<p>* In other words, the history of W&M and the Wren are inextricably interwoven with the Anglican/Episcopal Church.*</p>
<p>The history of many schools are interwoven with slavery as well. What’s your point?</p>
<p>A fallacy put forward by Jolly Gene Nichol is that W&M is public when it is in fact semi-private</p>
<p>Actually, that is perhaps the largest fallacy I’ve seen presented on this case. Given that alumni and private donations support all schools, no school is truly public. But then, does that even matter? Of course not. Semi-private implies semi-public, which therefore means it is public.</p>
<p>*could never produce any documentation that people have actually felt unwelcome in the Chapel except one thinly written letter. *</p>
<p>I didn’t like it there. There are Christians that did not like it there as well (see Devan Barber, Feb 13th FH).</p>
<p>* If someone does in fact feel unwelcome in the Chapel, they can hold their meeting elsewhere on the campus. *</p>
<p>And there you go. That is the entire crux of your problem, and what Nichol wants to do away with. Face it, you’re a dieing breed, Lance. I paid my taxes to the Commonwealth. I paid my tuition. If I wanted to hold a meeting, I should be able to do it where I damn well please. Your faith is in no way hindered by the absence of a cross (…or shouldn’t be). However, the same cannot be said for a fair portion of the campus.</p>
<p>The world is changing. The Commonwealth is changing. The College is changing. Your entire position is “if you don’t like it, go elsewhere”. I find that sad. You’re hardly a steward of the College. You’re a disgrace. You’re a disgrace to the College and every single alum.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is unclear, that if one wishes to hold secular events in the chapel, one merely has to request that the cross be removed. Respect should be a core value in postings. The matter does not neatly hinge on “public” or private but rather data and practice demonstrate otherwise. Try to exercise and develop your own critical thinking skills. Do not be captive of a “box” or any one group!</p>
<p>Just to clarify a point further, William and Mary is the founder of the first Honor Code in the US. It is one of the oldest academic traditions. I am not a southern right wing male. Honor codes exist at many campuses including Princeton, UVA, Stanford, Haverford and others. It is an academic standard of truth and honesty, that Nichol has compromised.</p>
<p>Hate is an entitlement. It is, however, not sportsmen-like to avail yourself of more than your fair share…even if against the deeply held beliefs of working class Christians.</p>
<p>Yes, let’s be clear, the sum total of the “outrageous” issue here is over changing the policy from:</p>
<ol>
<li> Normally having the cross on display unless a request is made to remove it, in which case it is taken down and stored, to:</li>
<li> Normally having the cross stored unless a request is made to place it on display.</li>
</ol>
<p>Period. That’s what all the bogus outrage is about.</p>
<p>Hawaiian: The issue is not about holding secular events in the chapel. It’s about students and others who have their own strongly held faiths, not Christian, who should be able to walk in and use the chapel as a quiet, contemplative place without feeling they are intruding in the edifice of someone else’s religion. </p>
<p>How about this. The chapel altar is wide and long. Let’s leave the cross on display but also include along side it similar 18-inch brass replicas of the Star of David, a symbol of Islam and a Buddhist and Hindu symbol as well. It can be a new tradition, started with a gift from local religious groups. If someone wants to use the chapel with a particular religious belief in mind, they can have the other symbols removed. Or move them all for secular purposes.</p>
<p>Would you have an objection to that? Can you step out of your box?</p>
<p>Yes, I agree–so why fix what’s not broken? </p>
<p>Leave the cross alone; it’s been in the chapel longer than Lincoln has been on the penny…before many of you were even born. This may surprise those of you whom consider yourselves to be timeless…</p>
<p>I like Jazzymom’s idea. Contrary to Dot’s assertion that liberals are a bunch of playground bullies, I am all for inclusion. Put all the symbols there.</p>
<p>It was the same argument about the trees at Sea-Tac. I had no trouble with the trees. Just put a menorah there too.</p>
<p>It is the anti-inclusion people who shudder at such actions. Why?</p>
<p>(I am giggling at Dot’s insertion of “before you were even born”.)</p>
<p>1. Normally having the cross on display unless a request is made to remove it, in which case it is taken down and stored, to:
2. Normally having the cross stored unless a request is made to place it on display.</p>
<p>Indeed. This is all much ado about nothing. Funny though, many people are upset now that the shoe is on the other foot.</p>
<p>Dear Jazzy Mom, I do not object to that. Sorry that you had to put me in a box. But I would recommend that proper process and decision making be the order of the day before changes are made. Please note that this chapel is still a sanctified Anglican Chapel. there are numerous other solutions to the issue. However Nichol chose to unilaterally dictate his change without conferring. He has created a wall of silence to the alumni. All “public schools” have religious groups as part of student activities, so the matter is never a barren separation of church and state.</p>
<p>If you read my comments you will discover that my position does not hinge on religion or politics. I believe in proper administration, quality leadership and proper democratic process, not subterfuge and the “profiling” “typing” or censorship of others or insults to others. Respect is the mode.</p>
<p>Dot, do you remember the discussion of the Xmas trees? (I am quite sure you do). The substantive part of the conversation related to people saying, like the rabbi, that this would never have been a big deal had ALL the symbols been included. </p>
<p>But many of you and yours still had quite a lot of trouble with those innocuous 'winter symbol" trees,a nd couldn’t understand quite what the big deal was. Same as the cross…no big deal to you, HH, and some of your pals. However, it IS a religious symbol, that doesn’t belong in a public building.</p>
<p>Actually, to give credit where it’s due, DPX, you did not make the suggestion regarding adding multiple symbols to the altar table. That suggestion was made by “Vango” in post #84. One person objected to the idea and it disappeared for awhile and has been revived. I think it could work. A new tradition (new traditions can be born anytime and come to be embraced as long-standing) launched by the gifts of representatives of several faiths. </p>
<p>I wonder why this idea has not been put forward by the savewrencross activists and the war-on-Christianity fearmongers? Too inclusive?</p>
<p>I don’t. It is far too easy for anyone to say, for example, “I believe in the Toaster God, and therefor I demand a toaster to be placed at the Wren alter.” I’m all for anybody’s toaster worship, but I think the world is far too diverse to practically include all such symbols.</p>
<p>Please be advised that not all of those who have signed the petition on Savethewrencross are right wing Christians who are captive of some political group. I personally know many of them, they were my classmates, they are neighbors and other members of the college community, Rest assured, there are extreme left wing signatures on the petition who dislike the decision. Gene Nichol has failed to respond to well respected members of the college community merely because they oppose his act, regardless as to why they oppose his act. His policy of inclusion has resulted in factual exclusion of a major segment of the college community, the alumni.</p>
<p>However, a committee headed by the person who implemented a poorly made decision and who has divided the community by failure to include all in his effort to include all is certainly a contradiction. It is a predisposed outcome, which may not be capable of other solutions than the one which was originally imposed.</p>
<p>If the decision and the leader had properly conferred with varied voices of the college community, then other solutions might have been possible. The objection is that the leader improperly employed base lawyerly tactics to put the cross on the defense. If this sort of decision making is permitted then all free speech and other voices are at risk.</p>
<p>A college president should not divide the community, the varied voices in this forum merely highlight how divisive Nichol’s ill advised act has become.</p>