Claiming that you are “free, open-minded”
does not mean that you, with some members of your “intellectual circle”, are the only ones who have that magic recipe called “liberal ideas, free thoughts, open-minded thinking, etc.”
Because, if we want to be a little bit frankly,
we can assume (without removing the relative disparity of the formal, symbolic and reference nature of each thought) we can assume that there are no “liberal, progressive” ideas or “closed, reactionary” ideas,
as long as the thought, when standing on the inner causes of its existence and its teleological nature, is originally a shackle.
That you are free, according to a personal conviction at least,
means that you, whatever the kind of your thoughts, will be able to break free of them when dealing with the other,
and once you treat him as an existent self, different and right, as much as your existent, your difference, and your right,
“facts, certainty and axioms” in your opinion become to you as your own facts, your own certainty and your own axioms, that are essential to understanding existence, nature, and beings,
because it is unreasonable that the doggies, for example, even in each faction, as much as they have public intersections, they have paths of different behaviour in each of them (albeit in a slight proportion because of the simplicity of their brain and emotional map)
while we, human beings, with all our tangled and complex brains, minds, fantasies, emotions, absorbing;
we may agree with a frightening certainty, even on intangible metaphysical, to the extent that we collectively call it “axioms”, then start dealing, with unconsciously classification toward all those who do not have them, those “axioms” which according to them, the individual and collective behaving path of millions of us are being determined, in their ways of dealing with one another and with the other.
Perhaps we can say, albeit with a longer standing and with different comparing sentences, that the same thing applies to “ethics”.