Gregory Bateson once wrote; "You cannot not communicate." I would add that unless you are brain dead, you "cannot not think." And yet that seems to be what Hasso Hering is implying that we do in his article, "It's a symbol not compulsion." One cannot look at a cross and not associate this symbol with Christianity.

Depending on one's religious perspective/affiliation - or lack thereof - the cross has both positive and negative symbolism. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of the negative aspects of this symbol, beginning with Emperor Constantine in 312 CE, when he was directed to place this symbol (the cross) on banners and shields of his army ("In hoc signo vinces" meaning "In this sign, you will conquer").

It was on the shields of the crusaders, conquistadors and many of the wars throughout European history. If you are one of many indigenous peoples throughout the world, the cross may represent the loss of one's culture or, at the least, suppression (think Inquisitions) of one's religion.

Be that as it may, Hering misses the point: Does a symbol of one religion belong on public property (the Mojave National Preserve)? Possibly a more appropriate and universal symbol of remembrance (not all who died in World War I were Christians) would be a memorial of boots, rifle and helmet. A possible compromise? At the very least something to think about.

Roger Paul

Corvallis