Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Save the Wren Cross Blog is dedicated to restoring the Wren Cross to permanent display on the altar table in Wren Chapel at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA. This blog is intended to provide a place for interested students, alumni, and others to post comments as well as to maintain an archive of the opinions of those who seek to restore the cross. It complements the work being done by SavetheWrenCross.org.
No Cross, No Cash!
Alumni Withholding Contributions
Margee Mulhall, '84
Karen Hall, '78 (Fourth Century Club)
Karla K. Bruno, ’81 and ‘92
Elizabeth Gibbons, '71
Eugene R. Thurston,Jr. '66 (Fourth Century Club)
Victor K. Biebighauser '75
Todd Skiles '92 (Bequeath Revoked)
Andrew R. McRoberts, A.B.‘87
Constance Bruce McRoberts, B.B.A.‘88
Susan Prock, '80
Jean Zettler, '73 (Fourth Century Club)
Save the Wren Cross
Good Posts on the Wren Cross Controversy
Wren Cross Video
Best-of-Posts
Wren Chapel Images
Contributors
93 comments:
Editorials always go w/o a byline and are the opinion of the given publication's editorial staff. Unless the person you mention is a writer for the wash times, I don't think he wrote it.
Thanks, will correct.
I am not satisfied with the new arrangement. In effect, Nichol has won. All he’s done is put a glass door on the closet he’s locked the cross in and added a new twist: converting the Wren chapel into a religious artifact museum. Basically, it's a nod affirming the new creed of Political Correctness, which is 100% political, zero% correct, and 1000% BS. It’s one enormous tautology and a monument to circular thinking, the object being to stifle all opposing views by declaring them immoral because, well, they conflict with PC, don’t you see? And PC, as everyone who is anyone knows (especially in academia), is Truth – end of debate …forever. The very existence of even the symbols of opposing views is offensive – except as historical artifacts and/or monuments to the victory of PC over their sad, ignorant past.
Frankly, I am not convinced there ever were any students who felt “offended’ by the cross in the first place. The whole thing is more likely a figment of Nichol’s very active imagination. Since he’s appointed himself as a one-man confidential confessor to all who feel offended and refuses to divulge anything but a few vague details, how will we ever know? Are there any limits to his power over campus traditions, religious symbols or anything else he deems “offensive”? Where is the apology from Nichol for his outrageous behavior? Where is the promise that he will not continue to go about the campus sanitizing other things that offend his politics? Where is the recognition that he displayed incredibly poor judgment in this whole affair? Where is the promise that the next individual or group who can’t accept a cross or other religious symbol (in a chapel, no less) will be offered the tolerance training they so badly need rather than having the rest of us bend over backwards to accommodate their ignorance? Where is the recognition that the previous policy, which allowed removal of the cross upon request during any function at which it was not wanted, already covered the situations Nichol thought so egregious? Until these questions are answered, the College had better invest in a lot of glass cases and bronze plaques – they’ll be needed all over the place.
Thus far President Nichol has been an abysmal failure. Too bad he could not invest as much time, effort and moral capital opposing the “sex worker artist” show as he did raiding the chapel. Every traveling freak show in America will be soon converging on W&M, continuing to devalue its reputation. What’s next? A cannibal’s convention? A Nazi torch light parade in the Sunken Garden? A sado-masochist art show? Had you asked me last summer which I thought was more likely, one of those or our President yanking the cross out of the Wren chapel, I’d would have voted for any of the other three. Sadly, I would have been dead wrong. I think we pretty much know all we need to know about our new President. Personally, I will continue to refuse to donate to the College until this trend towards left-wing hooliganism and idiocy is reversed.
Well said! Nichols has won and he knows it. His "compromise" is false. He is the one who removed the cross and put it in a closet. Now he has placed it in a glass closet and called it a compromise and most (apparently including the folks at "Save the Wren Cross") are too afraid to appear overly contentious and uncompromising. He certainly has a pattern for future projects. Make egregious changes in policy than back track a bit and declare it a compromise.
Hey, has anyone else checked the Open Meeting Laws in Virginia under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. I'm not a lawyer and there have been at least three of those involved in this, but..... The way I read the statute that meeting was illegal and as it was not contained within a posted, open meeting no legal vote could have been taken on any of the "public's business". Go to Commonwealth website and put "Open Meeting Laws" into the web search box and you will get the 8 page doc on "ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEETINGS under the VIRGINIA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT". And, I agree, this most assuredly is not a restoration of the previous policy and we can't allow him to get away with the "nondenominational chapel". He's a lawyer and he knows what he is saying. Let me know if you agree at: delbert.curtis@att.net
Suppose, for argument's sake, we give Nichol the benefit of the doubt. We accept that there truly were some students who were offended, that their motivations were not political and that he did not coach them in any way but instead acted as an impartial judge. We also accept the notion of political correctness as having sway over all College policies. In other words, we buy every bit of his story and his theory of justice. Even if we accept all that, does that mean that we also accept the process used by Nichol? Has PC trumped not only religious tradition but also the democracy itself? Let's face it: Nichol is a nothing more than a government official, and an unelected, appointed one at that. Is that what it has come to: bureaucrats with the power to enforce their will with little or no accountability? Would the Mayor or Sheriff of any small town now be able to go about ripping down Christmas lights on the town green? Would secret Star Chambers appointed by themselves be the only means of review? Would those who feel "offended" go directly to said Mayor/Sheriff, make their complaints anonymously, have their cases reviewed and judged in secret by the same Mayor/Sheriff, and then have the remedies imposed by a declaration by that same person, or his appointed lackeys? I think they have another name for this process, and it's not PC or democracy. This so-called "compromise" does nothing to insure there will not be further outrages. In fact, it establishes a precedent for more such action. Do we really wish to live under an oligarchy, ruled by a High Priest of PC and his secret committee? (Get those glass cases and bronze plaques ready!) The left is applauding now but they may change their minds when THEY are the ones stuffed into a closet in a Museum of Failed Ideas. But maybe not… they say Trotsky was a pretty loyal socialist right up to his unfortunate encounter with the pick ax.
I wish people would let this debate go, but I've got one more comment to make ... the cross was never in a "closet," nor is it now in a glass "closet." The cross was placed in the sacristy, a place for church-related objects. When I worked in the Wren Building, I often had to take things in and out of the sacristy. When I go to my church now, I often help put things away in the sacristy. The one in the Wren Building is smaller, but saying it's a closet is misleading and plays into the incessant hype around this.
The cross was never in a closet and it's now on display. Christians could pray with the cross on display, they could pray without the cross on display ... faith is not based on the presence of a symbol. Stop dragging this issue along and get on with your lives.
Thanks.
Special to Charles E. Fulcher, Jr: Yes, Charles, we Christians can pray without the presence of a cross or any other object. In fact, I prayed in the Wren Chapel this afternoon and for your information I guess administrative orders haven't been issued as the cross was not in the chapel. But, this isn't just about the cross. The policy change for the display of the cross is about the "secular humanist cleansing of America" that has been going on since the early nineteen sixties. The ACLU and those who agree with that organization have been carrying on this battle to remove all references to the Judeo-Christian God from every possible public venue. Are you truly unaware of that or are you part of it? It is also about the so called diversity and inclusiveness that always seems to end up trying to end the freedom of many at the claimed liberation of the few. In the end it will put us all in the chains of tyranny. It's the battle between good and evil that began with the fall of Adam and Eve and it won't end at W&M. It will end at the second coming of Jesus Christ! If you aren't up to the battle then by all means retire to the sidelines.
Dear Charles,
You are not getting it. This debate is aobut freedom of speech. If some Christians want to have their cross when they pray, as has been their practice and the chapel policy, they should have that ability/ Their opinions and ability to express their speech should be respected by you. If some Christians do not need a cross, they can remove it like before. But the fitness of Nichol and his lies, twisted statements and abysmal leadership may still be a debate that rages until he is gone. Like all dictators and liars, he needs to be shown the door.
Vive la Wren and down with tyrants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NL Hartley
;75
So let’s assess the situation. The cross is returned to permanent display in the chapel with an accompanying plaque outlining W&M’s Anglican roots. History and tradition defended at the college. Let’s move on. Right?
Unsurprisingly, the core agitators of the controversy are still complaining. The bombast, hyperbole, and downright silly rhetoric about “Nazi parades,” “tyranny,” “secular-ACLU-latte drinking agendas,” and “star chambers” continues as if nothing has happened and the witch hunt for Pres. Nichol’s head press on.
What’s the crux of this lingering animosity? Two things. 1) A personal vendetta against Nichol for being liberal. 2) The reactionary core of the STWC crowd wants the chapel in the Wren Building to be (or appear to be) an active, Christian place of worship.
Enough of the garbage about how his tenure is a “failure” and that the process for this one decision was undemocratic. None of us that blather on and on in the forum are qualified, or knowledgeable enough in higher ed. administration to say that based on this one decision, he has failed W&M. What about the past presidents who watched state dollars whittled away from the budget and our endowment shrink? Were they failures? Or were they fine because they kept the cross in place?
2) If this were really about honoring the college’s history, then the committee’s decision would be more than acceptable. However, there are still a few here who are miffed, because a cross in a glass case looks more like a piece of history than an active liturgical piece. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that at this public, state-supported, non-denominational university, the extreme few wants (at least in appearance) a Christian place of worship.
