The premise, opening up conversations, seems difficult to argue against, but here’s one thought. This is an academic talking to academics. So is this a call for the intellectual, politicians, and judges of the world to discuss / break down the validity of faith values influencing the secular space and then funnel that down to us simple people? Or does he expect my neighbor, a recent Christian-convert with a criminal record and a new GED, to engage in this conversation about why his men’s prayer group cannot meet at the new school/community center they built down the road? Who will represent his argument and who will represent the other side?
So let’s start there. I actually agree with the premise, but I am doubtful it can work and suspect we keep religious ethics “private” to keep the can on the worm guts. Then again, perhaps only leaders need to have these conversations, but that seems icky to me. If common people don’t have the mental faculties to engage in these arguments (I barely had them to process the book), will they simply allow a representative to do so for them or will they take to the streets with dogmatic arguments? What does society “do” with folks that can’t argue properly with great academic acumen for their position?