Conclusion

             In the broadest sense, then, those who contest the place of religion in public life must become sensitized both to the origins--explicit and implicit--and to the effects of their own perspectives and of those they regard as "different." While these tasks are often difficult, to see from the vantage of another may enhance our capacity to clearly see ourselves: "It may be impossible to take the perspective of another completely," Minow explains, "but the effort to do so can help us recognize that our own perspective is partial."[66]

              Religious differences pose a special challenge to the conduct of a pluralist public life. As Neuhaus cautions, "[w]hen the subject is religion--what others believe to be ultimately true--...our approach must be marked by modesty and respect."[67] At the same time, Minow observes,

[a] paradox of tolerance arises: should tolerance tolerate those who reject tolerance? The paradox is especially poignant for schools, whose mission is to provide for each generation a foundation of shared experience and language to enable self-governance across conflicting affiliations. Legal norms and processes in a heterogeneous, diverse society have been critical to that foundation.... If legal norms are themselves contested and embody a kind of intolerance for difference, it is difficult to imagine any shared normative endowment.[68]

             Minow submits that efforts to shift our perspectives, to take the position of another, are crucial first steps in breaking the conceptual boundaries that are the sources of division. When we recognize the ways in which the world may appear to another, we are encouraged to revise old understandings, to redefine the limits of our capacity to perceive. Doing so may put into focus formerly unseen areas of agreement, some shared links, within which more enduring and more binding alliances might be forged. Differences in perspective then might be conceived not as a basis for inevitable or unbreachable categorization, as a consequence of which some are awarded validation and inclusion in society and others denied it, but as one instance of contrast in a pluralistic context encompassing a range of philosophies, experiences, and views. From this vantage, the delimitation of rights and the equitable resolution of conflict become a process of balancing, of negotiation conducted in a language of terms and postulates that are mutually acknowledged and fundamentally understood.[69]

             Of course, as Minow emphasizes, to recognize and to respect the integrity of others' realities--to make a place for difference and dissent--is not an endpoint but rather only a point of departure: "There is no ultimate resting place but instead an opportunity for dialogue, conversation, continuing processes of mutual boundary setting, and efforts to manage colliding perspectives on reality."[70] Ultimately, however,

[w]e can choose how to characterize our shared and divided lives; we can decide to emphasize what we have in common or where we diverge; we can pool our resources to share the burdens of our differences, or we can assign those burdens to the people with the least ability to protest. Our very self-conceptions are mutable, depending upon which alternative we adopt.[71]