There are several catch phrases used by those who would reject the revelatory nature of absolute truth. Phrases such as "open-minded", "neutral", or "tolerant" are redefined by pluralists and other nonbelievers and set up as ultimate virtues.
Consider the comment from Mike aka MonolithTMA on the Christian Cadre Blog
"In the real world that's what tolerance means, putting up with something, giving it equal time, particularly if you don't agree with it.
Last time I checked opinions were equally valid. I tolerate your opinion and you tolerate mine. it's only tolerance if you are putting up with something that you do not like."
On the surface, "tolerance" sounds nice. We certainly want to tolerate other people despite their differences. There is no excuse to be unkind or even violent towards the person himself, even if he has different viewpoints. In fact, this type of tolerance is necessary for effective evangelism.
However, the new "tolerance" goes well beyond just being kind to people. As Mike defines it, the new "tolerance" holds that "All opinions are equally valid". The problems are that, one, no one truly believes this, and two, it can be easily proven false. Consider:
Step 1 - Prove the Premise A: "All opinions are equally valid"
Step 2 - A --> B: If Premise A is true, then the opinion that "All opinions are not equally valid" is a valid opinion.
Step 3 - B = ~A: The opinions "all opinions are equally valid" and "all opinions are not equally valid" cannot both be valid (Law of Non-Contradiction).
Step 4 - ~A: The premise "All opinions are equally valid" is false.
The reality is that this new definition of "tolerance" is most often used as a cloak for "intolerance". For example, those who support gay marriage accuse those who oppose it of being "intolerant" in order to cover their own intolerance, ie."I believe that gay marriage should be legalized, and if you disagree with me, then you are intolerant". Those who promote this warped view of tolerance are actually quite intolerant of many things, such as absolute truth, God's Laws, and Orthodox Christianity. Of course, these same people must somehow establish some sort of absolute truth in order to even begin any dialogue in these areas.
I am reminded of Oprah's statement a while back concerning man's approach to God.
"There can't possibly be only one way".Well, why not? Why can't there be only one way? It is a question that I have yet to hear any pluralist give a valid answer to.