<p>I think this is a good compromise. I like the idea of a plaque explaining the college’s Anglican roots and historic connection to Bruton parish church. But what happened to the separation of church and state/college is partially state-funded argument? It didn’t stand up legally I presume?</p>
<p>I agree, it’s a workable compromise and preserves the “history” of the building for all to see.</p>
<p>No condolences necessary for me. </p>
<p>It’s a small but important point that the cross is not displayed prominently in the center of the altar, a location that immediately grabs your attention as soon as you enter the chapel. Being in another location, and encased in its own glass “sacristy” rather than the enclosed one, allows the cross to remain on display in the chapel without seeming to dominate and define the purpose of the chapel. It’s a reasonable compromise.</p>
<p>Where I went to college, the campus chapel was designated as “interfaith”. In practice, the label “interfaith” actually meant non-denominational Protestant, since the Catholics had their own building (also called a “chapel”), as did the Jewish students. I attended services at this interfaith chapel a number of times because of the convenience of proximity, but felt that in the effort to be accommodating to every Protestant Christian group, the services were bland and watered-down. Still, the school did the best it could to address the needs of the students attending back then. Times have changed. Looking back from a position in 2007, we could be critical because there was no religious space on campus for the Muslims, the Hindus, or the Wiccans. My point is, that was OK since the social realities back then were different. </p>
<p>W&M is trying to adjust to new realities. America is now a very diverse place. Having a cross in the campus chapel may have been appropriate for some of the last 70 years, but it isn’t now unless there are other buildings on campus designed for religious use by people of non-Christian faiths. I think displaying the cross in a case is a reasonable compromise because it makes Christian feel less like there’s something wrong with a cross. It is, after all, a part of the chapel’s history. </p>
<p>I respect some of Dorothy’s frustration in that I do think our society is over-doing it in trying to “sanitize” everything using modern ideas of political correctness. We are trying to “correct” decisions that were made a couple of hundred years ago when different realities and understandings were in play. Take, for example, the issue of college mascots that are American Indians (Native-Americans, First Nation peoples, or whatever we’re calling them these days). There has been such an uproar over this issue instigated on some campuses by non-native-Americans who presume to know what offends Native-Americans. In general, the Native-Americans themselves have not complained, mind you. To the contrary, in some cases they have come out strongly in favor of the use of the mascot! They consider it an honor. But still the activists must protect them from their ignorance and demand the college be purged of these “offensive symbols.” They complain that depicting an American Indian in a feathered headdress is stereotypical and thus insulting. Funny, I’ve seen several newspaper photos within the last year of tribesmen wearing exactly that sort of traditional dress as they sealed tribal business deals.</p>
<p>These same sanitizing forces want to strip George Washington of his honor as a revolutionary hero and first President because he once owned slaves. And there are many similar soapboxes people want to stand on. It’s silly, really.</p>
<p>As we go forward, we should strive to make the best decisions we know how to make that respect our diverse population. We cannot and should not, however, “clean up” every historical relic of our past. Our past is how we came to be who we are.</p>
<p>“But what happened to the separation of church and state/college is partially state-funded argument? It didn’t stand up legally I presume?”</p>
<p>hereshoping,</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that Nichol’s justification for the removal was not based upon separation of church and state. The reason he gave was to make people feel more welcomed. Furthermore, Nichol is the former dean of the UNC law school. If he felt that there was a constitutional issue with the old, new, or compromise policy for the display and usage of the cross, I would fully expect that he would have said so.</p>
<p>GFC–this thread isn’t about Indian mascots, but I did want to point out that frequently the Indians themselves can’t agree on whether the mascot is offensive. You see letters to the editor or to the Univ. president stating “I’m a tribe member and I do/don’t find the mascot offensive.” So it’s a complicated issue.</p>
<p>There is also a huge difference between Indian representatives wearing traditional garb as they seal tribal deals, and a non-native wearing a costume and acting all goofy on the sidelines of a football game.</p>
