Words everything when debating views

In reference to Neil Jones' June 3 Fence Post, "Kagan radical views danger to marriage," there are several examples of language that will forever divide and put an end to any compromise.

Language can make people of opposing views feel attacked and angry when all there is, is a difference of opinion, not a war. We can't expect others to "hear" us if we use language that is offensive, causing the opposition to become defensive. For example, Mr. Jones says Elena Kagan has "radical, pro-homosexual views." I believe he means she is in favor of gay marriage or civil unions for homosexuals. Those are called equal rights.

Many groups of people have equal rights, but not all. I suppose being "pro-woman" was radical when women didn't have the right to vote, own property or earn equal wages. Mr. Jones has used the word radical simply because Elena Kagan does not hold his same views. Equal rights are not a radical concept. Mr. Jones uses the language "pro-abortion" twice. No one is "for" (or "pro") someone having an abortion. They are for the right of a woman to be able to choose abortion or not.

When a writer uses inflammatory language (pro-abortion) instead of pro-choice, it immediately clouds any points that follow because some readers will have their mind set on defense.

Mr. Jones says "anti-family social engineering will help bring Christian America to its moral knees." America has given way to many religions and to many definitions of family. Christians should not have the power to dictate the definition of morality or the definition of family.

All Americans get to participate in defining the "moral standard" for their country. Hopefully, the moral standard will move toward love, acceptance, tolerance and equality which was lost (for some) in the name of Christianity.

Cheryle Ruceis

Glen Ellyn