I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov. In “The Brothers Make Friends” chapter, Ivan says of the idea of God, “I acknowledge humbly that I have no faculty for settling such questions. I have a Euclidian, earthly mind, and how could I solve problems that are not of this world?”

Unfortunately, in today’s world, this kind of humility is rarely evident in the way religion-related ideas are conceptualized and communicated. Instead, what we see too often is that “dialogues” across lines of deep religious/worldview differences are not really conversational engagements at all, but rather serial monologues aimed at scoring rhetorical points. The inherent limitations and ambiguities of language itself are often weaponized—especially when it comes to basic definitions of terms of reference used by interlocutors.

Communication across difference is hard work; there are no shortcuts. When working with any system of language, miscommunications and misconceptions are inevitable. However, the high likelihood of linguistic friction is a reason to engage, not to retreat nor resort to gaslighting. We cannot let the other side dictate the terms of reality, nor attempt to dictate ourselves. Struggling through definitions inevitably leads to a deeper understanding of a different worldview before the true arguments even begin. We must debate definitions—which, in this context, means struggling to understand each other’s underlying theological and moral truths and convictions—before we can truly debate. Assuming a shared definition before communicating with the other side guarantees failure.

This failure happens across the political spectrum. Recently, a friend of mine labeled someone “homophobic.” I asked for clarification, as the person in question had explicitly stated they were perfectly fine with LGBTQ+ individuals, fiercely defended their civil liberties, and, as a Christian, believed they were equally loved by God. All of this was held alongside traditional theological beliefs regarding the sanctity of scripture and the definition of sin. I didn’t understand the label. Isn’t a “phobia” rooted in irrational fear or an act of hate? This person’s position seemed rooted in love and religious conviction.

My friend’s usage points to a broader cultural trend of expanding definitions—a tendency to broaden terms to include any form of disagreement that contradicts someone’s identity, arguing that such disagreement ultimately leads to the rejection of who they believe they are. This position relies entirely on a framework where action and identity are inseparable.

But if we overly broaden definitions of “harm,” we inadvertently create a framework that can be used globally to crack down on any unpopular minority—including religious minorities. Without rigorous advocacy, the language of human rights risks being co-opted. If Western discourse expands “harm” to mean any ideological disagreement, authoritarian states can just as easily use those expanded definitions to label minorities “harmful” to their society in order to justify repression.

We see this explicitly in modern policy. According to reports from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Russia has weaponized vague legal definitions of “extremism” to criminalize the peaceful existence of groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and seize their property. Similarly, the U.S. Department of State has documented how China utilizes undefined mandates for “social harmony” and “de-extremification” to justify the systemic repression of Uyghur Muslims. When subjective emotional offense is codified as systemic harm—meaning the law treats an opposing belief as a literal attack on someone’s identity—authoritarian regimes are handed the perfect vocabulary to erase dissent.

Wielding definitions on one’s own terms, without admitting any middle ground or acknowledging the other side, is a flawed and rigid approach to civic life. As the Religious Freedom Institute emphasizes, differences between people’s beliefs and identities are permanent fixtures of our world. We must move beyond simply tolerating or, worse, disallowing these differences. Instead, we need to focus on what the Institute for Global Engagement and others call covenantal pluralism—a framework defined by dignity, mutual respect, and the protection of each other’s liberty and right to choose. It is not the absence of conviction, but the active determination to live out one’s deepest convictions within a shared civic space, treating others not as threats, but as key contributors to the community.

Crucially, it requires us to engage and protect one another without demanding that we concede our differing beliefs are equally true or morally equivalent. But to reject the freedom of others by forcing definitions to only be chosen on one’s own terms is destructive. Ultimately, true pluralism requires us to accept our profound differences in lifestyle and belief, using our shared civic freedoms not to conquer one another, but to discover where our values align.

To accept this, we must come down from a subjective moral high ground. We need a sort of civic humility—a willingness to empty ourselves of the need to dominate the conversation or force our exact worldview onto others. So let’s live together in a world where we can openly struggle through definitions. Ultimately, a flourishing and successful society requires us to forgo the weaponization of definitions. Differences may be inevitable, but by sitting with our Euclidean minds and allowing for freedom, we can successfully seek a principled middle ground.