Let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment. We all went to W&M for its excellent reputation. We also went to W&M because we could afford it- a private school education at a public school price. Given our unique past (as compared to a purely public land grand school for example), our ties to the British crown and the C of E, we are right to stay tied to history and religion- up to a point. But W&M’s first charge is to be a public institution. It’s time that we accept that.
-A Recent Grad
Personally, I like bombast, hyperbole and silly rhetoric - the sillier the better. Witch hunts? I like those too - real witches are very hard to come by, so inept college Presidents will have to suffice for now. Speaking of witch hunts, was it really necessary for Nichol to point out that one of the "offended" students was Jewish in order to make his point? He kept a lot of the other details to himself. Come on, admit it: he was hoping us "crackers" would go after the Jews for a bit to take the heat off himself, wasn't he?
You make some interesting points and they're fine, as far as they go, which is to just barely scratch the surface. While were at it, let's throw out all our coinage, the one's that say "In God We Trust". Go ahead, look in your pocket. I bet even a blind, Jewish student could feel that on a coin he was given at the College bookstore and be horribly offended.
So you're right and the other 18,000+ of us are out to hang a poor, innocent Prez who was just out doing a little long-overdue chapel cleaning? Let me think for a bit on that.....NOT!
Listen, sonny, I was an atheist back in the day... I know how you're feeling. You aren't expect to believe that; don't care if you do. But submitting to King Nichol is not the answer. You need to re-do this assignment and put some more thought into it. And what's with this constant chorus of "move on"? Did you just leave off the ".org"? (Heaven forbid, YOUR politics are NEVER an issue, are they?) Or isn't "move on" just a nice way of shutting down the debate while you think you're ahead?
This isn't about "history and religion - up to a point". But you're right, it is about honesty. And if you were honest you'd admit this is all about POLITICS, with everything else mere bombast, hyperbole and blather. Nichol wants his POLITICAL view to prevail, zero opposition and the rest of us to just shut the hell up. Kind of like you, but you say it sooooooo much nicer!
The sarcasm and personal attacks in your message say a lot about your motivations. Your anger and condescension towards the president and anyone who feels this debate has run its course, its clear that this never was about the cross, history and tradition at the college, but about your disdain for Nichol.
For almost all the 18,000 people that signed that petition, they did so because they disagreed with the policy decision. They were motivated to sign that petition with the best interests of the college in mind. Only the hardcore few like you, want retribution, want to see Nichol and the college suffer.
The immaturity exhibited by folks like you- calling Nichol and anyone who disagrees with you atheists, socialists, moveon.org members (and insinuating that Nichol is somehow blaming this situation on Jewish people!!)- the list goes on, is in stark contrast with the relative calm on campus. The lack of uproar on campus proved that students understand the complexities of religion’s role at a public institution and weren’t willing to exploit this situation to make ridiculous political points. They certainly aren’t Godless and apathetic youths, rather they are passionate about academics and philanthropy (you should stop by sometime and see). In fact, God is referred to many times at campus events, such as Baccalaureate, Yule Log, and Charter Day, which the campus and the administration embrace wholeheartedly.
So I think you would be doing the situation and the college justice by dropping this charade. While you certainly are older than students and recent alums like me, your behavior, words in this forum are proof that age doesn’t necessarily bring wisdom.
A Recent Grad
You're finally beginning to see my point: this is POLITICS, nothing else. (Perhaps I was a bit too obtuse.) Politics is a nasty, dirty business, complete with sarcasm, exaggeration and rough, sweaty polemic. Nichol can be a politician or a college President - but not both. He can be an ACLU lawyer or he can put that aside during his tenure. Instead, he wants to engage in politics, then retreat back into academia when the rough & tumble starts. My motivations are purely POLITICAL. No need for you to wonder about that: I admit it. So are Nichol's, he just wants to hide behind his Presidency when it's convenient.
I do resent his mentioning the prospective Jewish student. I ask again: What has that got to do with his argument? He could have kept that fact to himself, as he did many other details, which is what makes me doubt his overall story. What Jewish person is unaware of Judaism’s sad history with regard to state interference in religion? Asking a mid-level government bureaucrat to remove religious symbols from a place of worship is not usually part of Jewish tradition. On the other hand, ACLU lawyers and politicians using people as red herrings is very, very common.
I am using this opportunity to make POLITICAL hay. Nichols was doing the same thing. Now, $12,000,000 bucks wiser, presto-change-o, he’s a President again! (Until the next opportunity presents itself.) I happen to think it’d be worth $12,000,000 to keep him out of politics. The College can afford that more than it can afford his two-faced behavior. You see me clearly - no argument there. If that is what you mean by dropping the charade, consider it dropped. I apologize if my political motives were not made obvious early on. Spin me around – yep, politics on that side of my face too - you were spot-on! But as to Nichols, you're totally blind to his motives, methods and cynicism.
I happen to think that politics is important. I like a good political debate. And I particularly want to see the office of President of William and Mary kept out of it. I think that's important too. (You’ll think so too if a right-of-center candidate ever occupies the office and begins HIS political cleansing campaign.) Again, I did not start this fight, nor did any of the others opposing Nichol. I think you can grant me that one point. But I’m not going to run from it because his now donned his magic academic robe of temporary invisibility. He didn’t cry “uncle”, he cried "President!". Not good enough.
PS – “sonny” was a bit too rough & tumble – change the two “n’s” to “r’s”.
This whole thing started with Pres. Nichol taking action out of the light of day with stealthy actions on his own. He is totally responsible for what has ensued. Now they hope to lay it all aside with a decision reached in a secret meeting by the committee that he hand selected.
There is definitely something rotten when the "publics business" is taken out of the eye of the "public". And, that is not something new that I made up. That is recorded throughout history. Jesus was tried in a kangaroo court in the middle of the night, contrary to the rules of the Sanhedrin itself. They couldn't even convict him on their own trumped up charges and had to get the Romans to give him up as a sacrificial lamb (wow, just as had been prophesied over 400 years before).
Now we are supposed to accept the second compromise -- NOT! I won't accept being beaten in small stages -- being eaten to death by a duck isn't the way I plan to go and I don't hide behind anonymous either.
These comments are very important to this issue - religion in America.... I decided to work with this blog because I see the situation at the College of William and Mary as crucial with regard to keeping our "freedom" of religion. Thomas Jefferson did not say to remove the mention and icons of religion from the public square and from public discourse. He was concerned that followers of one religion not be taxed to support a "state-sponsored" religion.
I am involved with an international group - Center for Vigilant Freedon. Our goal - defend against the take-over of the West by radical Islam - be vigilant against the workings of Islamists to develope a "curtain" of protected status for Islam within Western Culture.
The Save the Wren Cross people have provided and will continue to provide a forum for increasing public awareness of the forces aligned against "Christianity" in America today. Why are these forces aligned against "Christianity"? Because Christians have "something" that gives them strength and fortitude. Amazingly, this something is intangible.
I am proud of the work the students, faculty, alumni, and other concerned citizens have given to an extremely important issue. It is, in retrospect, rather heartening that this war against Christianty had the first shot of defense sounded at the Alma Mater of a Nation.
Further, the BOV has a choice to make at the time of Nichol's contract ending. How they deal with him will speak volumns about them. To save face and all that, he will certainly complete this first contract. His duplicitous tactics regarding the Wren Cross demonstrate who and what he is at his core.
I am reminded that no man-made laws are permanent, all subject to change - he, like all of us, will pass on to other jobs, to other experiences. Nichol will not remain at The College of William and Mary forever.
The Save the Wren Cross group may very well last for a very long time - to be vigilant, to bring issues to light. The age-ranges of folks with STWC.org include many current students as well as graduates from decades ago. It has staying power and Nichol has proved, beyond anything else, the clear and present danger his agenda is as well as the fact that STWC.org's time for creation had come. That the group came together across the planet from Thailand to tiny towns is astonishing and laudable.
I keep in mind that the Nichol edict can be erased, his "compromise" rescended, and the previous policy re-affirmed upon his departure with the stroke of a pen. And we can be grateful that he has brought so many of us together. STWC.org took the bull by the horns and amassed a network that never would have come about had Nichol not been so determined to make his mark and undermine a fine institution. As students and graduates of W&M - we all have that to bind us together which ever side of this debate we find ourselves on. As a group we will far outlive Nichol's tenure - a tiny blip on a radar.
The STWC.org folks just said, "Enough is enough!" Here's our line in the sand - the Wren Chapel.
Had Nichol been genuine, he would had addressed this "PC issue" in a much different way. This is a battle he brought upon himself. He did not figure that many current students, faculty, and alumni as well as concerned citizens would stand up to his tyranny. The College of William and Mary is a "liberal arts" college, not a "far-left college."
Take a look at G.K. Chesterton's words again.
Hear! Hear! Beach Girl, well said. To borrow from the title of a new book: "No Retreat; No Surrender!"
In defense of the Cross of Christ,
Del Curtis
I am also reminded that the Cross of Christ was planted on this land. I am convinced that Christianity and only Christianity in America has displayed tolerance and respect for other religions.
Secular progressives or secular humanists replace God and religion with the national government as "god" and demand that the people, all the people, look to the secular "god" who givith and who taketh away, hard earned money from the middle class to distribute to the non-working and to the indigent; now that has been expanded to include the illegals.
The point for me is that Christians open their hearts and give their resources to the needy through their churches.
