When an issue arises that causes people to question or defend their beliefs, they tend to gravitate toward one extreme or another, unwilling, or unable, to find a middle ground where rational discussion can take place. Whether in politics, culture or religion, the labels we assign to others, or adopt for ourselves, tend to define the position taken -- liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Muslim, homosexual or heterosexual.

The fundamental problem with this pigeonholing lies in the oversimplification of issues that are complicated, that require in-depth examination and that may not be solvable in a manner that pleases everyone. In fact, most of the issues that cause people to group themselves with others are ones that cut to the core of fundamental belief systems and often cloud people's judgment with emotion. Consequently, certain groups become extremely intolerant of any view but their own, and attempt forcibly to silence the opposing faction using intimidation and harassment.

The techniques employed, from hate mail and character assassination to threatening phone calls, constitute the very definition of a hate crime. These aggressive and often violent methods, utilized by radical factions of the far left, right, or other extreme indoctrination, pose an enormous barrier to social progress.

An oft-quoted philosopher, George Santayana, once said, "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." For some special interest groups, their fanaticism serves only to set back their cause as they fly in the face of innocuous conventions, increasing the intolerance toward them and creating an environment that is not conducive to discourse or positive progress.

Ironically, the very people who most demand tolerance and acceptance of their own viewpoint are incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that someone with an opposing viewpoint has rights as well. This narcissistic perspective simply contributes to the continuing discrimination against groups that are pushing for radical change, and it undermines their influence.

Does this mean that special interest groups should not put forth their agendas and actively work to promote them? No. What it means is that there are effective and ineffective methods to changing policy and public opinion. The use of intimidation, hate crimes and character assassination is an ineffective, ignorant and useless technique.

Another concern is that today's media has a penchant for highlighting confrontational and lurid issues. This tends to lend these issues a heightened legitimacy and an exaggerated voice. Adding to the problem is the "silent majority," those who might agree or disagree with an issue but choose to remain silent, either out of fear or general lassitude, thus preventing a true snapshot of public opinion.

The only way to achieve any real progress on bipolar issues is for both sides to adopt a position of tolerance and have the willingness to examine critical issues and to discuss them in a rational manner. To that end, teaching about tolerance and diversity, both at home and in the school system, is an appropriate goal.

However, is it right to promote one ideal over another simply because one is more novel and receives more attention while the other reflects boring old tradition? How is it that the doctrine of the Muslim religion has become a required teaching unit but in a country founded on Christian principles, prayer has been abolished in schools? Why do we celebrate and promote diversity week but in the interest of being politically correct, not promote traditional values? On that same note, why should I endorse the handing out of condoms at school when as a parent, I teach abstinence?

Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College defines the concept of tolerance without blanket acceptance as thus: Be egalitarian regarding persons but be elitist regarding ideas. In other words, treat all people as equal, but be an elitist about ideas and concepts because some ideas are better than others.

If ever we are to achieve even a modicum of peace on earth, critical discourse, with input from all sides, must be the modus operandi. As Mahatma Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."