Dr. James Armstrong's comments about my letter to the editor about bigotry suggest that he totally missed my point. I will reiterate using simpler illustrations.

      To restate James' definition of bigotry: "obstinate and unreasonable attachment to one's own beliefs and opinions with intolerance of beliefs opposed to them".

      A fully tolerant and completely open-minded individual would believe that all points of view are equally valid and represent truth for the person holding the particular belief. This moral relativism justifies abortion-it is morally acceptable to kill the unborn child as long as it is acceptable to the mother and abortionist. Following this same absurd line of "reasoning" that justifies abortion, the crimes of the rapist, child-molester, murderer and armed robber are morally acceptable as long as the perpetrators can justify it in their own minds. If James is one of these completely open-minded individuals, he would believe that abortion is acceptable for people who accept it but he would also validate my point of view. James would consider valid my belief that his killing thousands of unborn children with his own hands is i)a heinous crime against humanity, 2)a dramatic affront to Almighty God, and 3)something that God will hold him accountable for if he does not turn from it.

      I am confident that James does not accept my view as equally valid to his. It is safe to say that he is obstinate in his belief that killing unborn children is an acceptable activity for him, and this belief is unreasonable as he is a professed Christian and the Bible is clear that God abhors "hands that shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:17). James' intolerance of my view is demonstrated in his stand against making abortion illegal. James therefore fits his definition of bigot.

      The purpose of my pointing out James' bigotry is not to be unkind or uncompassionate (to address the well-intentioned letter of Jon Heberling). My thoughts and prayers for James' repentance are always with love. My point is that those who consider themselves "open minded" and "tolerant" are narrow-minded and intolerant just as those they criticize for narrow-mindedness. Furthermore, their particular form of narrow-mindedness is self-deceptive and self-centered. Its proponents can feel personal peace, complacency and have a sense that they are high-minded and generous despite the fact that their philosophy promotes a cultural environment accepting of atrocities such as the slaughter of millions of unborn children and the exploitation of men, women, and children via pornography. Jon Heberling writes, "tolerance leads to peace". It is impossible for his version of "tolerance" to bring about peace since it promotes massive destruction of human lives.

      I have never met anyone who was completely open-minded. Choosing the form of narrow-mindedness based on humanly contrived lies such as "political correctness" and "tolerance" is fraught with grave intellectual, social, and moral difficulties. Our nation's founders had narrow-mindedness based on the sovereign Word of God. They did not view homosexuality as a healthy alternative and were not tolerant of such things as legalized slaughter of unborn children and proliferation of pornography. We will do well individually and as a nation to the extent that we do likewise, and there will be peace to the extent that we follow Jesus the Prince of Peace.

Annie Bukacek MD