For instance:

I am a raging meat eater.  A big old ribeye steak smothered in mushrooms always hits the spot.  And chicken?  Don't get me started!  I spent time as a child on my grandparents' farm and my job was to feed the chickens.  I made a solemn vow to myself, before God, that I would do my darndest to eat every chicken that I could get my hands on.  Yet there are those who would rather see me killed for my carnivorous habits than see a single animal lose their life.  They want animals to roam freely, unfettered by our desires for dinner and outerwear.

I feel that any right- minded person should be able to agree that guns are merely metal objects and that what you do with the gun is what counts.  No matter how long I stare at my husband's pistol, it just sits there.  It never jumps up and kills anyone and it has never left the holster (to my knowledge).  But some folks don't agree - they feel so strongly that guns are evil that they want gun manufacturers to make "smart" guns, that can only be fired by their owner.  That seems all well and good, but then you realize that the statistics show almost 60% of all persons killed with a gun were suicides.  Conversely, there are some individuals who don't like the idea of child-proof safety features for guns.  My thought is that if we are willing to child-proof aspirin, why not guns?

Then we have the great debate over what constitutes "art".  I don't feel that a religious symbol covered in feces is "art" - and I certainly don't think it should be government funded.  Express yourself on you own dime, I say.  However, there are groups of people out there who say that "artists" should have freedom of expression and that any attempt to censor them is a violation of their rights.  Of course I am referring the the Brooklyn Museum's controversial exhibit, "Sensation".  Mayor Rudy Giuliani has cut off $7.2 million in funding for the museum as a direct result of this obscene display, which includes a painting of a black Virgin Mary splattered with feces and pornographic cutouts,  a severed cow head, and a portrait of a serial child killer done in children's handprints.  Mayor Giuliani says the government shouldn't be subsidizing offensive or pornographic displays.  Obviously, the Brooklyn Museum feels differently. Now a New York judge has ruled that Guiliani has to restore the funding.  Could we maybe all agree that we wouldn't choose this particular brand of "art" to display in our homes?

I have the strong opinion that the North American Man/Boy Love Association is nothing more than a bunch of sexual predators getting together to perfect their techniques.  However, such notables as Camille Paglia, Allen Ginsberg and Oscar Wilde have declared that this type of behavior is perfectly acceptable and should continue unrestricted.  So now we can't even agree on what constitutes child molestation.  And that would explain why the media hasn't taken issue with the child molester "Sensation" exhibit - they give almost NO press to the NAMBLA!

I, of course, could go on and on in the same vein, but I think you get the point.  Why is it so hard for people to agree on anything?  Why can't we all agree that Bill Clinton is unfit to be our President?  Why can't we all agree that no Jewish people will die as a result of a Christmas tree in the town center?  Why can't we agree that if you want your children to turn out a certain way, you have to raise them to be that way?  Heck, we can't even agree that people who live in America should speak English!

We are told from all corners that the most important thing in our culture is the diversity and accepting of one another's differences.  But with what goal in mind?  Where as with similarity, we have assimilation - with diversity, we only have divisiveness.