What you all have done through STWR.org stands tall and has established a methodology for others to defend their heritage and traditions which really belong to us all. For one to be offended at finding a cross behind the altar in a Christian Chapel speaks volumns about that person's intolerance when that small cross should be seen for what it is - the Cross of Christ and the cross that symbolizes the greater, inner strength of the people who founded this nation, here I am also including the Spanish priests who spread the Word of God throughout the West. [All of the Pueblos that I visited had a Catholic Church where Christianity was practiced as the American Indian heritage and traditions were practiced side-by-side.]
Personally, I do not consider GN's "compromise" acceptable - the Wren Cross is not simply an artifact to be housed under glass but as I said Presidents come and go, and edicts are overturned all of the time. He's only a blip on the radar. He initiated the controversy. I can only imagine how much damage he has done other places.
Regardless what little tiffs we William and Mary grads may have among ourselves (within our "family", we are all brothers and sisters - we are all in our family regardless of our respective religions all across the board, we respect each other and share more in common with each other than the limitations included under the PC guise of "diversity". It is our diversity of ideas and our ability to speak freely with each other about this diverse ideas that surpass any "diversity" defined by skin hue, by gender, or by ethnicity.
You have raised awareness of the tyranny we face in many parts of our lives today as Americans. Raising our awareness in this particular venue helps us in our ability to recognize a myriad of attacks upon our laws, our traditions, and our way of life.
Raising our awareness and placing us on guard of the methodologies arrayed against us is a laudable accomplishment. I know that was not the goal but that has certainly been one residual effect.
God bless the College of William and Mary and all who enter there to walk those brick walkways, to study, to sit up all night in dorms solving the world's problems, and to become W&M grads, graduates from the Alma Mater of a Nation.
Are the people whom support returning the Wren Cross opposed to the introduction of other religious icons, like a Buddist statue?
I am sorry I didn't catch the mis-spelling I clearly meant Buddhist
If a student Buddhist organization reserves the chapel for a religious function and requests that the Millington Cross be removed and then places on the altar table normal icons or objects used in their worship that is within the former working policy. At the completion of their use the chapel should be restored to its consecrated state -- with the Millington Cross on the altar table as is within the former working policy that was summarily changed.
Nowhere in either the Old or New Testament are Jews or Christians to be hostile towards others. We are taught that hospitality is a gift that should be exercised to the most generous degree.
Wren Chapel is a consecrated Christian space -- no matter how many times it is identified in some other way -- that "truth" does not change!
In the defense of the Cross of Christ and for the love of Almighty God, I remain steadfast for the restoration of the former policy that was working except for those ultra-sensitive people that find the cross offensive, threatening, or that it calls their guilt too much to the fore.
I am asking what if the Buddhist icon was on permanant display, like the Millington Cross is currently.
Anonymous? That question was asked and answered. What part of "NO" don't you understand?
Del Curtis: So what you are saying is that the Wren Chapel, a chapel at a public university, should support Christianity and only Christianity? If this is the case, what makes your religion "right?" If you say that the the chapel should be Christian, due to history, I ask why? Because it was consecrated? By who? A priest of some sort? I'm not 100% sure (because I wasn't there) but the priest was human and the last time I checked, your religion teaches that humans are inherently flawed due to original sin. So why is the chapel "consecrated?" What if you are wrong? I am not opposed to the cross be in a prominent location in the chapel, I am opposed to a public university giving more respect to one religion than another. There is no proof that Christianity is absolutely right, there is also no proof that Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion is absolutely right. Based on your logic about exclusion, Jim Crow laws should still be valid. You say: "Nowhere in either the Old or New Testament are Jews or Christians to be hostile towards others. We are taught that hospitality is a gift that should be exercised to the most generous degree." Then be hospitable and allow other people their their religions freedom in their chapel as well.
I am not, nor could I compel you to believe anything -- likewise an 18" brass cross can't compel you to believe anything nor can it show favoritism to anyone individual or group.
I am basing my belief that the chapel was consecrated as the liturgical religions do have rites for such a setting aside of space to the devotion of God. The Episcopalian church has such a rite and ther are very consistent in their liturgical ceremonies.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or amendments, nor in the Virginia statutes that prohibit a chapel for a specific religion or denomination on the campus of a public university or any other government property or public space. Such prohibitions only exist in the minds of those who since the early 1960's have set about to wipe God and Christianity from every possible building or property of any kind.
I have no inclination to take the Jim Crow red herring. I will stick to the discussion at hand. Why a person that is chronologically old enough to attend college is so emotionally or psychologically immature to be surprised and offended to find a cross in a chapel.
By the way -- can't you find something more creative to replace "Anonymous". But then Publius is already taken by men of character and integrity.
You are correct about an 18'' not being able to compel anyone to believe, but you are wrong about it's ability to show favoritism. It shows favoritism.
Oh, and I would personally like to thank you for brining in age. If a person "chronologically old enough to attend college is so emotionally or psychologically immature to be surprised and offended to find a cross in a chapel," then you should be chronologically old enough to not be offended by its removal. (That was way too easy.)
Dear Brian,
You are so uninsightful.
Nichol's whole program is for favoritism. Are you blind? Take a clear view of the chapel study. If Harvard, Yale, Rutgers, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and Princeton can display their crosses, most much larger than 18" and achieve substantial greater diversity, then the problem lies with Nichol's personal problems. Nichol is like a flawed figure bent on self destruction. He is unable to escape his blue collar upbringing. His angst should not be foisted on the College.
Publius,
A Woman and the researcher on the chapel study.
Publius:
1) Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth and Princeton are ALL private universities. As far as I am concerned, they can do whatever they want. So next time I suggest you open your eyes.
2) If they were public (as Rutgers and William and Mary are), I would also argue against the cross being the only religious symbol in their chapel for reasons which have already been stated.
I have a couple of questions back to you as well:
Who are the people that Nichol is showing favoritism to? I can very easily describe the group of people whom are being showed favoritism by the cross being there.
Also, what problem lies with Nichol's personal problems (I am very confused about the vagueness on this statement)?
Finally, what is wrong with a blue collar upbringing?
Brian,
There are many "public" schools with crosses, you may not pick and choose for your obviously blind convenience. There is no adjudicated reason to remove crosses from chapels on public lands or at public universities. The display of the cross in these schools does not exhibit favoritism, you have been brainwashed. William & Mary is the place of the oldest existing chapel in America and it is STILL is a consecrated chapel. It is only people of limited insight and no vision who are so anal to wish removal of the cross.
Nichol demonstrates favoritism by targeting groups as his excuse of a specious handful of potentially non-existent complaints. For the sake of a favored handful 18,000 opposing voices have been ignored. Now that is favoritism!!
As to Nichol's maladjusted upbringing, there is nothing wrong with any class or upbringing including blue collar, unless you develop complexes like Nichol where he cannot escape the trauma of his youth and imprints his malaise on others. His pattern of self destructive tendancies are underminig the financial health of the college.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Publius
Hi Publius,
Thanks for your wisdom and support of the Millington Cross. When I referred to Publius I was not aware of your participation in the blogs. I have only been following the blogs on the last couple of items. I was referring to three of your compartiots -- Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
In defense of the Cross of Christ and against all foes, I salute your closing,
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Del Curtis,
Read the author of the chapel research. As to the closing, it is the Commonwealth of Virginia Motto.
Virginia needs to protect her state and schools against outsiders! As Hamilton was a financial guy who wrote with this name, I take it in honor of those who have come before.
Publius
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Publius:
I am sick and tired of your generic claims about public universities with crosses. If there are so many give me a list. I am not picking by "obviously blind convenience." This is not the point. As I said before, I don't care how many public universities have crosses in their chapels. I am against any chapel (in a public university) where the cross is the only religious icon displayed. And once again if you want to see what I think of CONSECRATED places read the post that I submitted at 3:52 yesterday.
President Nichol is not showing favoritism to the few people that had the guts to stand up and say something, he is supporting the right of the millions and millions of people that they represent.
Once again you are being generic about President Nichol's upbringing. Give specifics. If you don't, I assume that you don't have any.
As far as financial health of the college goes, I am looking forward to the day when people who support President Nichol and the removal of the cross out bid the people who support the cross's return. This will happen, I just hope it happens soon. My only question is if these people will care so little about the welfare of the College and her students that they will withhold their donations.
When you say: "Virginia needs to protect her state and schools against outsiders!" it makes me think that you really are the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, all you have to go is go back approximately 67 years and replace "Virginia" with "Germany."
Dear Brian,
If you need a list of the Public Schools who have chapels that display crosses it is carefully outlined in the link below since January 2007:
http://www.savethewrencross.org/survey.php
This is all the facts that exist. You, on the other hand have an empty barrel.
President Nichol's issues are a matter of public record, the facts of which I choose not share, since this is too limited a forum. That does not negate their existence, but rather it is pages of problems at every location he has ever worked.
The financial health of the college is in great jeopardy, not only due to retracted alumni donations but also due to Nichol's neglect and embroilment in this obscure tangential issue draining our resources. Students are indeed selecting to attend elsewhere, but not for the sake of the cross, but due to our inferior job and grad school placement. Top diverse students are prudent shoppers. They select more bang for their buck. The Nichol contrived controversies of the cross and the sex show has placed our school as a laughing stock.
