Welcome to the live On Faith online debate between Charles Colson and Diana Eck. For the next 30 minutes, our two On Faith panelists are going to discuss tolerance. Mr. Colson, earlier this month you wrote: "I would argue that society needs to take a hard, sober look at how we define tolerance. Is it as classically understood, a willingness to entertain all points of view and listen respectfully to those with whom we disagree? Or does it mean accepting an all-beliefs-are-equal position?" How would you answer your own question?

We are having a few technical difficulties. Please bear with us for a moment.

Test post. Tolerance

I agree with this. Only the shallowest and most casual use of tolerance would claim that all beliefs are equal. From a religious point of view, we certainly can say there are many ways of being people of faith --Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu. Indeed, there are arguments within each tradition of faith. But all religious beliefs are not the same, though all may be held with equal conviction. The willingness to "entertain" all points of view implies more curiosity, more engagement with the other. But I would argue that "tolerance" is too passive, too thin a foundation for relationships in a society with as many cultural and religious differences as ours.

The way I would put it is that we need to move beyond tolerance to real engagement with the religious other. That means a willingness to listen, yes. To try to understand, yes. What does it mean to a Muslim couple when they whisper the affirmation of faith in God into the ear of the newborn? What does it mean to the Hindu who opened the Nevada state legislature last week with the prayer, "Lead us from Darkness to Light, from Ignorance to Wisdom, from Death to Immorality." I mean that we need to know more accurately and deeply our neighbors of other faiths. But that engagement goes beyond tolerance. Tolerance doesn't really require that we know anything. And yes, you might change your mind.

The term I use for a step beyond tolerance to real engagement is "pluralism," but I agree we shouldn't quibble over terms. I don't think making a truth claim is intolerant, at least in our voice as Christians. I'm a lifelong Methodist, and when I speak as a Christian to a Christian audience, I make that clear. I also make it clear when I'm speaking in a faith-context with people of other faiths. But General Pace wears the uniform of the US military as Chair of the Joint Chiefs. In that capacity he is pledge to stand on the Constitution. The articulation of his belief that "homosexual acts are immoral" is perfectly appropriate when he's out of uniform and in the church, but our Constitution means nothing if, in our public life, we cannot balance our voice of faith with the voice of citizenship.

I hold no brief for the NY Times. But I do think that any person in public life, any candidate for public office, should be able to say, "As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but as an officer of the US military which is pledged to a don't ask don't tell policy, I pledge to defend that policy until it is changed." or "As a Christian, I believe X. But as a candidate for public office, I stand for a Constitution that protects freedom of religion for all people, Muslims, Wiccans, and Christians alike. And, by the way, for people who have no religious convictions at all." There are countless questions. The scandal at the Air Force Academy in the summer of 2005, for instance, when it was clear that officers in the line of command were basically proselytizing as Christians. Totally unacceptable. As the founders insisted, our civil rights do not depend upon our religious convictions.

I agree with you that proselytizing using your official office is wholly inapporpriate. That isn't what Pace did. He also said he upheld the policy adopted by the Congress. He simply expressed what was more than a personal view--rather a well-established moral question--and offered his views as to whether a particular sexual behavior, heterosexual and homosexual, are moral. God help us when we can't discuss those kinds of questions in public. God help us also when we embrace dualism which says you can do one thing in the office and be something else at home. That's the destruction of integrity. We need more Peter Paces who will speak their convictions courageously so that we don't dumb down our society. On the question of quibbling over phrases, do you mean by pluralism that I have to accept all other truth claims and consider them as good as mine? I can't do that. The law of noncontradiction is a very stubborn thing. All I can do is agree to live peacefully with other people who hold truth claims antithetical to my own. That's the kind of tolerance that is today under attack, but it is the only kind that enables us to live together and have any kind of meaningful civil discussion.

Of course pluralism does not mean you have to "accept all other truth claims." But it does mean you need to know enough about them not to be susceptible to the stereotypes and half-baked ideas that are so readily spread in a society where we settle for live-and-let-live tolerance. Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus --our own neighbors here in the US-- have rich and faithful religious lives. They are not communities that are simply involved in "truth claims," but in prayer, devotional hymn singing, and family life. But in the past 5 years since 9/11, our record of prejudice and ignorance is appalling. And, by the way, I don't think any Chrsitian can circle the wagons around the one we call "God." That would be unfaithful to the living Christ, whom many did not recognize on the Road to Emmaeus.

Thank you both for a fascinating conversation.