Political Correctness at the Crossroads: College of W&M

Parent Cafe
301

<p>

I agree with removing the cross from William and Mary’s chapel, though I understand why so many people are against it. The thing has been there for nearly seventy years, and so it is easy for me to see how something like that can become meaningful to many people over that time. We should all be able to relate to this, to some student who, upon discovering her parents have died, went to this chapel, knelt before that particular cross, and mysteriously, found comfort. Over nearly seventy years surely many people have had something meaningful like this take place in connection with this chapel, and they do not want to see it end. It would be tough for me to remove it, but I would because non-Christians pay the taxes that support William & Mary, including its chapel. I cannot see how anyone can legitimately force them to pay for symbols that represent religion they decidedly reject. Indeed, I think this same principle forbids forcing any American to pay taxes to support the Southern Swastika flying on public property.</p>

<p>But the reason I write here is to counter Mini’s use of Matthew 6:5-6. He thinks the text supports a proscription against public Christian prayer. I think this view flies in the face of the obvious meaning behind the Matthew text. While I won’t have time to counter a rejoinder here, I think it is important that we lay mini’s approach aside and get to the real reason why that cross at William and Mary should be removed.</p>

<p>"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
<a href=“Matthew 6:5-6 31url - - Bible Gateway”>Matthew 6:5-6 NIV - Prayer - “And when you pray, do not - Bible Gateway;

<p>Is Jesus here saying all prayer needs to take place in a closet (or a closed room)? I think not because it would mean He broke His own command, repeatedly, when He prayed on a mountain (MATTHEW 14:23, MARK 6:46, LUKE 6:11-13), when He prayed in the wilderness (LUKE 5:16), when He prayed outside in the Garden of Gethsemane (MATTHEW 26:39), when He prayed outside at His transfiguration (LUKE 9:28-29), and when He prayed for children as people brought them to Him (MATTHEW 19:13). </p>

<p>If we take mini’s view, Jesus broke His command here also:</p>

<p>“When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:21)</p>

<p>Here we have Jesus praying at a public baptism, with “all the people” present. And with Jesus we see The Holy Spirit is there, descending on Jesus like a dove. We also see God the Father is there too. So all Three are there, and at the same time. And what? God the Father comes right out and says He is pleased with Jesus, though Jesus is there praying outside of His closet, in public.</p>

<p>While Jesus did usually seek solitude when He prayed, He also prayed when others were present. And the Early Church, led by Jesus’ Apostles, obviously never thought it wrong to pray differently:</p>

<p>“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” (Acts 1:12-14)</p>

<p>“When this had dawned on him, [Peter] went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.” (Acts 12:12)</p>

<p>Both Jesus and His Church understood His point wasn’t to command believers to pray specifically in a closet, but instead to avoid acting like they want to commune with God while in truth trying only to impress men. The text condemns pretentious prayer, and for that reason commands us to seek solitude. Does it forbid a Church pulling itself into the solitude of a house or chapel to pray? Does it forbid an individual putting himself in the confines of a house or chapel to pray before a cross? Be honest now.</p>

<p>If we insist on so wooden an interpretation of this text, at the expense of the obvious meaning inherent in the text, we are saying that the Early Church, including its Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul—all misled the Church on how to properly worship. C’mon now. It is nonsense, and we all know it is nonsense.</p>

302

<p>""And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
<a href=“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5-6&version=31[/url]”>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...5-6&version=31&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think the text is obvious. Having considered all the other possibilities, the proscriptions and prescriptions he laid down in the Sermon on the Mount are those that he meant. Because he did not ONLY condemn pretentious prayer or public prayer - he could easily have done that if he intended. Instead, he provided a forumula - a specific and positive form of prayer that he suggested people follow. He provided the specific words, and not only that, provided the reason why he suggested it.</p>

<p>As you note, Jesus did USUALLY seek solitude when he prayed. The very few occasions when he didn’t, he JOINED others who were already praying. He didn’t expect his followers to stop their public customs immediately, just as he didn’t expect all of his disciples to immediately hate their families, as he required of them.</p>

<p>But he did really mean what he said (and outlined how it should be done) as regards prayer, and he really did mean that to be his disciple one had to hate his family. (I expect that the intent was to have very few disciples, as he was an itinerant preacher, and didn’t want multitudes of folks following him from place to place.) The meanings of the text are quite obvious, as are Jesus’ own practices.</p>

303

<p>Love your neighbor. Hate your family. I am SO confused. :confused:</p>

304

<p>“14:25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,<br>
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”</p>

<p>The important point is that he turned to the multitude - he just didn’t want or expect many disciples. And by disciples, he meant those who followed him from village to village. 12 was plenty. He meant it as he said it.</p>