As to protecting VA from outsiders, Nichol is a misfit. He is the outside agitator. Without Nichol, in the law school but for sense, these issues would not have arisen or would our resources been wasted. True issues rise through normal process of protest, not through the orchestrated manipulations of a tyrant. I am not the one censoring, rather it is Nichol. I believe in the absolute freedom of speech , but also oppose bad leadership and tyrants. It would appear that your are fast to name call, shout and label, but slow to analyze.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Publius
Publius:
Maybe you don't know how to read. Again and for the last time, I don't care about private universities, like most of the universities on your biased list. Also again and for the last time, no matter how many (or I should probably say few) public universities you choose to show me, I am against the existence of a cross in all of their chapels(if they even have a chapel, which many of them don't).
Next, again and for the last time (I notice a theme), give me actual documented facts or throw your computer away.
If this is such a "obscure tangential issue" then why would people retract their donations?
If you want to talk about rankings and value please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_William_and_Mary
William and Mary is still one of the top universities.
I'm not sure how college was went you went to school, but now it is a time to open one's own mind, learn new and different ideas, and form one's own logical conclusions. This path is the one that the sex show and the Wren cross issue encourage the students to follow. It is the kind of critical thinking that makes W&M students valuable employees and CEOs.
You are the one that wants to censor others, you want to censor their religious right. President Nichol received complaints and did something about it. I respect that. He is not a tyrant, a person who is a tyrant would have closed their eyes and ears to questions raised. President Nichol did the opposite of this, not once but twice. Once for the students who wanted the cross removed, and once again for the people whom wanted the cross returned. On the other hand, you seem to like to ignore the will of the students of the college, kind of like Hitler would. Wow thats funny.
Brian,
You are now a non-entity. Open and honest discourse can only be carried on by civil people. You are hereby shunned.
Good bye!
Del:
Out of come-backs already? Aww I am hereby disappointed. I think I might understand your mindset: Since I disagree with you, I am not a civil person.
Brian
Shunning? You couldn't come up with anything better than shunning me? Well it looks like I "mis-underestimated" you.
Brian,
I have provided you with actual documented facts. I cannot assist with your unsubstantiated opinion. The list is not biased. The College of William & Mary is grouped by others, for historic reasons and academic reasons into four groups, including the Top Tier State Universities, by US News and World Report America's Best Colleges 2007, and studied for purpose of a chapel and the display of a cross. the groupings are at the link. This study was provided to Nichol, the Board of Visitors and Save the Wren Cross equally in Jaunary. STWC chose to post it. That does not equate it to bias. Please rethink your logic, or lack thereof.
Now that I have provided you with factual evidence, for the third time (I recommend that you read the entire study and spreadsheets before winging it again) how is it that you insist on that which is provided (factual data), but you provide nothing but intolerant opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...
As to the alleged "complaints" received by Nichol, they seem to reside in the realm of "friends" and fiction.
As to my desire to censor, that is blatently untrue. I support free speech, but not to the extent that it crosses over into criminal conduct or just plain bad taste.
While you are entitled to your unsupported intolerant opinion, I support the right of those who want the cross displayed. They are offended. Their do not possess some diminished right to freedom of speech or lesser claim for mutual tolerance and respect. Somehow you seem intolerant of their rights.
As to the factual reasons students and parents select other schools it goes back to graduate school placement and job placement for those who are business minded. William & Mary needs to improve their financial resources, respect level from other schools, and with greater financial resources then improve faculty resources and student resources. The cross absence will not change the root cause problems with the college. Nichol is using the school for his own pet purpose to the detraction of his core duty which is to act in the best interest of the school. He is damaging the school just like he has done previously in his career. Perform your own research.
As to your previous reference to Hitler, you might do well to perform a bit of research and you might discover that according to Goebbels, Hitler was anti-Christian. I will let you draw the parallel, if you can stretch that far.
Publius
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Dear Brian,
I am very curious as to why you continue to request facts from Publius, but you only provide ranting opinion. I respect your right to youtr opinion and your right to state it, but how can yu continue ti ignore facts? How can you continue to request something you have never provided yourself? You then digress into comparing statements to Hitler, who also persecuted Christians and Jews? You level accusations at other members unsubstantiated.
If people have withdrawn their donations it is clear that they oppose Nichol. Many oppose his tyrannical manipulations, others his lack of leadership and still others the sex show and then there is the Wren Chapel and the cross. So many reasons, just after a mere 18 month tenure in his position. So where are the millions of dollars in support of his tangential digression?
Critical independent thinking was taught when I attended The College of William & Mary. It appears that you have not been the recipient of that.
NL Hartley
'75
Brian,
It is interesting that you appear to hold your self to a lower standard that that of Publius. Publius has provided you with facts and sources for facts. You have merely provided opinion.
Perhaps you should rethink your credibility.
One should adhere to the same standard that one holds for another.
As to Nichol he never opened his ears to the 18,000 voices of opposition. He has to be coerced.
K Hunt
'85
Del Curtis,
Please do not be put off by other members like Brian.
NL Hartley
'75
I would personally like to know whose faith would really be shaken by the refusal of a state university to validate a religious symbol that has been on display for 1/5th of the school's existence. I doubt the "donors" who have come out of the woodwork to announce their displeasure knew the thing was there in the first place. The crocodile tears shed over this whole incident give the previous 'silent majority' the excuse to whine and complain about how they, the 90% of this country who describe themselves as "Christian" (nevermind the >40% that go to church regularly), are being oppressed by the dreaded "minorities."
So yes, the school made an effort to be religiously neutral so that students whose backgrounds are in that other 10% might feel more comfortable. That they might be able to learn in an environment where they would not be judged on their personal beliefs or indoctrinated into a religious system so that they could 'fit in.' We can't have that, can we.
Dear Anonymous,
I am uncertain where you have derived your claims. Certainly your opinion should be backed with substantive support. It is always dangerous to engage in the posturing of pre-conceived categorization of others. The need to box up people into types as if they were breakfast cereal is unfathomable. Does that mean that you self censor and shut your ears to diversity depending your preliminary categorization as to whether they are Rice Crispies or Wheaties or Frosted Flakes?
Don
Publius:
If you look at how I began I asked if the people who support the return of the Wren cross would be against the introduction of a Buddhist Icon to the Wren Chapel. And from what I can tell many, many people on this site are against it. I have never said that the cross should be removed, what I am actually advocating is that the cross should not be the only religious icon in the chapel.
What if one of the public universities (on the list), lets say Michigan for the sake of argument, built a chapel and displayed only a statue of the Hindu god Brahma? Would you be opposed to this? My guess is that you probably would be. Why? Because it is not inviting to people of all faiths as a public university should be, or my opinion is that it should be.
As far as my Hitler comment goes apparently you cannot stretch that far. I did not say that you were like Hitler in your beliefs, I meant that you are like Hitler in your intolerance.
As far as the complaints go, all of them are not fabricated by President Nichol, that I can assure you. You are speaking to one of the people who complained.
For those of you who say that President Nichol did not listen to the complaints of the people who signed the petition for the return of the cross, the cross is back in the chapel. This is what you wanted. That means that he did indeed listen to your opinion.
For those people who say that I insist that I don't look at the facts: I did look at the facts, but these are historical facts. Are there public universities who have crosses in the chapels? Yes, I do not disagree with this fact. My point is the question: should the crosses be there? Or an even less vague question: should the crosses be the only religious icon there? If we only looked at historical facts and didn't think for ourselves the world would be much less intelligent. Atoms would not exist, the earth would be flat, the sun and every other planet would revolve around the earth, and Adam and Eve would have ridden dinosaurs to church. We can place ourselves in 19th century in America when African Americans were not allowed in certain public places. This is a fact similar to the one that Rutgers has a cross in its chapel. Based on these historical facts, I can only believe that you would argue that the people who banned them from these places were right in doing so.
We as intelligent people should take facts and form logical and sometimes new conclusions based on these facts. This is what I do for a living and what I expect my students to do. Oh yes and Publius, William and Mary is still respected by many other institutions, although sometimes I doubt why. For every student, who can look at data and form their own educated opinion, there is one who cannot make that transition to the next level. Why do you argue that the cross should be the only religious icon in the Wren Chapel? I believe what I do, because I don't believe that William and Mary, or any public university, should support exclusively Christianity. I don't believe that a public university should support any religion exclusively. I instead argue that public universities should support EVERY religion equally. I am support President Nichol's decision to have a plaque accompany the cross. This plaque gives the historical reason why the cross is there. The cross becomes a historical artifact to the general public, rather than a religious idol. Thus it removes the support that was once exclusively given to Christianity.
nl hartley '75,
Don't worry, I have not been put off, but over forty years ago in the early days of this battle for America I decided that sometimes I choose to "meet a bear robbed of her cubs".
I have pledged my Life, my Fortune, and my sacred Honor to a restoration of God's sovereingty over our still great nation, on "... a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence ...".
Brian's passion aside, I feel the supporters of the Wren Cross have been too quick to dismiss the arguments of those who are not in favor of its permanent display. In some countries a cross removal would be a dramatic blow to a small Christian community, the notion that a Christian group would have to make a request for the cross to be displayed is hardly a threat to the spiritual community. I do not support the cross display because I do not believe the government or any of its institutions has any business showing preference to any religious symbol. The College's Christian heritage is uniquely Anglican, and its Anglican traditions should be considered to have ended upon the death of Reverend Adam Empie, the last clergyman President of the College. To try and reinstate the College's religious preference (in the guise of "tradition", though the cross in question has only been sitting there for sixty years) is dubious, because the cross is not distinctly Anglican. To install a cross inscribed with a prayer proclaiming the supremacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury would anger Baptists, Quakers, and the like, so the State is best off remaining secular, without permanent religious symbols in non-denominational Chapels, classrooms, and restrooms. I suggest everyone take a look at Thomas Jefferson's Statute on Religious Freedom.
