<p>I just can’t make out what the big deal is here. Some Christians like having a cross around even when they aren’t praying and even when they aren’t there. Exactly why I’m still not clear. Is it one of those “tree falls in a forest” things? Or is to remind folks at a public, non-sectarian institution that there are Christians around, and Jesus is watching every step? Is it for the Christians who visit when they aren’t there? or for the non-Christians?</p>
<p>I’m sure there are Rastafarians who might be able and willing to donate a big doogie for folks to take a drag on when they enter the chapel.</p>
<p>People keep injecting politics and religion into this issue. It’s really about tradition and asset value. It’s time for people to stand up for meaningful institutions. Does anyone stand for anything anymore? People like Nichol lead meaningless, insignificant lives without character or honor. Perhaps it is a function of the fact that his father abandoned the family when he was a young man. Maybe it’s the fact that he was a second string quarterback or went to 2nd tier schools. Perhaps its the fact that he’s a 2nd class legal scholar or that he lost two congressional races. The guy is a self-loathing failure with a wife who never smiles and he exhibits classic, destructive behavior. The students at W&M compassionately pity him; they don’t respect him. He is now a failed president. What a resume.</p>
<p>Bush AND Nichol are both failures a la Ted Kennedy or Larry Summers. Their personal character informs their policies. The point is that Nichol has diminished the value of institutions he has been associated with over the years (e.g. UNC’s law school fell 6 points in the rankings while he was dean). I’m sure he also diminished Colorado’s law school in some way while he was there. He is a subtractor, not a creator. Our BOV foolishly bought into his program (he had the weakest resume of the 5 candidates). This is what happens when governors get to appoint “trustees,” not alumni. As I said before, our Board is filled with dilettantes and the the head is a failed bureaucrat, now lobbyist. A guy like Nichol never would have landed at UVa. They are too smart for this nonsense. I wish we could bring Tim Sullivan back…</p>
<p>HH–I actually thought about those words and almost put “cross-supporters”–then I thought, no, these people are elevating the cross above all else. It’s practically idolatry, putting the need for a Christian symbol above other considerations, such as actually loving their neighbors. So I let it stand. Thanks for understanding my “three word rant.” ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know–the above statement isn’t showing the love, if you ask me.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the long-standing rule has been that people can ask for the cross to be removed, so the “cross-worshippers” have been alert to non-Christian sensibilities for quite some time.</p>
<p>If the cross wasn’t already there, what are the arguments that could be made for putting one in? Would they apply if you weren’t present? Why would you care if you weren’t there?</p>
<p>The only argument I can make for having it there is that it is has been there for awhile, which hardly seems all that strong to me. Cult objects and museum pieces get moved about all the time.</p>
<p>Or look at it this way: a hundred years from now the Wren Chapel (including cross) could still be standing as a museum of those quaint days when people actually worshiped Christian mythology. Let’s put it on the National Register of Historic Places and leave the cross intact. Could be educational for our great-great-grandchildren! Let’s rally for historic preservation!</p>
<p>That’s actually NOT a bad argument. Of course, there was no cross associated with the Wren Chapel. But the National Park Service would have to purchase it from William and Mary, a non-sectarian educational institution, and last time I looked, they haven’t been too keen on maintaining historic churches as museums. </p>
<p>I doubt that would satisfy the save-the-cross crowd, though.</p>
<p>HH: Your “historic preservation” argument might seem almost persuasive if it weren’t for all those hundreds of thousands of existing edifices in which the cross reigns supreme, as it should. They’re called churches. And in no danger whatsoever.</p>
<p>If Wren Chaple was a 300 year old Synagogue and you took the Menorah out every liberal on this board would switch sides. If it was a 300 year old Mosque and you took the preyer rugs out or had them facing Cleveland instead of Mecca it would be a causus belli.</p>
<p>Just out of curiousity would it be an imperative to get rid of that cross if it were part of an original stained glass window? Or mosaic or carved into the wall. t is a Christian Chapel for crying out loud. If Christianity offends or threatens you don’t go there. It is not like the facility is actually needed by the university and with or without this 18 inch cross it is still a Christian church.</p>
<p>I think the solution is the university needs to get rid of the building and give it to Williamsburg. Then the thing won’t threaten heathen, pagan, apostate, or atheist students, faculty, or staff.</p>
<p>Not so fast. I had occasion to be in Philadelphia this past weekend–a place resplendent with formerly beautiful ethnic Catholic churches. Unfortunately, to a great degree they are not being kept up and are crumbling fast. They, too, should be added to the National Register of Historic Places asap. I mean, what will mini’s great-great-grand daughters have to study otherwise? Certainly Italy’s Catholic churches will have disappeared by then. This is important–let’s rally for American historic preservation!</p>
<p>As a committed Jew, I can’t imagine any Jew expecting for there to be a menorah and other Jewish symbols displayed in a public chapel at a public university. </p>
<p>The “If Wren Chapel were a 300 year old synagogue” at a public university argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of a) the vast majority of Jews’ views about the separation of church and state and b) a misunderstanding about the particularities of the cross’s display – there for 60 years and not for 216 years – so therefore not central to the chapel’s use.</p>
<p>The crumbling of the beautiful, historic Catholic churches in urban areas is indeed a tragedy. But unfortunately, urban areas tend to be poor, so it makes more sense for the church to put its money into the modern, lower maintenance buildings in the suburbs. </p>
<p>Ironically, the Archdiocese of New Orleans is fighting efforts to put one of its devastated churches on the National Historic Register and preserve it. They very badly need the land it sits on to replace one of the schools that was destroyed. The folks who are living in the city now are pretty much behind the Church’s desire to repurpose the site. Who’s fighting it?</p>
<p>It’s our own version of the W&M alumni, people who left New Orleans but want to have the final say on what happens here.</p>