<p>Not “Love your neighbor” (old Jewish wisdom from Hillel), but Love your ENEMY! (even more confusing, and psychologically suspect. The true challenge is not figuring how to love your enemy, but to figure out how not to have any). Quite a guy. </p>

<p>Actually, the only prayer that Jesus ever joined was Jewish prayer. He laid down only one rule for “Christian” prayer. In a closet. In secret. “Our Father”. No opinion when it came to crosses.</p>

305

<p>Drosselmeier,</p>

<p>It will help you to keep in mind that mini is a <em>literalist</em> and in that sense a <em>fundamentalist</em> (given this, it is easy to understand his rejection of theism in favor of a rather stiff and dull agnosticism).</p>

<p>Mini’s “god” is more book-keeper, lawyer or prison-warden than poet, mystic or provider–not unlike the God of Bob Jones, albeit with differing results, to be sure. </p>

<p>Here, pity is called for, not rebuke; compassion not censure.</p>

<p>.</p>

306

<p>Does the phrase “separation of church & state” show up anywhere in the Constitution?</p>

307

<p>Do the words God, Christian, Bible, Jesus Christ, state religion or theocracy show up anywhere in the Constitution?</p>

308

<p>Why don’t we shut down some law schools instead of desecrating school chapels?</p>

309

<p>The College, by removing the Wren Cross from the altar at the Chapel, appears to have lost respect and appreciation for it’s own history and tradition. The historians Will and Ariel Durant warned against the loss of history and tradition in their text, " The Lessons of History" published by Simon and Schuster in 1968. The following excerpt (pp. 35-36) appears to at least partially address the current situation with the Wren Chapel Cross:</p>

<p>"Intellect is a vital force of history, but it can also be a dissolvent and destructive power. Out of every hundred new ideas, ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man (or woman), however brilliant or well informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his (or her) society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.</p>

<p>So the conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it-perhaps as much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few that can be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the mill of objection and opposition. This is the trial heat that innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and that the young should prod the old. Out of this tension, as out of the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole."</p>

310

<p>Motherdear-</p>

<p>Check this link:</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wren_Building[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wren_Building&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Wren Building was originally built with funds from the Crown, the Church and a slight tax on tobacco levied by the Commonwealth. In 1906, the Commonwealth stole the school for some nominal amount. However, the 1930s restoration of the Wren was 100% funded by Rockefeller money and the latest improvements in the past few years were also funded by private money. In other words, Virginia taxpayers really have no claim on the Wren Building. Also, the school receives less than 20% of its operating funds from the Commonwealth which probably shows up as 2-3 cents from your tax return.</p>

311

<p>“It will help you to keep in mind that mini is a <em>literalist</em> and in that sense a <em>fundamentalist</em> (given this, it is easy to understand his rejection of theism in favor of a rather stiff and dull agnosticism).”</p>

<p>You don’t seem the least bit interested in what this poet, mystic, and theist believes…so I guess I won’t get to tell ya. ;)</p>

312

<p>Examine the religious beliefs of Washington & Jefferson. So much for citing the founding fathers in support of narrow religiously-based views of and upon government.</p>

313

<p>

</p>

<p>Do tell…</p>

<p>

On this you and Bob Jones (Reverend Haggert and Jerry Falwell etc.) agree. It is always obvious to the genius and the fool in approximately equal measure and result. </p>

<p>But, for now, let’s just say our ideas of poetry and mysticism vary greatly.</p>

<p>Here’s a little bit of wisdom I picked up in my adventures in poetic agnosticism:</p>

<p>

Oscar said that…about literalists and fundamentalists. </p>

<p>…the words grow truer by the moment.</p>

314

<p>“Cross-Worshipers”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009716[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009716&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Do you suppose the agit-prop officer/song-writers at Al-Qaida central are peeking in on CC for pithy phrases in their war on “devious Christians” and “cross-worshipers”?</p>

<p>.</p>

315

<p>After a brief trip to thoughtful discourse, back to the “pithing” match. :(</p>

316

<p>“But, for now, let’s just say our ideas of poetry and mysticism vary greatly.”</p>

<p>Yes, I am indeed sorry that you have succumbed to Islamo-atheism, even if it is of the poetic variety.</p>

317

<p>

</p>

<p>I sincerely hope not. God only knows what they will pick up from perusing Dotty’s purple prose!</p>

318

<p>

…a love of the English language?</p>

319

<p>war…nice turn of phrase</p>

<p>if anyone uses the phrases that have to do with war, its the religious about secularists…creating a false war, and some just like repeating the idea thinking that just the repeating will somehow make it real</p>

<p>how sad</p>

320

<p>CGM,</p>

<p>the <em>war</em> referred to in my post is the war Al-Qaieda is waging on the Western “Cross-worshipers” --as they are fond of saying-- not the <em>faux war</em> being waged on religion by the always litigious anti-religionists.</p>