Elizabeth Hunt, in her column ("American authority needs diverse viewpoints" Fri., Nov. 5), grumbles about the injustice and intolerance still rampant in our nation. I couldn't agree more. We live in America, the beautiful, where everyone has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness (except if you are in your mother's womb), and everyone is treated equally (except if you are a poor white male seeking scholarship money in the engineering department). Justice and tolerance are admirable ideals, truly. I wonder if Hunt means what she thinks she means when she claims we need more tolerance. By "tolerance," does she mean willingness to try to understand people's positions? Surely not, otherwise, she couldn't have been so ignorant as to characterize pro-life views as a question of "men telling women what to do with their bodies." By "diversity," does she mean "welcoming many different views as valid, even if we don't ultimately agree they should be implemented?" Apparently not, otherwise, how could she make the assumption that opposition to gay marriage laws comes down to homophobia, or support for the war in Iraq to fear and bloodthirstiness? As too often when people preach "acceptance" in the interests of national "unity," I suspect what Hunt really means is acceptance of her group's views, and unity in her positions -- all others, of course, being insufficiently "diverse" to be granted expression.