The first article in this series argued that religious reasons ought to be included in discussions surrounding issues of public policy. Barth’s rejection of natural theology makes it clear that, while natural premises might be shared by nearly all, they are ill-equipped to communicate religious ideas. With Stout’s second option, to translate theological reasons into reasons based on shared or natural premises, rejected as an unworkable compromise for the religious interlocutor, the second article in

Christianity and Democratic Dialogue: Part One Need we suspend our faith for the sake of conversation? Western Democracy has given Christians religious liberties that few throughout history have enjoyed, while also saving the Church from the shame of statecraft. Foundational to these democratic systems of government is a form of civil dialogue that seeks to include all reasonable voices in the conversation. However, secularization in the Western world has lead many, both atheistic and theistic,

“The problem of acceptance with regard to other religions is closely related to the problem of the acceptance of diversity within the House of Islam itself.”1  The preceding quote by Vincent Cornell, one of the West’s most prolific scholars of Islam, is one I’ve been pondering since first coming across it, precisely because this sentiment is just as relevant for Christians as it for Muslims.  It is no coincidence that the very Christians who treat