On the other hand, statistically, severe attacks by dogs are fairly rare.
So if I see a dog coming, seemingly under control and obedient, I'm ok. But if one suddenly appears in my field of vision, there's a good chance I'll have a panic attack, and if I see a dog off the lead and not walking to heel, many's the time I've stumbled as I've dashed into a driveway or out into the road.
I've worked hard at damping down my fear. I've even dog-sat for neighbours. But there's a level at which it never actually goes away.
I think you can argue that the actual fear is still logical because pathways are established in the brain, but that some of my behaviour is not, because I know that statistically dogs I meet are unlikely, even if not under control, to attack me.
After typing all that and tweaking it, I realise that my hair-splitting over what I think and mean is a bit pointless since whether it's the fear or what's done because of it I'm saying I should be tolerant of the illogicality of, it's the tolerance that matters, isn't it?