Just to comment on a few issues.
Firstly Solomon's idea of a worldview conflates Sire's definition with the definitions offered by Phillips and Brown and Walsh and Middleton - even though they are quite different.
I also note Solomon's four issues aren't very well explained:
I'm not sure what the second means and the examples only confuse the issue.
The third fails to consider the possibility that we may not know which view is right (in which case tolerance may be appropriate even though one view must be wrong) or the possiblity that the differences might be unimportant.
The fourth, while not quite as bad as the third also fails to consider that it deals with a whole spectrum of issues. Labelling a provisional belief held with strong evidence the same was as a belief strongly held in spite of the evidence is all too easily used as an excuse to equate the two.
When dealing with the six questions Solomon fails to actually answer the first. And is there any basis other than his worldview's assumptions to consider any of his other answers true ? This is especially worrying in his view of morality - the more so when his opposition to tolerance is taken into account.
Finally his view of naturalism includes far too much that is not really part of naturalism. Perhaps because he needs naturalism to be a worldview, when it is not.