On the one hand, we must know the religious other as a self. From within our own traditions the religious other can become a caricature who loses his dignity and humanity though our categorizing him. On the other hand, dialogue is open to the same criticism in reverse – in our interaction with the common humanity of the religious other we can lose sight of the peculiar horror of error.
Dialogue is a corrective tool that itself is in need of being corrected by its opposite. We can’t lose sight of common humanity and the universal desire for happiness and the good, while we also can’t lose sight of how this appreciation of common humanity carries the danger of blinding us to how actual human dignity* can be lost even in those who are otherwise pleasant, polite, profound, better than us, etc.
James Chastek (Just Thomism), In dialogue with those who question dialogue