From the Chicago Tribune, 1/13/94, Editorial:

                Too much ado about two crosses

    It must be exhausting to be a self-appointed guardian of church-state
separation in this age.  For Rob Sherman of Buffalo Grove, national
spokesperson for American Atheists Inc., life seems to be a constant odyssey in
search of insidious schemes to sneak in a little religion where it doesn't
belong.     
    He has taken on everything from religious symbols on municipal seals, to
street signs pointing the way to churches, to Christmas decorations and
menorahs on municipal property.  Usually, one way or another, he has won, for
if you give a fine reading to the Constitution--and force a court to render on
it--it is clear that government and religion aren't to mix.
    It is, however, hard to believe that this is what the framers of the Bill
of Rights had in mind when they crafted the 1st Amendment.  Properly worried
about the official imposition or intolerance of religion, they made certain
that government could neither establish it nor prohibit its free exercise.
    Sherman is worried these days about two foot-high crosses atop a sign at
Waukegan's 142-year-old, city-owned Oakwood Cemetary.  Most people wouldn't
think twice about seeing a cross at a cemetary, or be offended by it.  But
Sherman has been thinking about it a lot, and sees offense to the Constitution.
    He has taken his cause to the Waukegan City Council, asking that the
crosses be removed forthwith--or he will, of course, sue.  For legal standing,
he is joined by an 18-year-old Waukegan resident, to whom the crosses are "a
violation of personal freedom."
    Most people would rightly wonder exactly what freedom is at stake here,
other than that of an atheist to be nettlesome about an insignificant matter. 
They might wonder if nothing is sacred to this guy, but that is exactly his
point.  More basically, they might wonder why this is worth bothering about.
    Waukegan Mayor Bill Durkin has the proper perspective.  He will investigate
the constitutionality of the issue, and he will not make the mistake of other
communities in spending thousands of dollars and years of litigation fighting a
Sherman crusade.  But he will not roll over easily, or any time soon.
    Sherman probably is right, in a strictly legal sense.  But obsessively
pursuing matters so inconsequential and harmless only serves to trivialize a
bedrock of American democracy.  There truly are times to be vigilant, as the
founders were, about the improper mingling of religion and state.  This is not
one of them.

=============================================================================

Letter to the Editor in response, 1/20/94:

    CHICAGO--What you call in your editorial "Too much ado about two crosses
(Jan. 13)" obsessive pursuit of inconsequential matters, I call the pursuit of
what really matters.
    Christians in this country often see such things as a cross over a public
cemetary, a nativity scene or Christmas tree in public places as rather
mundane, secular symbols of our society in America.  For that minority,
including myself, who is not Christian, such symbols are not inconsequential
nor secular; rather they are painful reminders that no matter what the
Constitution says, we do in fact live in a Christian nation.
    I applaud every effort of Rob Sherman's to separate church from state.

                                                Daniel Kelber
