[edit: rearranged for clarity on 5/10/2012]
Remember, tolerance is beneficial so long as it does not clash with truth. Tolerance, not aimed at or seeking truth, is not being good or peaceful, it is being civil.
“When your tolerance fails to tolerate my intolerance of your idea of tolerance – you are being intolerant.”
– via Marcel LeJeune
I suggest using peace in lieu of “tolerance”. Peace is an affirmative, while tolerance seems to be defining a sort of compromise.
Peace is not simply an absence of war, it is the presence of something. We can clearly define when America is legally at war (or we used to be able to anyways…), but how do we define when we are at peace?
If peace all of the other times when we are not at war, then that’s like saying you are healthy when you are not dying of a terminal illness… not a very positive way of diagnosing peace is it?
Define peace in a positive and additive manner, not in a reductive way. In a way that states what peace IS, not just what it is not. Make a positive claim about peace and own it. (hint: In order to do this you have to make a claim about the truth.)