<p>Yes, you agreed with Vango after the suggestion was made. That is not the same thing as asserting that you “made the suggestion.” All I’m saying.</p>
<p>What abut John Frum devotees, or the Rat worshippers in India…who is anyone to judge what is absurd when it comes to someone’s beliefs…it is either all absurd to a degree or none is absurd at all, who gets to pick and choose…not me…that is why I think a chapel that is supposed to be for ALL should not just display ONE item, but heck, if you are Christian the cross you wear symblizes that…guess that wouldn’t be enough</p>
<p>I have been reading about cargo cults…fasicnating stuff</p>
<p>Sorry, DPX, I was unable to find anything I could identify as an “anti-Christian rant.” I did find a raft of rants directed at a different group, however. Examples:
On the other hand, about the harshest thing I can find anyone saying about Christianity is that it should be treated with the same respect as any other faith (or lack thereof) and not given special treatment. Ooooh - there’s a rant for you!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Correcting social injustice is often very divisive, and the leader of an institution has an obligation to correct social injustice, even if the decision is unpopular. Archbishop Rummel had crosses burned on his lawn when he integrated the Catholic schools in his archdiocese. It doesn’t mean he was wrong.</p>
<p>What’s wrong with having a number of symbols, including the cross, available upon request? There was no symbol at all for over a hundred years. </p>
<p>Why is it so important to have the chapel branded with Christianity as the standard religion that it’s worth making others feel substandard? It would seem to me that that’s even more divisive, just as segregating the schools was ultimately more divisive than integrating them.</p>
<p>Dear Kluge,</p>
<p>If Gene Nichol really believes in the inclusion of all, then why are no members of the Save the wren Cross petition signers on his committee?</p>
<p><a href=“List of symbols - Wikipedia”>List of symbols - Wikipedia;
<p>who wants to be the one to pick and choose what to display and decide which religious beliefs are not worthy in a neutral house of contemplation…if you don’t see that having a cross implies the building is now a Christian house of worship you are the very reason the cross should be stored away</p>
<p>you know it is a lot easier to ask for something to be put out for a service and to not feel you are being difficult, then asking that something be put away and feeling that you are being anti-chrisitian…</p>
<p>this is NOT A CHRISTIAN CHAPEL in its current form…and jsut because something has been there doesn’t mean it still needs to be, history doesn’t need to ALWAYS held onto in that manner</p>
<p>
Kluge, you are the compassionate one. </p>
<p>Stepping into the breach to defend the <em>social engineers</em> and the ever oppressed <em>malcontented tradition-hater</em>. </p>
<p>Oh, the hate!
Someone needed to speak up for these much abused rascals, and I say: Who better than Kluge to champion them!</p>
<p>I just can’t get over the “well if they don’t want to worship or pray under a cross they can just stay out of the chapel” mentality.</p>
<p>What if a public school assigned all the kids of a particular race to sit in the back of the classroom, then when parents complained the district’s answer was, “Well, we started doing this a few years ago, and our new tradition is more important than your child’s feelings. If your child is uncomfortable, we’ll allow him to go to another school”?</p>
<p>Would you really think this was a fair and appropriate use of a public resource like a school?</p>
<p>conyat, who said that…what a horrid thing to say, and that statement is EXACTLY the reason the cross should be stored away in a chapel that is supposed to be for all worshippers</p>
<p>if the cross is so important, GO TO CHURCH…egad</p>
<p>conyat, who said that…what a horrid thing to say</p>
<p>macsulie in #152, #156.</p>
<p>It wasn’t an exact quote, but it was a fair description of the mentality in the posts snappy listed.</p>
<p>They aren’t even proposing separate but equal. It’s a Christian chapel or no chapel at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=13&catid=4[/url]”>http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=13&catid=4</a></p>
<p>The silencing of some for the sake of others puts all free speech at risk. Other major universities have found a path to satisfaction without limiting the display of the cross. The solution needs to be one reached through proper process, consensus and with factual foundation. To use an opinion as an excuse for limiting the display of the cross is to censor someone. While this time it may be the cross or those supporters opinion, it can then lead to other censorship.</p>
<p>I support all opinions, but disagree with censorship or the limiting freedom of speech! It would be great if those with opposition opinions to the display of the cross did some research into other great university policies.</p>
<p>The silencing of some for the sake of others puts all free speech at risk.</p>
<p>Nice red herring. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.</p>
<p>No one has opposed seperate but equal or the display of other religious symbols as requested by other members of the college community. to state this position is not based in factual evidence.</p>
<p>It is the errant process, flawed leadership and dictatorial imposition that is the core objection. Nichol’s pre-emptive strike is aimed at the cross this time, what will be next?</p>
<p>No one has opposed seperate but equal or the display of other religious symbols as requested by other members of the college community. to state this position is not based in factual evidence.</p>
<p>Funny. The link provided by conyat does just that.</p>
<p>One post does not a group make!</p>
<p>One post does not a group make!</p>
<p>Whot said that it did. You said that nobody opposed it. There’s somebody that did.</p>
<p>It seems to me the cross-worshippers are saying, “We were here first, too bad for you, neener neener neener.”</p>
<p>Which is why an adult has to step in and mandate fair play.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that “somebody” is Vince Haley, one of the creators of the savethewrencross website and petition. Not just a random passerby, he’s one of the architects of the opposition to a more inclusive chapel.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=84&catid=2[/url]”>http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=84&catid=2</a></p>