Dear Brian,
I find your supposition that I am intolerant the very core of intolerance. You assume that I would be against the display of other religious objects. Why the need to make huge generalities. Are you not secure in yur narrow belief?
So you are one complainant. You wish the cross to be reduced to an historical object. You are merely one intolerant person. Weigh that against the voices of 18,000. Data does not support your opinion. There is not one chapel in any college or university studied that has reduced their cross to an historical object. I have worshiped in Hawaiian religious sites, Buddhist temples various denominations of Christian churches, stone circles in Scotland and Jewish temples and managed to find a path to worship.
If I were to visit a university who displayed another sort of religious symbol, I would respect their right to such a display. It would not make me feel unwelcome. When I was to be married I visited Rutgers Chapel with a view toward selecting it for the ceremony. I elected not to be married in Rutgers, because their interior decor did not suit my taste. The chapel is decorated in red walls with black trim and pictures of deans hang on the walls. I did not insult the school administrator by objecting to the decor.
You mentioned that you oppose all consecrated college chapels. I can then question as to whether your standards would prohibit you from attending many of the top schools in this country. As to your ability to receive a degree from Brown, whose seal is the cross of St. George and imprinted on each and every diploma, you would be potentially adverse. Harvard and Princeton have Christian words on their seals, again imprinted on all diplomas. While I do feel badly that you were offended by the display of the cross, it is your self admitted biased view that you are seeking to impose on others, just like Nichol. As to Nichol listening to the 18,000, I recommend that you speak to others on campus and determine if Nichol listened or was he compelled by others?
Think of your legacy, as an intolerant complainer. I see nowhere where all signers of the STWC oppose the sharing of the space. Why do you feel the need to make sweeping generalities?
As to your Hitler comment, it is base and offensive. Do you frequently run around comparing people to Hitler when they do not agree with your narrow, minority opinion? How kind of you to victimize those with whom you disagree.
By the way, I recommended the sharing of the space with other religious symbols, if that was a solution that was supported by the MAJORITY, seen as a reasonable solution and found through democratic process.
Publius
Brian,
It is often said that reasonable argument ends and irrational ranting begins when one starts screaming Nazi and Hitler. Perhaps some some introspective honest thought on your part might enlighten you into a higher level of tolerance.
Still the alleged "complaints" received by Nichol, they seem to reside in the realm of "friends" and fiction. You have not the courage of your convictions, if you really are one of those fictitious persons who are alleged to have complained. A first name is still in the realm of non-existence.
NL Hartley
'75
Why stop there, nl hartley '75? Best to get his address, phone number, SS#, etc.
These are irrelevant. You are simply goading.
Why no name for you either? It is most certainly relevant. Otherwise with facts the complaints are in the ethereal realm of fiction. For that matter so are your comments without your full name.
NL Hartley
Correction
Why no name for you either? It is most certainly relevant. Otherwise without facts the complaints are in the ethereal realm of fiction. For that matter so are your comments without your full name.
I suppose I would like my arguments to be considered on their merits alone. I prefer my anonymity, lest you deem it your sacred Honor to restore God's sovereignty over me through intimidation tactics.
I've posted here before, always anonymously because don't care to get crank calls, hate mail, etc. I assume others may share this concern. Whatever the reason, it's an option provided on this blog so I assume it's acceptable. If not, change the rules.
I understand the reasons given for removing the cross but they do not make sense because the method used to accomplish this goal is deeply flawed and fraught with potential for abuse. Are we now going to march across campus looking for religious symbols of all sorts and remove them? If so, who shall lead this mob, Nichol himself? Will he be given some sort of police powers or temporary ability to rule by decree until this "crisis" is over? Another blogger has pointed out the thousands and thousands of ways religious symbols are interwoven into our society and academia. If their removal is such a noble goal, shouldn't this be a full-time pursuit?
Even if you accept the arguments of the people wishing the cross removed there are important unaswered questions about the process and any future incidents: Is this now a precedent? What limits (if any) are there to this new religious power of the President's office? Who shall decide which symbols will go and which will stay? Will the Religion Committee now be in permanent session to make these rulings? Is there any appeals process? Will anonymous complaints made in secret to the President continue to suffice? Will any future expunging be reported to the alumni in a more timely manner? I'm sure there are many questions I haven't been able to think of. Generally, there are many pitfalls to allowing any one person or small group of persons, especially unelected ones, such power.
I don't think much thought has gone into the authoritarianism displayed by Nichol's behavior. It's hard to believe that today's students are willing to give one man so much power with so little thought to the implications for the future.
Publius:
Am I wrong saying that you would be against the introduction of other religious icons? Please tell me if I am. The fact is that you never tell me that I am wrong about this statement. As for the data being against my opinion, I told you that you must analyze the data. See my comments about 19th century America.
If you can worship in all of these different places, why can't you worship in the Wren Chapel without a cross?
If you would not be offended by walking into another public university and seeing a different religion's icon, I am tempted to call to a liar. But I won't. Instead I can only say the you are a bigger person than most people including some of the people on this blog, i.e. del curtis, and myself. You give an example of when you weren't offended by the decor of Rutgers' chapel. If you say that the religious icons in a chapel are simply part of the decor, that is your opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. I personally value any religious icon (be it a Cross, a Buddha statue, or a Menorah) more than the color of a wall.
Once again you give facts about Christian influences in the seals of private schools. I have been there, done that. My goal of posting my comments on this site is not to impose my opinion, but rather to show some of the people on this site what one person on the other side believes and why I believe it. I have never said that it is a fact that cross should be removed; I said that I believe that the cross should be removed, and gave reasons why.
I have told you why I compared you to Hitler and I don’t believe based on what you said my comparison was completely unfounded.
nl hartly ’75: What is your first name? How do I know that you really graduated in ‘75? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? What is your SSN? I can’t trace your IP address, because this blogger site does not allow it. Even if they did any 15 year old with half a mind can float an IP. (Just to be explicit I don’t want you to answer any of the above questions) Anonymous at 3:16 really said it all.
Dear Anonymous at 6:11:
You raise some very valid points. I personally believe that President Nichol should have done some more research before removing the cross. I hope that his decision to remove the cross was more of a “knee-jerk reaction.” I truly do fear the ability to impose his will without repercussions. This is the same fear that I have with the Presidency of the United States with their ability to put troops into foreign countries without the approval of congress. The constitution was written to avoid this, but as long as the President doesn’t declare war, he can deploy troops where he wants (I am not only criticizing the Bushes I am also criticizing the presidents to sent troops into Korea, Vietnam, ect.) . Clearly, in this instance, there were repercussions.
That being said, I agree with the decision to remove the cross, even though I don’t agree the lack of research done before the removal. I am on this site spreading my opinions and the reasons, for them because of the first fact.
Brian,
You have only opinion and nothing else. Not even a valid identity. So how dare you continue to request items and information from anyone when you do not provide factual support for your opinions. You engage in name calling, unsupported personal attacks and negative characterizations. Again I will state that the end of reason in any discussion starts with comparisons to Hitler and Nazis. Usually provided by those who hove no core substantive ability to argue or possess any substantive reasons.
As to your comments to Publius, I strongly recommend that you re-read the last post by Publius. It is quite clear on the topic of Publius's position on religious symbols.
You on the other hand are inconsistent in your emotional views. You provide no facts, are unwilling to use your name and hold others to a higher standard than you hold your self, always a selfish and dangerous precipice.
It is Publius's point that you do not respect others, but only want to impose your obscure minority opinion on others. That is similar to Nichol and if you can wrap your brain around this, to other tyrants.
It is sad day if you are a student at the College of William & Mary and being instructed so poorly.
NL Hartley '75
Brian,
You may find my more specific opinions on Nichol and the issues in the opinion article published in the Virginia Gazette, written by me, published as a Valentine to Nichol on February 14, 2007.
NL Hartley '75
NYC
nl hartly '75: The sad day occurred when you say that you graduated form William and Mary, without being able to read. Publius doesn't state explicitly that she supports the introduction of other religious to the chapel. If she does I will gain even more respect for her.
You want facts: Christian people consist of only 33% of the world. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
You sure do have a majority don't you? Last time that I checked a majority is 50%.
I am not only a student of The College, I am also an instructor, I mention that a while back, oh wait you don't know to read. Comment withdrawn
I am done with you, because you have nothing but the same facts which I have already refuted.
Publius: I would still like to hear your response to my previous post.
Note to self: No longer give credit to the Virginia Gazette.
Brian,
If you are instructor and one of those who complained, then it is indeed a sad day for the college. I hope that you are un-tenured. Publius clearly states that Publius recommended the sharing of the space with other religious symbols. That is very clear English. As to your extreme emotional attacks, they are unworthy of response. You are nameless, and there fore holding others to standards which you yourself cannot possibly meet.
I do not believe that you are really an instructor at the college. An if you are, so much the worse for the students.
