It's interesting how easily people who have decided they are more tolerant than the rest of us can so myopically excuse themselves from the standards of tolerance they claim to champion. In a letter headed "All religions should stand on the side of love," the author went out of her way to single out and criticize another religious denomination for not endorsing her church's views of morality. When another church continues to adhere to its centuries-old beliefs about God's best for us, it becomes fair game for her criticism -- in the name of love, of course. The author was free to leave her former denomination, but if she is now "standing on the side of love," why does she feel justified in looking down on those who don't endorse her worldview with condescending "sadness"? Isn't she doing exactly what she claims to find so sad about them? Having wrapped herself so tightly in a banner of self-proclaimed tolerance, she can't see that she's still only touting her opinions as superior to those who think differently, and making value judgments about those who don't agree with her. It is her perfect right to do so, but it seems cynical, if not hypocritical, to pretend that she is being any less judgmental than she accuses her former church of being for simply maintaining its own convictions. But then, she clearly must be more loving than they are. Otherwise how could they possibly embrace any other views but hers? David Rockwell Beaufort