Public Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. For more information about the project, email Allison Rizzolo.

As we make the final preparations for the next set of Perceptions Project dialogues, I can’t help but think back to our first dialogues in Pasadena.

We spent considerable time preparing for those conversations, between evangelical pastors and scientists. We worked with our partners on the project, AAAS, thinking about who should participate and how the dialogues might unfold. We anticipated the tensions that might emerge – tensions that could stall conversation between the two communities. And we thoughtfully planned ways to surface areas of common ground and shared understanding.

Yet despite the many hours of planning that led up to the dialogues, I was unable to foresee what it would feel like to be in them. What I hadn’t, and perhaps couldn’t, anticipate was how eager participants would be to talk to one another and ask questions about each others’ experiences. While there was some tension between the groups, the overarching theme was curiosity.

One interaction in particular has stayed with me since that first dialogue. We were discussing the manner in which scientific data is presented in popular media. A few pastors expressed frustration with the seemingly constant stream of new evidence that is presented as fact yet often appears to be contradictory.

In response, several scientists described the scientific method. They also noted that they are limited in the claims they can make based on a single study and expressed their own frustration at the way their findings are often presented—and inflated—in the media without sufficient context or qualification.

This was an “a-ha” moment for one pastor who, prior to the dialogues, assumed that scientists were responsible for how their findings were presented in different media outlets.

That “a-ha” moment reminded me of the critical role that dialogue can have in connecting us in spite of our differences. For the Pasadena participants, dialogue provided an opportunity to break down misconceptions and provide each group insight into how the other community operates.

As the next dialogues approach, I eagerly anticipate the “a-ha” moments that lie ahead and wonder what questions participants will ask of one another that will deepen their understanding of each others’ experiences.

In 1892 the National Guard was called to Homestead, Pennsylvania.

8,500 National Guard forces came to town because 300 Pinkertons had already failed.

Workers in the steel mills were trying to unionize, you see. Henry Frick, chairman of Carnegie Steel Co., couldn’t let that happen. So, he had hired the Pinkertons – a move which left seven workers and three Pinkertons dead. Then he called in the National Guard.

The National Guard forcibly removed the strikers. The town did not unionize.

Two years later, railroad workers in Pullman, Chicago, led by Gene Debs, initiated the first national strike. Rail service across the country came to a standstill.

With support from then-President Grover Cleveland, thousands of U.S. Marshals and 12,000 United States Army troops were called in to break the strike.

As many as 30 strikers died. U.S. citizens killed on U.S. soil by U.S. troops.

The strike was successfully crushed.

These are the stories I grew up with.

So, when I see stories of SWAT teams on the streets of Missouri, called in to “deal with” protestors…I am saddened, but not surprised.

This is how we – the people in power – have always dealt with those who would dare call us out on injustice, who would dare challenge the norm, who would dare question our might and right. We control the armed services and we put the rabble-rousers down.

In Ferguson, Missouri an unarmed black man was shot and killed for walking down the street.

It’s happened in countless other cities, too.

To call that an outrage, to recognize that this happens again and again and again, to fight against such tremendous injustice, is to question the power dynamics in this country, to question the status quo. And those in power can’t tolerate that.

A working-class Irish girl, I’ve been raised to identify with the striking workers from the turn of the last century. Taught to admire the men and women who gave their lives fighting for justice, who were continually crushed by the machine of power, wealth, and industry.

Perhaps now I am the elite. I am those in power. I may not have the power alone to stop what is happening, but I have the power to walk down the street unharmed by police. I have the power to speak up.

And above all, I have a responsibility to stand with those who demand justice. Who demand change. Who fight every day to ensure that tomorrow is better. Who do everything in their power to stop the cycle of violence and who insist that a government of the people should serve all the people.

So I stand with the people of Ferguson, as I stand with the people of far too many other cities.

But I’m taking suggestions on what more I can do. Speaking out is not enough.

Richard Cory was perfection.

As Edwin Arlington Robinson wrote in 1897, Richard Cory was richer than a king. Schooled in every grace. And he was always human when he talked.

In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

Yes, Richard Cory was perfection.

And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.

What are we to think of Richard Cory now?

Perfect people don’t commit suicide.

The story is an old and tragic one. Just as shocking now as it was then. We wished that we were in his place -

Richard Cory was perfection.

It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t add up. How could we not have known? How could that happen?

We wished that we were in his place -

We might still be a little jealous.

Richard Cory was perfection.

We never knew Richard Cory.

What pain he must have felt. What horror. What unbearable emptiness that calm summer night -

How could we not have known?

Afterwards there are always discussions and debates. Memories and memorials. Sighs for prevention and scorns over cause.

But nothing changes that calm summer night -

Nothing can explain it or undo it or change it.

But perhaps – perhaps the world will be different. Not only absent a soul, but with added awareness:

This is normal.

This happens all of the time.

This happens to people we know – and we rarely know its happening.

We don’t know, but we imagine perfection. We imagine perfection and we don’t make the effort to know.

We just imagine perfection and wish that we were in his place.

Americans must become as adept and engaged as citizens as they are as consumers.

The public must be willing and able to give as much thought as they do to buying a car or a new home to alternative choices on policies relating to the economy, health care, education, the environment and other matters of concern to individuals and the community.

Successful public engagement involves both will and skill, and at present both are lacking.

The public’s task as citizens is to deliberate on the nation’s most important issues and form thoughtful judgments free of bias and wishful thinking.

This is a far call from the present response patterns of the public. In recent years, the American public has almost lost the habit of becoming engaged in the search for solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems. Successful public engagement involves both will and skill, and at present both are lacking.

In its place we find polarization, demonization of those who hold different views, passionate conviction without thought, and extreme subjectivity. Just at the time when we most need a thoughtful pragmatic public, we get instead a public on vacation from reality.

From my more than a half century of experience in monitoring the values and attitudes of the American public, I have reached the reluctant conclusion that the American public is not currently well prepared to take on one of democracy’s most essential tasks – restoring fairness to our nation.

On the other hand, I believe that this could improve for the better with relatively modest changes in our culture. At present, Americans are frustrated because their voice is neither welcome nor heard. But there is enormous potential willingness among Americans to act as true citizens, if given a genuine opportunity to do so.

In later posts, I’ll elaborate how this could happen with good leadership and a bit of luck.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.