'Soft' tolerance seeks to cover over differences rather than honestly assert them, but 'hard' tolerance encounters others at depth rather than superficially.

I would argue that there is a time for 'soft' tolerance when prudence dictates that really getting down to nitty-gritty questions (e.g. What is Islam's stand on violence or what is the relationship between faith and reason?) will get you nowhere.

So perhaps the Pope made a mistake at Regensburg, but I rather think that he is doing something very courageous that eventually may get Muslim-Christian and Islamic-Western World dialogue on the right track. I admire Pope Benedict for pushing the envelope of serious dialogue. After all, this is a sign of real respect for one's dialogue partners. Indeed, if one's partner also "sticks to his/her guns," there may be mutual breakthroughs, mutual changes of heart.

Dialogue in the spirit of 'soft' tolerance is like making small talk. Don't expect much from it.

I do not have the slightest doubt that the Pope is deeply committed to both ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. This is seen in his early contributions to the Second Vatican Council and in subsequent work during his years of service to Pope John Paul II. It is true that he has always favored what he calls the "positivism of faith," that is, the clear assertion of basic Christian tenets rather than covering them over in the name of peace with one's dialogue partners--whether that be the modern world itself or worldwide Islam.

Pope Benedict, like his predecessor, belongs to a group of interpreters of Vatican II who favored balancing dialogue (a basic value of Vatican II's reforms) with enthusiastic proclamation of the Christian message. Whatever be the path to justice and peace among peoples, cultures and religions on this earth, surely it demands that people sooner or later speak out of real conviction. Taking the convictions of one's partners as seriously as possible is a requirement of any really serious dialogue. It is a two-way street.