Eradicating Mason symbols is wrong

I think it is sad that a church would feel so threatened by another civic organization -- especially one with such a long history of benevolence as the Masons -- that they would rather remove all evidence of the history of that organization from the building.

My grandfather was a Mason and he wanted my father to be one, too. My mother had the narrow-minded idea that the Masons were somehow anti-Christian and discouraged my dad from following in his father's footsteps. What can I say? She was young.

It is this kind of prejudice that mars most of the history of Christianity. For hundreds of years, Masonic Temples have been places where people of all faiths could gather to do good for humanity. This is the kind of prejudice at the root of holy wars.

As Christians, shouldn't we encourage tolerance, not try to erase all evidence of it from a prominent building? The emblem and cornerstone are important evidence of the history of that building and should not be removed.

Houses in historic districts are not allowed to have clapboard siding removed and replaced with aluminum siding. We say we, as a community, value the architectural heritage, regardless of what a particular homeowner wants. That is what historic districts are for.

How can the city council have this double standard? It seems to me the mayor and the city council love to make rules but only keep them when it suites them. We only have to look at the Channing Y site to see evidence of that. I was gratified to see John Steffen and Mike Powers vote against this, but I was disappointed in Dave Kaptain, not that his vote could have stopped this. Sadly, I didn't expect any different from the rest. Something to think about in the next election.

Jennifer Shroder

Elgin