Personally, I do not believe that Publius needs to respond to your irrational diatribe worthy of response.
NL Hartley
'75
NYC
you are as nameless as I am, which I have already proved.
Brian,
You have not proven one item or fact in any of your irrational ramblings.
NL Hartley
;75
NYC
You clearly know nothing about computers.
Brian,
How is it you are so intolerant, illiterate and disrespectful?
there is no way that you are a W&M instructor!!! LOL You are like a box of Rice Krispies, all snap crackle and pop with a lot of air!
Don
Guys,
Do you know how easy it is to float an IP address?
Second, I am a William and Mary instructor, and no, I will not say what department I am with due to reasons explained above.
How do I know that the two of you are not the same person? Frankly I don't for proof see the next entry.
its Brian again
Insert fake name here
Don: Please don't take offense I was simply proving a point. I do believe that you are a real person.
one brian of eleven - i wonder how the other ten feel about you having people think maybe the brian in the blogs is them
Terrific point, but of course this Brian is a coward.
I enjoy the hypocrisy of seeing someone sign in under anonymous and call someone else a coward. You should all realize that everyone who comments on this blog could be the same person. Brian proved this earlier. So let us talk about the issue and not call each other hateful names to try and gain some ground. If we are all suppose to be intellectuals I would hope that everyone here realizes that there is a person on the other end of the computer. If not what is the point of the discussion!
Brian has proven nothing in any discussion or are you Brian?
No, Anonymous at 12:13 is not me. That being said, I am going to explain what I did for the post at 11:21 and 11:23 and then you will see that I did prove something.
1. In the post at 11:21 I signed in as myself, and made a comment. The last thing in my post was telling everyone here that I was going to make the next comment.
2. Floated my IP address, if you don't know what this is Goggle it.
3. Signed in under anonymous and made another comment identifying this anonymous commenter as myself.
4. Signed back in using my original user name and IP addr. to apologize to Don.
The thing that I was trying to prove is this: No one on this blog (or most blogs) can assure that they are whom they say they are. The only way to do this is by giving more information (Full name, Address, SSN, ect.) than one ever should especially on a site like this one whose security isn't top notch. I am not actually asking for this type of information. I am proving that asking for it because a person signs in as anonymous is asinine. To use the words of nl, I could be a fictitious person, but so could he. There is NOTHING that one should put on a site like this one that absolutely proves their identity. That is all. Hopefully I educated some people about the internet and the two headed monster that she can be, but probably not.
I'm starting to suspect that a lot of these comments are done by none other than Gene Nichol HIMSELF! (Gene, you sly dog, is that you?) Like his clever maneuver switching the real cross for a replica museum piece, he's trying to divert out attention from the real issues, like his self-appointment as Bishop of Wren. Instead, we're focusing on who is who, whether or not it's cowardly to be anonymous, who called who what names, how blogging works, and other useless pursuits. Who cares? I know I don't.
What I'd like to know is whether or not Gene really wants to be President of W&M or if he's just working on some kind of life-time achievement award from the ACLU? So far, I think his PC credentials mean a lot more to him than his academic ones. Maybe he wants to eventually become President of Harvard. Their former Prez, Larry Summers, lost his PC bona fides when he dared to suggest that maybe, just maybe, men and women's brains don’t work identically (gasp!). Now, for the ordinary human that's something that we learn at about age 6 or 7 when we can't get our sister to put that stupid doll down and play army. However, at Harvard, common sense is rather uncommon, so he was accused of doubting Newspeak and given the boot. I mean, academic freedom is one thing but having an opinion contrary to what's already been decided by the PC elite is absolutely, positively and totally unacceptable. Adios, President Summers!
Our boy Gene is not going to fall into that trap, no siree bob! If any new Harvard Prez accidentally shows they have unapproved thoughts, Gene will be waiting in the wings with irrefutable proof he’s never had one. He'll have a whole slew of PC trophies on his wall, starting with those hicks in Williamsburg and their stupid cross. He’s grown fond of us, alright, like someone grows fond of their dog as long as he rolls over, fetches and doesn’t bark too loud. When you’re running for PC Prez, offending 18,000 to keep 3 idiots happy makes perfect sense. As to losing millions in alumni donations, who cares? W&M is a stepping-stone, not a destination. What’s his real ambition? President of Harvard? President of the ACLU? The sky’s the limit when you have no scruples and are willing to grovel at the alter of PC.
Now Gene, remember that you have to keep posting and playing the fool, cause if you stop suddenly we’ll know it’s you, you naughty boy.
I can only say that I am not President Nichol. And I cannot and will not give you anything more than my word to prove this. Although if you look above I admit that I did not completely agree with the route that President Nichol took in removing the cross.
If you want to question his agenda, please feel free. If you don't care if Wren Cross stays or goes, I would prefer that you "take up your sword" with a different group, but that is your choice. But know that I am on the other side, "raising my sword" against this group and presumably you, because I believe that the Wren Cross should have been removed. Not that it matters what I think, but I think that you raise some very valid points and I know that I appreciate your comments.
No swords needed, keyboards at high noon on Main Street - be there. Actually, I didn't mean that "Brian" alone was Gene, but rather that Nichol was assuming various identities on this blog in an effort to move the topic off his flaws and onto trivial things. And, frankly, the whole thing was a joke anyway (unless you really are Gene, in which case you are seriously disturbed and need professional help!). And I don't think anyone has to reveal their identity (I haven't). Personally, I think that would be a mistake, but that’s just me. It's also not a requirement to blog here. Yes, I've used sarcasm and disdain aplenty, but I’ve been zapped back in kind. However, I have a thick hide and that, combined with my general slowness of thought, makes it difficult for the barbs to have much effect. It might be three days before I go “ouch”, and by then I think it’s a gnat or something.
I still think that Nichol is more interested in his political agenda than in being President of the College. And, if he does want to be President, then he's displayed exceptionally poor judgment and gotten off to a horrible start. Numbers alone, of course, do not equate to morality. However, to offend nearly 20,000 (so far) to make a tiny minority feel good about themselves is just not smart. In the ideal world, college presidents glide about campus like visiting angels, their feet never having to touch the ground, dispensing pleasantries and wisdom – the prototypical “hail-fellow-well-met”. Even in the real world a new president gets to assume this mantel, but only temporarily at the beginning of their term. How soon they crash down to earth is up to them. In politics and other arenas it’s called a grace period. It’s a form of political capital to be spent wisely… or foolishly. I don’t think there’s much question about how Gene spent his. His time in the ether was nasty, brutish and short – and that was totally his fault.
I don’t actually think Nichol is stupid, though it would explain a lot. Nor do I think he was unaware of the firestorm the cross incident would ignite because, as I said, he’s not stupid and you’d have to be somewhat dense to be that unaware. That begs the question: why did he do it? What would prompt someone to cause such a furor over a seemingly minor issue (to him) and also to waste the good graces afforded every newcomer in positions of responsibility? What would be worth the possible loss of millions of dollars in alumni donations and nationwide ridicule of the College? What would be worth the anger of thousands of students and alumni? The only answer that makes sense to me is that he’s not really interested in the long-term welfare of the College or his position as President. Instead, he’s more interested in his personal political agenda and his reputation among his peers in that arena.
When a college president first descends to earth after their initial period of gliding a few feet above the ground, they have specific responsibilities. The first thing they are supposed to do is run, their angel’s-garb-turned-academic-robe dragging in the mud, up to a visiting alumni and utter these words: “Kind sir, have you some spare change for the College?”. Now, I know that’s not Mr. Chips or any kind of vision that college students (or even a lot of alumni) have of their President, who’s supposed to stay airborne as long as possible. But that’s the real world. I know the Board of Visitors is expecting that (unless they’re falling down on their jobs too). The visiting alumni is supposed to be awed, flattered and, ignoring the mud on the angel-turned-Prez’s robe, fork over a lot of cold, hard cash. He’s grateful for his liberal (small “l”) education, remembers the open-mindedness and tolerance of campus life, and thinks back on its many traditions. Though (odds are) Christian, he’s always regarded the College as primarily secular and welcoming of all faiths, including non-belief. He may have even taken a comparative religion course. He knows of this county's debt to Judeo-Christian ethics and its relationship to the freedoms (including adademic) we now enjoy. This whole process is greased with heaps of nostalgia, fond memories and a welcoming atmosphere on today’s campus, where the visiting alum feels virtually nothing has changed. A smart and savvy president knows this and, like a good actor, does nothing to disturb this scene. In contrast, a dim-witted president tries this approach: “Hey, capitalist-pig, you owe us some cash cause WE’RE in charge now and we’re no longer going to tolerate your intolerance. You’re bigoted and your traditions were terribly offensive, but fortunately I’ll correct your disgraceful ways. The 60’s are back, power to the people, sex [artist shows], drugs and rock-and-roll, baby! And, while you’re at it, you can take that stupid cross and put it where the sun don’t shine.” Surprisingly, this has not proven to be productive of the mountains of cash the BOV was expecting. Amazingly, many alumni now focus on the mud on his robe and immediately lose any respect, awe or any other form of admiration normally accorded his position. Unsurprisingly, many students on campus are favorably impressed by this behavior, seeing it as bold, assertive and radical. Unfortunately, they’re not sitting on two dollars, much less a mountain of cash.
