In our diverse and multi-cultural society, how does a Muslim carry on a dialogue with a Jew? Or a Republican with a Democrat? Or a Pro-Lifer with a Pro-Abortionist?
There are ways for people, who have profound disagreements and even conflicts, to engage in civil and polite discussion. This is much more like to preserve peace than angry confrontations and name-calling.
How do we engage in civil dialogue?
First, whatever your personal opinion, remember that there are such things as right and wrong interpretations of historical texts, political texts, or biblical texts. A text - a piece of writing - can't have any random meaning. There is a set of meanings it can have, and a set of meanings it can't have. There are actual historical facts to which texts do or do not correspond, and true and false propositions, true and false statements, about the relationship between the story and reality. Consequently, we become upset with someone we suspect of lying, intentionally trying to obscure the facts, unduly disrupting the conversation, or doing anything that seems contrary to the spirit of truth-telling.
Second, remember that there are things called objective moral truths. We might disagree about what they are, or we might not even know what they are, but they are there. In our dialogues, we are not just courteous; we try to be responsible and fair in our interpretations of what the other is saying. We don't deliberately mis-understand or twist the other's words to make the opposing viewpoint seem stupid or illogical. We do not abide anyone who fails to respect the intentions of another. It is not permissible to treat anyone in the circle as anything less than an autonomous end-in-himself. We must attribute the best possible meaning and intentions to our opponent's words. Only this way, only by means of moral standards, is a dialogue possible.
Third, our efforts at conversation should begin with introductions, work slowly into the subtly submerged tensions between us, eventually get around to stating our disagreements, and then build toward a resolution in which we could agree on some matters, and agree to disagree about others. In this way, we can forge a consensus, even a community. It is an aesthetic idea; an artistic whole of different voices blended together. We want people to air their differences, but we do not permit disruption for disruption's sake. Radical intrusions serve, somehow, the ends of the group, the good of the whole. We orchestrate seemingly random sounds into the melody pursued by the rest.
