I read Rev. Dennis Schmidt’s column on the Sept. 19 church page with a certain morbid fascination. Rev. Schmidt says my Aug. 21 column &uot;offended&uot; him. I’m sorry for that; the purpose of my column is not to offend. Printed on the opinion page, I use it to share my views with my friends, the readers.

Ordinarily I never talk back to those who disagree with me. That’s their privilege. However, I think out of respect for the newspaper for which we write, we should stick to the truth and realize the necessity of being accurate.

Rev. Schmidt says he &uot;proudly clings to a literal interpretation of Scripture.&uot; I take it then that he takes literally the commandment, &uot;Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.&uot; Because &045; with his column and mine before me as I write this &045; I can only say that if he didn’t break that commandment, he sure in heck bent it considerably.

He starts by saying that I insinuate that it would be &uot;foolish to interpret the Bible literally.&uot; For the record, I think it ill behooves a woman, who needs a committee to help her put a ribbon on her printer, to look down her nose at anyone as foolish.

I not only don’t find those who disagree with me on religion or politics as foolish, but unlike Rev. Schmidt, I’m not offended by them. I think anyone in our pluralistic society finding himself offended by someone who doesn’t share his personal religious conviction runs the risk of being in a perpetual snit.

Rev. Schmidt goes on to say that I brought in &uot;an entire menagerie of historic, political, supposedly scientific and humanitarian points of view to prove her point.&uot; Come, come pastor. You’re the one expressing the pious hope that God will use your column to persuade others to accept your point of view.

I’m neither a preacher nor a teacher, simply an ancient news hen, dedicated to writing what I say with truth and accuracy. That menagerie you speak of was missing from my column entirely. Nor do I feel any compulsion to &uot;prove&uot; my point. I think of my readers as friends and assume that while they may totally disagree with my convictions, they will have respect for my right to them, as I have respect for their right to their convictions.

My Aug. 21 column was not mainly about religion but about politics. The tragedy of the Salem witch hangings was possible because it was the result of Salem’s being in practice, a theocracy. A theocracy broken when the horror of what such a government could bring about, was perceived.

In the last several decades, an attempt has been made to establish a theocracy in this country. Dishonest politicians, the religious right, and some ministers have jumped on the bandwagon. If they have their way, one of the first casualties will be freedom of religion.

(Love Cruikshank is an Albert Lea resident. Her column appears Thursdays.)