If I could figure this out, it’s obviously not very complicated. Again: what was Gene thinking? I’d welcome other explanations but so far all I can come up with is that his personal politics, namely Political Correctness and all that entails, are more important to him than his presidency or the welfare of the College. Given his history with the ACLU, whose radical agenda nobody seriously disputes, I don’t think this is much of a stretch. It’s either that or he’s just not very smart. I suppose those who appointed him were expecting he’d show more restraint, less aggressiveness and more finesse. Apparently, they were wrong.
Those of you who support Nichol see this as an unjustified campaign of vituperation. Remove the “un” and I’d agree with you. He justified this reaction by his voluntary, unsolicited actions. (You'll feel differenty when you have more at stake than $2 and somebody is demanding your cash and insulting you at the same time.) He had the opportunity to be a peace-keeper but instead chose to go on the offensive. He has molded this new role as Radical President for himself and now must live with the consequences. To me he seems rather foolish, like a mostly bald man whose remaining monk-style hair has been tied off in a long, gray pony-tail to show everyone he’s still “with it”. Does he walk around campus flashing the peace sign and yelling “Yo!” at students? (Tell me he doesn’t still wear tie-died tee-shirts!) Does he have the right to do this? Absolutely and without question! Do we have the right to laugh at him, shake our heads in dismay and stop sending money to the College? Absolutely and without question. Until his kind rule the world and we are forced to accept PC as Truth without the possibility of dissent, that’s the way it is. That’s the real world kids. You see, us cold, hard cash types were never expected to glide acoss campus without getting muddy. We earned the cash in the in the mud and expect more than harsh, unfair treatment and naked hubris to give it up.
The only smart thing Nichol has done is try to keep this whole incident from the alumni as long as possible. No letter or email of explanation has been forthcoming. However, the word is spreading anyway. I predict steadily decreasing alumni funding for the College as people become aware of his radical agenda. Hopefully, that will eventually force the BOV to send Gene packing (are they the ones responsible for dismissing a President? I really don’t know). Or maybe Gene will see the light and try and get airborne again with his best Mr. Chips imitation. However, many alumni will see the theatre wires holding him aloft, the insincerity and the mud on his robes and remain highly suspicious. There are lots of worthy causes out there asking for money. Gene Nichol, Radical High Priest of Wren, is just another dirty hand in the alley seeking alms. And when beggars snarl and spit, they tend to not get many coins. As they say in politics (and that’s what this is), follow the money, or in this case the lack of it.
Anonymous at 1:15,
Thank you, you bring up a number of excellent points. You single handedly will keep me coming back to this site on occasion. This will be my last post, unless of course someone says something really, really stupid.
I also want to apologize to you about assuming that you were serious about President Nichol. It is really hard to tell on these things (blogs).
One last point that I would like to make, as you probably know or assume, there are presidents out there (I can name names) who take the opposite view that President Nichol does. They are extremely conservative and side with the alumni with money, rather than doing what is best for the school. I agree with you that as a president of a school, one has to be aware what is best for the students at the time, and in the future.
Thank you for giving me hope. Signing off,
Brian
Sorry, but you twisted what I said. I did not concede that siding with alumni money and doing what is best for the school contradict each other. That could indeed be the case on some issues, but not on this one. There was almost nothing to gain from the cross removal except some exceedingly weak political points, needlessly antagonizing thousands to make those points and a lot of sophomoric grandstanding by Nichol. The 60's and 70's are dead and gone. Nichol and his ilk can try and revive them but the patient is DOA. Follow his lead and you'll wind up with a lot of like-thinking radical professors, phony departments specializing in “studies” for supposedly offended groups, useless degrees from those departments, extreme polarization on campus and few alumni willing to foot the bill. I'm not worried though. W&M will survive and those old, tired liberals will fade away into the oblivion of failed ideologies where they belong. This time the alumni are right. Nichol is no hero standing against the tide of injustice. He’s managed to convince a few easily impressed youth that’s the case, but in reality he’s just a boring, tired old leftie who hasn’t had a new idea or learned anything since 1968.
The real world and idealism are not incompatible. Nobody wishes to extinguish the enthusiasm for new ideas in the young. But it would be helpful if you were fully versed on all the old ones first, including religion. Slavish enthrallment to left-wing nonsense, slogans and conformity is neither idealistic nor intellectual. Nor is it new, having been around for almost a century. The relationship between Christianity and freedom is complex, having evolved over several hundred years (I’d mark it’s real beginning with James II and the Glorious Revolution – a personal opinion). It’s hardly been a straight-line, lock-step march forward either. But it’s undeniable. You could even go much farther back, say to St Thomas Aquinas. He’s views on Christianity were influenced by Aristotle, the Muslim Aristotelians Averroes and Avicenna, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Imagine a Christian philosopher trying to understand and incorporate the views of someone who lived hundreds of years before Christ was even born! Or you could leap forward to recent times and examine the works of John Paul II. There’s a true intellectual who struggled against REAL oppression, first the Nazis and then the Communist. (By contrast, Nichol’s supposed struggle against nasty conservatives is a pathetic joke.)
Anyone who thinks Christianity is irrelevant, anti-intellectual or deserving of nothing more than a simple bronze plaque and a museum’s glass case simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Trying to rip our Judeo-Christian background from our history, heritage and culture is foolish as well as impossible. Just look at the 20th century’s societies (all of them socialist in one form or another) who tried to remove all vestiges of religion and replace it with political ideology: Hitler’s National Socialism, Stalin and Mao’s communism, and Pol Pot’s – what would you call it? – insanity? I’d have to say those experiments all failed miserably. Attempting to expunge religion is not progressive. It’s been tried before by some rather old fashioned tyrants with horrendous results. It’s deeply anti-intellectual, backwards and regressive. It’s not even “liberal” in the true sense of the word, unless that now mean mindless, unthinking conformity. Little tyrants, like Nichol, are funnier but only less destructive due to the limits of their authority. But nits make lice and small wrongs do add up. One blogger described the Nichol’s process as being pecked to death by a duck. I agree: Daffy Duck, cause his ideas are definitely looney tunes.
I wasn't explicit either. I couldn't agree more with your first statement. The money that was withheld is, at this time, far more useful to the students than the cross being removed from the Wren Chapel. Which is why I personally believe that had President Nichol taken different steps in removing the cross the financial backlash may not have occurred. It really is sad that it had to come to that.
I respect the Judeo-Christian history that our country, and my family, has; I believe in the morals that are taught. That being said, I still agree with the removal.
Brian
PS Yeah I know that I said that I was going to stop posting, but I hope you (anonymous at 8:24 and other times) have as much respect for me as I have for you.
Do you know how your state acknowledges God? Important commentary at the end with a question from me.
Alabama 1901, Preamble: We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble: We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
Arkansas 1874, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
California 1879, Preamble:. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom.
Colorado 1876, Preamble: We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe.
Connecticut 1818, Preamble: The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble: Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
Georgia 1777, Preamble: We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution... Hawaii 1959, Preamble: We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings. Illinois 1870, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government. Iowa 1857, Preamble: We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble: We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble: We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...
Louisiana 1921, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble: We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble: We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty... Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe .. In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction ...
Michigan 1908, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings: ... Mississippi 1890, Preamble: We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble: We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. Establish this Constitution
Montana 1889, Preamble: We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the
blessings of liberty establish this Constitution
Nebraska 1875, Preamble: We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble: We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V: Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. New Jersey 1844, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble: We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty
New York 1846, Preamble: We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble: We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those North Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
Ohio 1852, Preamble: We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2: All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble: We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties Tennessee 1796, Art. XIV: That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience... Texas 1845, Preamble: We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble: Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution. Vermont 1777, Preamble: Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI: Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other Washington 1889, Preamble: We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...
West Virginia 1872, Preamble: Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility
Wyoming 1890, Preamble: We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties .. establish this Constitution.
United States, In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Live, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ... AND for the support of this Declaration , with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the ACLU and the out-of-control federal courts are wrong!
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn
Question: Now, where is that “wall of separation of church and state”?
If the courts are wrong, and you are ruled by tyrants, move.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
I don't choose to move. This nation is founded on the fact that our rights come from God and his commandments, Scripture, and laws are the organic foundation of our entire body of law. Doesn't make any difference how many times you choose to deny it and how much revisionist historty is written by reactionary academics, it is still the Truth, and the Truth shall make us free!
Dear Del Curtis,
Glad to hear from you again. I hope you are well and enjoying the fine weather.
NL Hartley '75
Del,
How many of those preambles you quote mention Jesus Christ? None.
Acknowledging "God" or "Divine Providence" is one thing. Many faiths believe in God.
There are many religious people in the United States who don't believe Jesus is the son of God.
Regardless of whether the decidsion was correct or incorrect, what was at issue here was a public, non-denominational college showing preference to Christianity in the form of a Christian cross displayed in a formerly-Anglican chapel.
Additionally, I think the desire of many on the right who want to dissolve boundaries between church and state is foolish.
Think of the countries of Western Europe and Scandinavia- all with state religions for the longest time. Today, their churches are great tourist attractions, but are usually empty.
Look at the United States: people are free to worship how the choose, and our citizens- across the religious spectrum are much more observant.
Just a few thoughts
Anonymous at 3:54 pm
That is a fine observation but fully misses the mark. I was in that presentation addressing the fact that our rights are from God and you will have to recognize that those who entered the phrases in the Declatation and the various state preambles were most assuredly predominantly Christian.
