LETTERS: CROSS COULD BE CONSIDERED A HISTORICAL MARKER

To the editor:

In response to the statement attributed to Annie Louis Gaylor of Freedom From Religion Foundation, I feel the following observations are in order:

This country was founded upon freedom of choice as regards religion. Those desiring freedom from religion are permitted under law to believe as they choose, so long as their beliefs do not pose a danger to security.

While it is true that there exists a separation of church and state, interpretation is not always simple. The cross erected on public land can as well be deemed a historical marker as a religious object. What about the national cemeteries, which are located on public land? Shall a minority of some 3,300 individuals insist that all crosses be removed from the graves of servicemen because crosses are religious emblems which should not be placed on public land? Or must we assign our national shrines to private ownership to comply with the letter of the law as a few see it?

And since cities are part of our lands not entirely owned by individuals, must we change the names of St. Louis, St. Paul, St. Joseph or St. Augustine because saints are associated with religion?

Also, what about such laws as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal." These appear in religious writings. Do we have to repeal these for the benefit of those who wish freedom from religion?

As a veteran of World War II, a long-time educator and as a senior citizen, I have learned to appreciate the precious freedoms we have. However, I also learned that we must constantly oppose intolerance and learn to respect the values of the majority. Perhaps some of those who wish to impose their values upon others would benefit by living for a while under a totalitarian government which does not tolerate beliefs which do not correspond with those of its leaders.

OTTO OHMART

Cape Girardeau