<p>I wonder, if the cross is ssooooo important in this buidling for some religious folks, why aren’t those folks putting in the effort to go to a church…seriouslly, do they need the cross in that building even though the building is supposed to be for varied uses. Are those people using this building as their church…and if so why aren’t they going to church</p>
<p>just wondering</p>
<p>Hawaiiansurf, I would imagine that signing a petition to “Save the Wren Cross” when the cross doesn’t need “saving” - it’s available for display on request - would tend to make me question the objectivity of the signer. Then there’s always the fact that the “Save the Wren Crossers” have absolutely no interest in a fair and amiable resolution to the flap. Like I said - this is nothing but a fund raising schtick of the right wing. “Energizing the base” with phony “threats” is a stock play from the Gingrich/Rove handbook. The last thing anybody in the “STWC” movement wants is a resolution that’s fair, reasonable, and, worst of all in the “sneer at PC” mentality - courteous.</p>
<p>There’s a nice quote at the end of the Washington Post piece that is cited in post #220.</p>
<p>W.Samuel Sadler, vice president of student affairs at W&M, notes that devout Christians may feel some sense of sacrifice in having the cross removed from full-time display. But, he adds, “As a Christian, that’s not a sacrifice I am unwilling to make so that other people can have the same opportunity to experience the room the way I do.”</p>
<p>Well said.</p>
<p>Interesting to note also, according to the WP story:</p>
<p>“The campus community has been mostly supportive of Nichol’s decision to limit its (the cross) use. ** A resolution to restore the cross was introduced in the student senate and overwhelmingly defeated.** The Board of Visitors deferred to Nichol’s judgment and faculty have endorsed his decision. So has Campus Ministers United, an organization of Jewish and Christian clerics who serve as advisors to religious campus groups.”</p>
<p>Sounds like there’s more to the question than the evil secularists trying to stomp out expressions of Chrisitianity, as some would have us think.</p>
<p>It just occurred to me that when we put the label PC or not PC on something, we automatically stop thinking about it, because we have a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. Sort of an Orwellian short-circuit in the thinking process. </p>
<p>It’s not a matter of being “PC” or not, it’s fairness or correcting a long-accustomed unfairness.</p>
<p>The label pc causes a knee-jerk reaction? How about
</p>
<p>A three word rant.</p>
<p>jazzymom, you raise a good point. If the student Senate and even the Christian ministers on campus support the president’s decision, there isn’t much for anyone else to complain about. </p>
<p>The opposition seems to be spearheaded by the Haley fellow, a W&M alum who just happens to be part of the American Enterprise Institute. Looks like the ruckus is more about the neocon political agenda than it is about spirituality.</p>
<p>
Well. No thin skin there. I mean, it’s a thread about people who are throwing a hissy-fit over a decision to have a big cross in the college chapel displayed on request instead of always prominently displayed unless it is temporarily removed on request. “Cross worshipers” sounds like a pretty descriptive name for those who got sucked into being outraged. Of course, it doesn’t have the lilt of “pig-headed, malcontented tradition-hater”, but then - that’s not your ox being gored, is it?</p>
<p>To me it seems so obvious that a chapel dedicated to ecumenical purposes should be designed and outfitted to further those purposes. Why would you want an ecumenical chapel to divide the faithful into standard and substandard?</p>
<p>If I were in charge of an echumenical chapel, I would want to be able to have (in addition to symbols of non-Christian faiths) the option to have both a crucifix and a cross, since some Christians prefer one symbol over the other in a sanctuary.</p>
<p>Oh please. I wanted the trees and all religious symbols out of the Seattle airport and even that wasn’t good enough for you, kluge; you said I was defending the “undefendable” (sic). Guess what? I changed my mind: I want the trees to stay and I do NOT want a giant mural of L. Ron Hubbard added! And I want the cross to stay at Wren Chapel so put that in your pipe and smoke it!!</p>
<p>P.S. I’ve never worshiped a cross in my life, so perhaps mommusic is referring to some “mythological” religion other than Roman Catholicism?</p>
