Last week I was, because I am so cool, sitting in a diner with my grandmother and mother, listening to them debate, of all things, the Roman Catholic Church. Grandma is a first-generation Italian American, and an old-school Roman Catholic. Mom started out Catholic, then the '60s hit and God was "out." I think she worshiped trees or something for a year or two before settling on "who knows."

That day, the topic was (once again) how we should react to the series of pedophilic transgressions committed by clergy. Mom's position was that the events of the past year only serve as more proof that the Roman Catholic Church has descended so far into corruption that our only choice is to completely abandon it. Grandma disagreed. She said priests are men of God, and that any wrongdoing should just be ignored.

I love them both, but Mom and Grandma have views on the issue that are dangerously polarized. They have an inability, or refusal, to see the "grays" of the issue; everything is black and white. No questions.

This kind of thinking, seeing everything as "one" or "the other" or even "this," "that" or "the other thing" is dangerous for a number of reasons, and unfortunately is the dominant mindset in our society.

Stratifying anything will ultimately cause an inability to fully understand an issue, concept or even a group of people.

A good example, and one that seems particularly relevant on a campus where the youth of America is actively involved in "finding itself," is the ever popular liberal/conservative distinction. It seems as if everyone on campus considers themselves "one," "the other," or doesn't involve themselves at all.

I'll never forget the first Collegian I ever read, when I was in State College for a tour about two years ago. It had two opinion columns, both of which spent half their space defending themselves for being a liberal or a conservative.

It's a problem because it creates a very uncomfortable situation for someone who is, for instance, pro-life and anti-war, as a friend of mine is. He fights to be accepted into one of the traditional camps, a fight which eventually results in frustration.

Of course, I can't discuss the subject of political "camps" without invoking the war issue. Bush Jr. has said, "You're either with us or against us," and the unfortunate part is how many Americans have accepted this, on both the pro- and anti-war sides.

The idea that to be against the war, for instance, is also to be against the country, dominates discussion around the topic.

Unfortunately, many "anti-war" activists have gladly assimilated this concept into their activities, a facet that "war supporters" gladly exploit.

In a thinking society, one opinion should never relegate you to any related set of ideas.

Not only are not all anti-war or pro-war activists the same, but it's hard to believe that there are even such categories as "for" or "against," rather than a gradient of feelings and thoughts ranging from reactionary through indifferent to radical.

The real danger of this kind of grouping is the way it shuts people off, and even anesthetizes someone to the humanity of an opposing "faction." Differences of opinion become questions of Good vs. Evil.

We are good; they are evil. America is good; Iraq is evil. Cowboys are good; Indians are evil.

It would be nice if life was so simple, but the real truth is that real truth is hard to determine. "Evil" is a whole lot less present in society than we like to think.

Over break, I read about Elizabeth Smart, the 15-year-old Utah girl found nine months after she was kidnapped. The article was uncomfortable, because it presented Smart as a pretty, all-American innocent victim of a scraggly, insane, sinful religious zealot. They never addressed why Smart never contacted her family or attempted to escape, or why she initially refused to cooperate with police.

In the effort to simplify the story for readers, the American journalistic system simplified the story to Good vs. Evil, ignoring the possible ambiguities, the "grays" of the situation.

Accept it or not, in "real life" very few people in the world set out to do "Evil," if any.

What we consider "Evil" is usually just what happens when good intentions for oneself or a group of people are coupled with bad logic or misconceptions of the world.

"Anti-war" students need to realize that Bush is probably trying to do good, even if you disagree with his methodology.

For those of you who support military action, realize that Saddam Hussein, although most likely insane, probably really believes he is fighting the "good fight."