<p>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20070206-115809-5586r.htm
</code></pre>
<p>So, for almost all of W and M’s history, this cross was not there.</p>
<p>The chapel is non-denominational; the cross is available for those who wish it.</p>
<p>So, the need for it to be there is not historical, and it’s not for personal religious needs. Then why exactly is it so important to these signers–do they really feel a need to demonstrate which religion comes first?</p>
<p>And before the you’re-attacking-Christianity-again-crowd crows, let me add, once again, that I am a religious person–a practicing Christian.</p>
<p>garland,</p>
<p>I believe the point is not that people want to put a cross in the <em>chapel</em> (a descriptive that might lend some credence to having a cross…in a chapel) as it has been there for generations, but that some secular social-engineers deemed it necessary to remove the offending item to suit their own fashions. </p>
<p>I cannot imagine the same suggestion being made for a mosque, a synagogue, a Buddhist shrine, a Hindu Temple or a Wikkan coven (?) etc.</p>
<p>What’s more, I very much doubt that the practicing Muslims or Hindus on campus ever agitated for the change or that they even prefer it. </p>
<p>I’m willing to bet that this change was orchestrated by non-religious folk.
I’d put money on it.</p>
<p>As you know, I am not a Christian; but I do respect the religious practice of other religions because I believe in real diversity of faith, not a watering down of faith: adding water to the wine only lessens its spirit…neither does it do anything for the taste.</p>
<p>So changing the policy from “Usually there but removed on request” to “Usually not there but available on request” in a non-denominational facility is enough to trigger the knee-jerk sneers of “politically correct – eewww!” from the self-righteous, and “I’m going to withhold my money until they do what I want!” from the easily-offended.</p>
<p>Simple courtesy - which is what this policy looks like to me - is apparently offensive to some these days. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.</p>
<p>As I said…I doubt this was a “courtesy” to anyone within the religious community of W & M. This is a secular solution to a religious concern. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>W&M is a state-funded school, so there’s a separation of church and state issue here as well.</p>
<p>^^^there you have it.</p>
<p>The cross was removed from the Chapel at my alma mater (Williams) as well, and it HAS made it a far more welcoming place.</p>
<p>As a Jew, I would not want my children attending a college where a cross was placed in a public (i.e., not specifically Christian) location. It says loudly and clearly that “my kind” is not welcome. It says loudly and clearly that I am different from who and what are welcome. It says loudly and clearly that I will not be accepted as “normal” at that place.</p>
<p>In addition, please note that many so-called “non-denominational” places of worship also have crosses in them. What this really means, then, is that there isn’t one denomination of Christianity that is being favored, but that Christianity – above Islam, Judaism, and other non-Christian religions – is certainly the Preferred Religion.</p>
<p>Generations? No…</p>
<p>Here is how I see it…people of religious faith often claim that they can pray anywhere, that God is with them always, and that if they cannot find a chapel welcoming to them if a cross is NOT there shows that that percieved faith is weak, and that they need visual adornments in order to “believe”</p>
<p>and the idea that perhaps having ONE symbol of a particualr religion in a supposed non-denominational location is pretty selfish in my opinion…</p>
<p>as I said, if ones fiath is strong enough, one doesn’t need an “object” to rely on in a place that is supposed to be for all faiths</p>
<p>who gets to decide that the Christian Cross is more valued in a Chapel than say the Star of David, or an Islamic Symbol</p>
<p>to feel the need to show off a symbol to somehow strenghten a persons belief really goes against much of the teachings of the various prophets, I would guess</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the entire campus of W&M is a public university. If it wants to be a Christian university, or a private university, or an historic site, it can have a cross in a public place. But if it’s a public university, then it can’t promote one religion over another, or any religion over no religion.</p>
<p>No…</p>
<p>what you mean to say is that “they cannot have a Christian symbol in a chapel.”</p>
<p>No one, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested adding a cross to the athletic field or library, and as there is currently no cross in either place, they will not to remove one either.</p>
<p>A church is a Christian house of worship. A chapel is not a Christian house of worship. So a chapel should not have a cross.</p>
<p>Friends Meetings don’t have crosses either.</p>
<p>I think Kluge got it right. If folks want to worship there with a cross, they are welcomed to do so. Seems like simple courtesy to me.</p>
<p>The separation of church & state argument doesn’t work. Nichols reason for removing the cross was not based on the legality of the cross being present. If it were, it would be just as illegal to allow the temporary return of the cross as it would to allow the cross a (mostly) permanent home.</p>
<p>Nichols created a controversy where none existed, and bypassed an opportunity to defend his decision at last week’s debate. That’s not the kind of leadership the W&M deserves or expects.</p>
<p>And here we have the answer to the conundrum:</p>
<p>
Exactly!</p>
<p>Why are people being so sensative and whiney on this topic? Taking out the cross is not only the legal thing to do its the polite thing to do. If I have a guest who is a vegetarian I wouldnt BBQ a pig for dinner.</p>
<p>W&M has students/alums/professors of all faiths and is trying to respectfully welcome them all to use the chapel as a place of worship.</p>
<p>Dorothy Parker X- take a valium and stop watching Fox News. Not only will your blodd pressure come down, the world will become less confusing to you.</p>
<p>I would expect, as the Alma Mater of Jefferson, for Nichol to do nothing less. In fact the insult is that it hasnt been done years before.</p>
<p>Do Christians NEED to have a cross? I am asking a serious question here. Do they find they can’t pray or rest or meditate in a Chapel without a Cross? why is HAVING one so important? are they incapable contemplation without one?</p>
<p>I would certainly hope not…</p>
<p>If my Mother-in-Law can sit in a park and pray, I think Christians can sit in a Chapel and pray without an adornment of a cross that implies the Chapel is a Christian building</p>
<p>If I walked in to a “chapel” and saw a Cross, I would make the assumption it was a Christian place of worship, how could it be seen anyother way, no matter what the sign said</p>
<p>Dear Doctor,</p>
<p>As stated, it is not the religious community at W & M that has pushed for this dressing down of the chapel, but rather the secular community that takes offense and as with you and another poster above, for secular reasons, not the sort of religious reasons one would have suspected, given that this is a church/chapel and not, say, a library or lecture hall.</p>
<p>It seems the whiners, as you say, have won the day; the chapel is now a lodge.</p>
<p>I remember back in the 60’s when smoking (everywhere) was the norm. Smokers were the part of the dominant social fabric, and there were ashtrays everywhere. People smoked in restaurants, offices, elevators, airplanes - seems insane now, but it was a fact of life.</p>
<p>And anyone who had the guts to object was treated with the same self-righteous scorn and contempt as a person who today would suggest removing the symbol of the dominant religion from a supposedly non-denominational facility. Simple courtesy is only controversial when it steps on the toes of those who are used to being treated with favoritism. Ridicule and scorn (the tools of ad hominem argument) are the usual weapons used to attack anyone seeking to have the situation changed; understandably, as there really isn’t any good reason that can be used to defend lack of courtesy.</p>