As far as Wren Chapel is concerned, to my knowledge it is still consecrated Christian space. Unless you can provide documentation to the contrary I will hold to that view.
Next, what I also wanted to present was that there was no separation envisioned by those who wrote the various documents in the establishment of our central or state governments. They didn't hesitate to recognize our relationship to God, by whichever of his names you use. Therefore we shouldn't be concerned about something that recognizes our religious roots either.
The Wren Chapel or the Millington Cross do not show favoritism to anyone or anything. Neither the space or the cross can compel anyone to believe anything and our laws do prevent government compulsion in any belief system and also prohibit any law or regulation from our free exercise of our beliefs. Your mention of the state churches in Europe is interesting -- that is the very basis of the First Amendment -- it probited the "congress" from passing any law establishing such a state church, but it in no way infringed upon the states from doing so. However, I beleive that it didn't take the states long to follow Virginia's lead in establishing statuts similar to the First Amendment. But, again none of those prohibit government or individuals from recognizing God as our source of rights.
It would be a shame to think that it becoming a public institution had to deny its origins and its traditions and its purposes -- that would be makeing a deal with the devil!
Dear Anonymous,
That the display of the cross in a chapel demonstrates preference is merely your obscure minority opinion. While you may have all the opinions you can muster, you certainly do not exhibit respect or tolerance of other opinions. further your opinion is not backed with credible factual evidence. Therefore your opinion is not persuasive or even interesting.
Don
Walls are built to either keep something in, out, or two things separated. The only boundaries in our Constitution are there to keep the state out of the church's business, to wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Conversely, there is nothing in our laws to keep the church out of the government's business. In fact, many of our early statesmen (thats much different from the politicians we have today) made numerous references that our Constitutional Republic would not be viable except in a religious (many used the word Christian) people.
The facts are this: America has very strong Christian roots, the First Amendment was put there so the American Colonies would earn French favor. Anyone who disagrees with this is Godless and will rot in a fiery hell for all of eternity. Jesus was a real person, died and rose from the dead, and he is the son of God, himself. You want factual evidence: The Bible. The Bible was given to us by God, therefore EVERYTHING in it is the Truth. If you don't believe this, enjoy your eternity in the fiery pits of hell. When God returns to Earth, he will take the people who fought for the return of the Wren Cross with him while the rest of you suffer.
Del,
The consecration question you raise is interesting. I'd be intrigued to learn more about it. The C of E certainly was in the mold of liturgical churches, but the chapel resembles more of a meetinghouse style (of “low-church”/ non-liturgical churches that don't need consecrated spaces). Is it a 'House of God' or a 'House of the people of God'?
Also we all try to read the minds of the Founders. Some were traditional (Madison if I recall), some were nontraditional (Jefferson), some weren't so observant (Washington), others plain old deists (Paine). Almost all were faithful, but recall this was the Enlightenment, so we shouldn’t overstate their piety.
As of our rights being endowed by our Creator- you’ve got no argument from me- I think we’re all big Declaration of Independence fans here.
I think the big issue is if the cross or the chapel of a particular faith on the grounds of a public institution is showing favoritism towards a particular faith. True it is a tolerant and warm faith, and one of which I subscribe, but how would I feel if I weren’t Christian? That’s a tough question to answer, if you can answer that at all. From what I can tell there are quite fervent believers in this from, and it seems all Christians of some stripe. Imagine holding beliefs in a different tradition just as strongly, then assess the Wren situation. It’s a tough nut to crack and I think one on which people of good intentions can disagree.
To the point I touched on before, I am a fan of a wall between church and state (walls have a few doors after all!) because I think it strengthens both, and again (while there is much I love about W. Europe) I cite W. Europe as an example.
And on a side note, Don, I think we should look at the dismissive nature of your comment as compared with mine, and see who’s the one who is disrespectful of other’s opinions. Your comment contributes nothing to the discussion.
Best,
The guy that signed “Just a few thoughts”
Special to anonymous 9:19 pm.
As I understand Scripture God will do the judging and we should be careful about trying to determine in this life who is or is not deserving of hell. Even Christ said that some who say Lord, Lord are not his and will be cast out at the judgement. Only God knows hearts. I have no doubt in my mind that there are those among us who are indifferent to the cross policy change and some who even strongly support the change that have accepted the salvation of Jesus Christ. Now, that doesn't mean I agree with them but I am not going to judge them either. We are never granted the authority to judge our brothers and sisters or even our prospective brothers and sisters.
I have no problem with entering into dialogue with Christians or non-Christians, religious, or non-religious -- I have a serious problem with those who sacrifice civility by name calling, imputing evil motives, and so forth. With them I will choose "to meet a bear robbed of her cubs".
"Just a few thoughts" - I appreciate your response. It is not difficult for me to put myself in the place of a non-Christian entering the Wren Chapel. I have never felt uncomfortable in any house of worship, including Jewish synagogues or community centers, Christian denominations of all kinds and not even in the Dome on the Rock, the mosque on the ruins of Solomon's Temple. Regardless of the Wren's roots, Anglican or other, I would find it a most welcome place to read my Bible, meditate on the Scriptures and to pray. With my interest in such spaces I have been in many around America and in Europe and the Middle East. Wren Chapel is my number one choice of the warmest, most beautiful, and most intimate chapels in all of my experience. Noone can take that away from me because it is how my soul responds to the space. Just as certainly, I don't believe anyone has a right to take that away from me either.
Note: The Episcopal liturgy of consecration is for churches or chapels.
Note to: nl hartley '75. I agree, the weather is temporarily wonderful -- would be a great time for a cup of coffee outside at Aroma's.
Note to Del
Yes, a cup of coffee would be just perfect. Unfortunately, I do not know of Aromas. I am In NYC now and have not been to Aromas
NL Hartley '75
That is a disappointment - believe I would enjoy a sitdown and talk session. Appreciate your contributions to this blog. If you are planning to be in this area -- I'm in the book.
To 9:19 Anonymous -
I'm against the cross removal but I think your views, if genuine (which I doubt), are a bit over the top. So much over the top that I think you are in fact a liberal pretending to be a religious nut in order to discredit the pro-cross side. "Fiery pits of hell"? (And I suppose YOU are the one who decides who goes and who does not?) I think there may be a special place in hell for those presumptious enough to be claiming to speak for God, or at least a very stern talking to by the Almighty for the error of such foolishness.
Christianity has an intellectual side as well as a spiritual side. And, like all beliefs and political movements, we have the nut-burger side, which you were doing your best to imitate. Nice try, Mr. Liberal, but your impersonation doesn't satisfy. That would be like me trying to convince everyone that all liberals are really card-carrying communist with an AK-47 hidden in their basement waiting for orders from the Kremlin. In fact, most are just poor, duped fellows clinging to a belief in socialism despite the overwhelming empirical evidence that it doesn't work and, in fact, produces the opposite of what they desire, resulting in less freedom and prosperity.
Tell you what: If some guy comes on this blog spouting ridiculous left-wing nonsense, I'll be the first to say he's a conservative pretending to be a nut-job liberal in order to discredit YOUR side. Some examples might be: "Marx had it right: religion is the opiate of the masses. Capitalist pigs and their running-dog priest will burn in fiery pits of our bonfires." Sound familiar?
I don't have a clue what God thinks about the cross issue or anything else. OK, the obvious ones I can assume: he's against wanton murder and several other heinous crimes. I don't know what he thinks of unbelievers or what happens to them in the afterlife. I also believe in redemption, namely because I've needed it from time to time. I view the cross removal as hubris: the presumptious assumption that we owe nothing to our heritage or history and that, through sheer intellect and will power, we can overcome all obstacles and ascertain all life's mysteries without any reference to faith whatsoever. They say there are no atheist in foxholes. I don't think you have to go to the extreme of winding up in a foxhole to find faith. Nor do I believe it means reason cannot be applied to faith, though at times I admit the contrdictions are perplexing. That's what makes it so interesting! And, in my opinion, that's when you can hear God chuckle a bit. If I had to guess I'd say that when He comtemplates the cross removers He shakes His head with a tinge of dismay and then waits. For He has faith in our redemption too. And as for time - well he's got all eternity. But that's just a guess on my part about what He thinks and I lay no claim on Truth, spiritual or otherwise, and have no scriptual backing either.
Alleluia! He is risen, just as he said!
Just thought I would share the following with you, especially those who somehow think we have achieved any victory in this matter.
I was crossing the William and Mary campus this beautiful Good Friday afternoon and decided to stop in and spend a few minutes in the Wren Chapel. On entering the chapel I couldn't believe my eyes. The Millington Cross was not on the altar table.
Gene Nichol has said he took his recent actions to be inclusive -- that obviously doesn't include Christians. This act on Easter weekend which includes the two most important days in history for all Christians when we remember the crucifixion and death of Christ for our sins, and the Resurrection of Christ to our eternal salvation. There is no way this could have been an act of omission, but was clearly a deliberate act.
Gene Nichol could not have committed a greater insult. It is unbelievably cold and evil. His actions scream volumes about his intent to make Christians the most unwelcome of all other groups of people.
On my way off the campus I stopped in front of his house, knelt and prayed for him and the college.
In defense of the Cross of Christ
Is Gene gone back to the ACLU yet? Can Christians and conservatives come out of the glass closets at W&M?
Post a Comment