Your suggested high-level ethical principle looks fine to me:
Insofar as feasible (consistent with appropriate time-management), we should continue discussing, non-hostilely, the reasons for significantly consequential (with regard to JCA and/or PSDED) differences of opinion (belief), with the goal of attaining rationally-based agreement (always with the remaining acceptance of re-questioning).
I would be curious to hear what you think about our collective perspectives, particularly the global perspective as contrasted to the national, religious and cultural perspectives.
The United Nations has accomplished wonders, especially considering its relatively small budget. I credit the fact that UN staff by the nature of their job, take the global perspective. The world is chaotic for sure, but from the global perspective we can discern patterns more accurately and see better the roads that are likely to lead to collective success for all of us as individuals, for the nations and religions collectively, and for the natural systems that sustain us.
Am I wrong in seeing the individual and humanity as natural allies against the excesses of the nations and religions? Notice I do not say allies against the nations and religions, only against their excesses. Support for diversity is key to the building of a resilient world system. More diversity means more stability.
I will post this in the Humanianity forum as well at: https://humanianity.com/phpBB3/index.php.
Thanks for posting!