For instance, a lunatic might not be held accountable for murder, but you can't tell the family of the victim that no evil was done. Some letter writers to The Herald have recently expressed the idea that it is both wrong and arrogant for anybody to tell others what they think is true, particularly in matters of religion. In an angry tone, they requested that people who think they have some insight keep their mouths shut out of respect for the convictions of others. As a Roman Catholic, I have had numerous conversations with people of other faiths or no faith. In each case, we both think that the other person is wrong on at least some points, and we tell each other as much, but there is no disrespect involved, and I usually find that we both benefit from the conversation.
Dialogue eliminates misunderstandings and actually heightens mutual respect.
Indeed, however offensive non-Christians might find some of the aggressive techniques used by Christians in evangelizing, as a Christian I can guarantee that I find them even more offensive. Dialogue is needed even more in questions of moral truth. A hundred and fifty years ago, abolitionists were widely resented for thinking they knew better than slave owners, and as a result were persecuted and treated with contempt. To my knowledge, each represents an unprecedented opportunity in the history of Brown for the respectful exchange of religious and moral ideas, and I encourage everyone to attend. As a Christian and a pro-lifer, I believe that the truth will speak for itself, but on a deeper level, I am convinced that the investigation of truth as a united community is the solution to the divisiveness and politicization that increasingly marks contemporary society.