*Some thoughts on neutrality

I have been thinking about 'neutrality.' And it seems much would determine on where we place 'neutrality' conceptually, or in terms of methodology, to begin considering practical considerations.

Neutrality could be placed in common social concerns where a common consent in perspective or approach is adopted for issues such as justice, corruption, and poverty.

In another sense, neutrality could be placed in between traditions for a place of discourse to be adopted in advancing a common understanding of text.

Neutrality could also be seen in terms of common practice as well.

These are all somewhat preliminary in their considerations and one of the questions I continued to arrive at was a neutrality towards what end?

Much of these thoughts on neutrality, I thought, could be advanced in the political and legal arena after discovering, creating, a common discourse, or at least some mutually understandable method, for various religious traditions to speak meaningfully to each other. This was my discussion, although very brief, between Habermas and Taylor where they talked about discourse and the place of religious reasons in the political and legal sphere.

My own position is that some of these concerns have to be considered at a personal level of social interaction where responsibility and courage comes in prior to presumptions and media based impressions of others. I would argue that the culture of persons, attitudes of mind, would have to shift in order to find a common understanding, or any kind of societal morality, where the well-being of the populace is placed prior to any other agenda (though, this in itself is a kind of agenda on its own by searching for a non-violent state of persons and their mutual well-being).