<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t look at me–Dotty’s the one who seems to know a lot about Osama & his pals! :D</p>
<p>As Conyat confesses, the group has
</p>
<p>I am morally invigorated to see that Jazzymom, CGM, Conyat and others have come around to an inclusive view. For instance, Jazzymom, recognizing that these demeaning terms (perhaps like “crossworshipper”) we use are no more than
Well said JM. I’ve been saying it right along.</p>
<p>CGM notes that such demeaning invective is merely
…I’m with you on this, CGM!</p>
<p>Opie goes on to offer this advice that I think conyat would confess to being edified by
The proof is in the fact that conyat himself chimes in with a very good reason why this is true
</p>
<p>All true, if only in another thread more to their current fashions.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=307042[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=307042</a></p>
<p>Though Jazzymom rightfully instructs me to consider my reasoning and logic by suggesting that:
And to this I humbly reiterate her reasoning earlier in this thread over why there was only one complaint over the cross (amongst a student body of thousands–not a few dozen posters) at Wren Chapel:
even more:
Indeed, so.
Certainly we could assume the same for the dozen or so posters in this thread. </p>
<p>Few threads have such a consensus in the end. So nice to see this one buck the dull trend.</p>
<p>Who says no one’s thinking is changed in these forums.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>DPX–you still haven’t answered my question–</p>
<p>What do you mean by “interset of pure-faith”?</p>
<p>If it is some theological terminology I am not familiar with it. And I must say I do not on principle debate religion with theologians on public forums. </p>
<p>If it is something you made up, I present it as an example of your unfathomable “purple prose” and decline to argue on that ground also.</p>
<p>I <em>thought</em> we were discussing a particular issue in a non-denominational chapel at a particular university but it seems this thread has come unglued.</p>
<p>MM,</p>
<p>I find your diversion into a misspealled word adorable even if it does not quite bite into the fruit of the matter in hand.</p>
<p>I see that your associates have now weighed in against using this childish/demeaning language (in another thread, to be sure). And I assure you, if anyone on these boards hurled an equally offensive remark at your religion, Judaism, as you have done toward the a Christian faith that neither you nor I share, I would be equally vigilant in dissenting from them and it, even though I am not Jewish.</p>
<p>I make a habit of not offending other people’s faiths when it is avoidable; I see it as no more than good, if rudimentary, manners.</p>
<p>It would have been as well to have said some pages back that the phrase “Cross-worshipers” was in bad taste, with a bad history, and then gracefully retract it.</p>
<p>I assume the misspelled word was inter-set? Inter sect?</p>
<p>Sorry to be so dense.</p>
<p>MY associates? You are the one who culled comments from another unrelated thread to quote here. We could all do that but it’s not a very nice practice, imho.</p>
<p>I only “hurled” said term against those who practiced it. And conyat’s pastor is allowed to use it? I doubt he is anti-Christian. And neither am I. Speaking of hurl, this digression is making me sick.</p>
<p>
That is to say, those who think it their business to reform the faith of others, based no doubt on some fundamentalist reading of the offender’s sacred scripture. As in the case of this thread, and your post. And this would be the most charitable reading of your unfortunate reference to ‘some’ Christians as “Cross-worshippers.” </p>
<p>There are others: see al Qaida.</p>
<p>Ah! (Smacks side of head.)</p>
<p>I was starting to believe there were two kinds of people in the world–those who explain themselves, and those who mock others for not understanding them in the first place. I haven’t been called adorable since I was a small child.</p>
<p>So the people who want the cross in the chapel all the time are not guilty of wanting to “reform the faith of others.”?</p>
<p>(You see, I’m still trying to get the thread back on track. Silly me. You’re welcome.)</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>as for reform, it is a SECULAR BUILDING…and it is a RELIGIOUS CROSS…</p>
<p>as for the PAST use of the building…</p>
<p>yes, taking a cross out of a secular building is attacking religion</p>
<p>It is kind of ironic, that we are discussing the phrase “cross worshippers” and we are also discussing the need for a cross for christians in a secular building</p>
<p>tell, me why the cross needs to be there if not for people to worship with…I am NOT calling Christians anything, but that people missed the irony I find quite amusing</p>
<p>We finally verge upon Dotty’s premise: those in favor of removing the cross are in league with Al Qaeda in undermining this country and its essential Western institutions. Sounds pretty sophomoric to me.</p>
<p>Don’t worry, cgm, Dpx will tell you if you are calling anyone anything.</p>
<p>‘Sounds pretty sophomoric to me.’</p>
<p>Islamo-Atheist.</p>
<p>Now that we have this cross back in the closet along with all of those Christians mini sent there to pray (good thing we let the homos out or there wouldn’t be enough room) where do we go from here? Having erased 350 years of history do we rename this thing the Marx Conference Room? Isn’t it a little untoward to still call it a chapel? I mean that implies a Christian house of worship.</p>
<p>Also is it appropriate to name a public institution after the heads of a Protestant church? I’ve got to question the very name of the William and Mary as a violation of separation of church and state. I mean would we stand for naming a state university Pope Benedict U or Ayatollah Khomeini College or Rabbi Schneerson Institute of technology?</p>
<p>
It certainly does, but then it is the genius of your premise, not mine, of course. You are, apparently, never too old to revisit your sophomoric salad days.</p>
<p>Perhaps an intellectual souvenir of a mis-spent youth…maybe just an off day.</p>
<p>Oh, and for what’s it’s worth, I am a sophomore–perhaps you have an equally valid excuse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it really necessary to bear false witness? </p>
<p>For most of that history, there was no cross, as I’m sure you know. The people putting the cross where the builders of the chapel and those who used it for most of its history are the ones erasing the past.</p>
<p>“Is it really necessary to bear false witness?”</p>
<p>It’s probably better than coveting thy neighbor’s a<em>s</em>s.</p>
<p>Or maybe not. ;)</p>
<p>No, no, Doty. The premise isn’t mind, it’s just the one I saw emerging its snout from among your rhetorical weeds. </p>
<p>You’re a sophomore!? Imagine that!!! My wording must have been truly inspired by the Spirit.</p>
<p>it must be Happy-hour in Santa Monica</p>
<p>“Is it really necessary to bear false witness?”</p>
<p>That depends on what the meaning if is is or say I have been reliably infomed.</p>
<p>Yes that particular cross has only been there for 60 or 70 years but it would be incorrect to infer from that fact that there had not been earlier crosses. Some members of the religion faculty at W&M insist it is unlikely that there was originally a cross on the altar but nobody knows for sure. By the 19th century Episcopalian practice had become a tad more high church and likely there was a cross.</p>
<p>an episode of Malcolm in the Middle had the parents faking religiosity in order to sneak their kids into a better, cheaper school. Returning from his first day, one of the boys was puzzled as to why they worshipped the letter ‘T’ since a big wooden one hung from the wall.</p>
<p>Fiction,…better than real life.</p>