Living in a country where you don't know the language means you have a great excuse for not talking to Jehovah's Witnesses.
To be completely honest, I actually did understand the two Witnesses when they came to my door. Though I had just moved to Germany and just begun to study German, I knew what they were saying. "Bible" is the same in German and English and I knew the word for the verb, "to read." Also they were Jehovah's Witnesses. They weren't there to borrow sugar. I understood. But I lied.
"I don't understand," I said. "I'm sorry. I only speak English." It was a great excuse.
A week later, two more Witnesses came to my door. "You want to read the Bible?" they said. "You want to know God's plan for human happiness?"
Their English was great.
Of course it was. As a religion that prioritizes proselytization, Witnesses put tremendous effort into reaching people who are different than themselves. They translate their message linguistically and culturally. They don't expect to be accommodated in conversation; they accommodate.
There has been much theorizing under the heading of "post-secular" about the problem of religious participation in public discourse. For the religious to speak to those who do not share their ontological presuppositions, it is said, in public discussions in pluralistic, democratic societies, it must be necessary for there to be a reformulation of religious arguments into publicly accessible, this-world terms. This is a very literal case of that problem. Yet it illustrates, if nothing else, that there might be a problem with framing the matter of religious people dialoguing with those who do not share their religion as a "problem."
Read the full essay, "Habermas and the Problem of the 'Problem' of Religion in Public Discourse," at The Religious Studies Project.