With any given subject, many can be the points of disagreement.
Regarding the subject of faith (what is confused as religion), wouldn't it be wiser to find what the agreeable points are? Building on unity can form the basis of seeing one another according to our likenesses, not our differences. Considering others better, disagreeable issues can be seen as less of a divisive issue, and more as details not having a basis when choosing to live at peace. Opposing views do not have to agree on all points, but can agree to love, respect and honor one another.
Regarding the subject of politics (what is really the management of people and resources), wouldn't it be wiser to identify the hired hand from the people's servant? Is it not clear in the manner the subjects are treated and addressed? Defining what an honorable leader/representative/shepherd of the people is, the actions (not the words) of a person hired to produce economic results rather than the person who is responsible with ensuring a flourishing populace can be realized.
Regarding the subject of relationships (some of which exist by necessity, others naturally), wouldn't it be wiser to build equitable friendships? Befriending people of different religions, different political parties, different economic circles, different classes would by default build equitable community. In the effort to be equitable, the goal would be to integrate all people's participation and accept them as they are, not as one would wish them to be.
The effort to make all people equal is an aim, but is not a reality according to the order the world has always seen nor the definition men have of equality. Equal treatment is the noble concern, and this is possible and evidenced in eras past. Equal justice is the expression. Equal love is the calling.