As a fledgling born again christian back in the stone ages I actually used to hang out with sufi friend who was constantly trying to get me to go to his local mosque ... and when I was a punk back in the 80's I used to go to concerts and try to turn people on to religion. lol.
I'm not sure if I am wise or not, but the homeless fellow that is sleeping on my couch right now is certainly a grateful recipient of my karma yoga
For me it was the early years when a homeless stranger slept on our couch. So then, there is some 'Do'.
Do you call that 'religious pluralism'?
More and more, I feel like it is our duty as rational and compassionate human beings to have the courage to tell people when something is patently false or at least not readily verifiable (human beings presence on this planet being more likely the result of evolutionary biology than the result of an invisible man in the sky blowing his breath upon lumps of clay, for instance...) but this actually flys in the face of religious pluralism.
We must certainly respect people's cultural heritage and diversity, but how do we do this when they insist on holding such ridiculous, sectarian, and often socially divisive beliefs?
Thoughts, suggestions, insights?
From my viewpoint, as rational but experienced, and compassionate human beings it is some of our duty, our 'to Do', and it often takes courage to rebuke and tell people when something is known, or not readily verifiable, and to search for the root of why someone may think differently. The time and opportunity for that presents itself in the interaction. For me, it is part of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Something of a relationship or interaction requires other 'Do': love and faith. By the word, 'faith' I do not mean a religion or written path as you have used the word in the OP, I mean having faith in others as you would have others have faith in you. That said, if it is a stranger sleeping on your couch then you understand that.
I value the wise observation of the author in the BMG, which essentially stated that people tend to frequent an internet cafe to message with the people who are not there, and to not share conversation with the people that they went there to share time and coffee with. (I say that as I vest time here). Similarly a homeless person will stand at a street corner where he is unlikely to receive the help that is truly needed, but gets him what he wants. Similarly, I submit, sometimes we don't like to hear what we actually need, or to say what is needed.
So where did you study this 'religious pluralism', and why did you decide that it requires biting your tongue? Do you prefer it when others bite their tongue, as a method of 'religious pluralism'?