<p>Somehow I doubt that this very wise person considers himself a part of the Gingrich/Rove/neocon conspiracy to hoodwink believers:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=91+catid=6[/url]”>http://www.savethewrencross.org/blog/index.php?itemid=91+catid=6</a></p>
<p>Let’s see, the President says that Jewish people have confided to him that they felt uncomfortable, and this guy who never even met the people in question insists they weren’t.</p>
<p>Who’s hoodwinking whom?</p>
<p>ETA: Did you even check to see who Jonathan M. Baron was before you cited him as an example? Pretty sure it’s this guy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_M._Baron[/url]”>Jonathan M. Baron - SourceWatch;
<p>“a former Communications Director for former House Majority Whip Thomas D. DeLay (R-Texas)”</p>
<p>“He has extensive experience in managing political communications for presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns.”</p>
<p>Yeah, his letter had nothing at all to do with politics. :eyes</p>
<p>Oh, boy…good work conyat! I would have expected nothing less from you. The man is connected to…oh, no, not a Republican! Silly to think he can have a well-reasoned, wise take on the matter. No, I did not check him out…I mistakenly thought the McCarthy days were over, but apparently not; instead of suspected Communists each and every person is suspected of being a… Republican!…until proven otherwise.</p>
<p>Life is easy for some people…all the world is just one big neocon/theocratic/Rove conspiracy. Tell me, kluge and conyat, how exactly Delay fits into all of this?</p>
<p>My point is that a lot of the fuss was generated by alumni for political reasons and not by Christians on campus.</p>
<p>You post a link to this guy’s letter in an attempt to prove me wrong, and it turns out he’s an experienced political campaign manager. </p>
<p>If you don’t think it’s worth noting that a letter you posted to debunk political motivation turns out to have been written by a guy who makes his living in politics, you’re the one who is being unreasonable.</p>
<p>Let 'em put it in a closet, where Jesus said Christians are supposed to praying anyway.</p>
<p>hh, you presented the author as a wise and reasoned man, and chose to not share who he was, not just a wise man, but a political operative</p>
<p>always smart to look at the source of any letter one presents to bolster an arguement</p>
<p>this guy is raising money…fine, he can right what h wants, but by no means is he some interested party only, he has a clear political agenda in mind, imagine that</p>
<p>I read Baron’s letter and have to ask, is this person being deliberately obtuse?</p>
<p>He first notes that a Jewish student expressed discomfort over the display of the cross in the chapel during an “honor council program,” which I am assuming was not a religious ceremony. Then Baron comments that Nichols should not assume a general Jewish intolerance for “Christian symbols located in places of Christian worship.” Does he even paying attention to his own words? If the chapel was in use for a college-related honor council program, how was it at the same time a place for Christian worship? How, with a straight face, can he argue against Nichol’s compromise position, which is, that for the sake of being a nondenominational chapel, the cross will be held in the sacristy unless it’s display is requested…for worship or any religious purpose and that it will be on display on the altar all-day for extended hours on Sundays for use as a place of Christian worship.</p>
<p>He has made no intelligent argument against Nichol’s position that I can see. He is not a wise person. He is a politico with an agenda to push and political friends to please.</p>
<p>I see: I “chose not to share who he was,” so now I’m hiding that he is a…Republican!–even though I already said of course I would not think to do a background check on him. Rest assured: from now on I will most certainly conduct background checks on any person in favor of keeping the Wren Cross in the chapel. How remiss of me to neglect to do so!</p>
<p>jazzymom: All this deduced from a Wiki entry? Amazing.</p>
<p>Sorry…a “Center for Media and Democracy” “Sourcewatch” entry. Now I have to look up what THAT is. Sounds official, alright.</p>
<p>Baron isn’t the only one being deliberately obtuse.</p>
<p>The issue with Baron isn’t that he’s a Republican; it’s that he’s a seasoned political operative that whose words you held up to refute political motivation.</p>
<p>Ooooh…seasoned, yet!</p>
<p>its ok conyat, logic just befuddles some people</p>
<p>hh, you presented this person in a certain way, and when you do that, you should expect people to look at that person</p>
<p>gosh, how silly of people to look at the author of something, and not just look at what they wrote</p>