<p>Of course I understand the distinction, mommusic, but the point is that we can’t apply modern sensibilities retroactively to the past and undo every decision we now view as ill-conceived nor remove every object some person somewhere deems “offensive.” Take the issue of whether the 10 Commandments should be allowed to be displayed in the courtroom. Like it or not, these laws–which are believed by many to be of divine origin–have impacted our American code of laws. Why should we now be ashamed of that fact and purge our public buildings of any indication of that fact? It is what it is.</p>
<p>well, you can say the 10 commandments have impacted our laws, but so have many many many other writings…should we display all of them?</p>
<p>and yes, we can address mistakes from the past and we should remove things that are offensive</p>
<p>and like it or not, the 10 commandment display is not inline with most of the founders of this countries ideas</p>
<p>citygirlsmom:
I don’t have a problem with displaying any document in a public building that is both historically significant, and relevant to the activities or events that have occurred there in the past or now take place there. As I said in my first post, we must respect the social realities of our country as they currently are and make appropriate, inclusive decisions. But by the same token, we must also respect the social realities of the past within which some decisions were made in good conscience that have formed our country’s history. That’s why I think it’s a good compromise to keep the cross in the building out of respect for the history of the school and of the chapel, but remove it from a place of prominence because I agree that that would cause the building to be unwelcoming to non-Christian students.</p>
<p>I suppose Ben Franklin may have had an issue with the prohibition against coveting another’s wife or committing adultery. He was quite the ladies’ man!</p>
<p>GFG–amusing but you miss the point. Objection to the display of the Ten commandments is not made on the basis of agreeing with them or not. Or we might see a display of the “Eight Commandments”!</p>
<p>It’s a Church/State issue. The Supreme Court has ruled the Decalogue may be displayed in a mixed group of documents, primarily for non-religious (e.g. historical or educational) purpose.</p>
<p>My point is this: Why is it that the 10 commandments were first displayed in the court room? No doubt because at that time they were generally agreed-upon as being importnat, as constituting a summary of our laws, and thus relevant to the activities in the court room. The rules came from the Bible and not from the writings of Mohammed or Buddha, etc. because of the European social and religious composition of our country at the time. In the context of wall decorations in an old courtroom building, the words are not religious. They are historical. Separation of church and state would be an issue if the judge were to preach to the defendant about his sin before God in breaking the commandments and demand that he repent and follow Jesus. I wouldn’t, however, be in favor of hanging a plaque with the 10 commandments in a brand new courtroom we build in 2007.</p>
<p>In the interest of learning from history so as not to repeat it, it is important to preserve a record of even objectionable “relics” of our past. What happened, happened, and trying to hide or destroy the evidence is deceptive and potentially dangerous. Furthermore, it diminishes the experiences and suffering stemming from wrongful acts.</p>
<p>Common sense needs to prevail here, not knee-jerk reactions or over-simplistic ones. While we wouldn’t want “Whites Only” signs hanging on the front door of our public buildings no matter how historical they may be, I believe there’s nevertheless a legitimate place for such items when displayed respectfully with the intent of preserving history, such as in a museum or in a museum-like exhibition.</p>
<p>Unlike a “whites only” sign, the Ten Commandments uphold the ideals of love and respect for family and neighbors. Hence, I see no reason they should be removed just because a few people think they’re offensive–not in moral content, but solely on the basis that they originated in the Bible.</p>
<p>“There is also a huge difference between Indian representatives wearing traditional garb as they seal tribal deals, and a non-native wearing a costume and acting all goofy on the sidelines of a football game.”</p>
<p>How true and it really gets my goat when some blanket ass shows up in a three piece suit and wingtipped shoes to a business meeting. I mean who does he think he is appropriating my whitebread heritage and acting all stiff? I don’t steal his culture and wear feathers and a loin cloth so why is he doing this to me? He should have some respect?</p>
<p>Whoo hoo: Maybe a compromise.</p>
<p>See this link:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/07/college.cross.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/07/college.cross.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>Uh – maybe we’ve overkilled this dead horse and everyone is sick to death of this thread.</p>
<p>I thought that by posting this link, we could start all over again.</p>
<p>Come on, people – where are you!!!</p>
<p>You’re right, veryhappy, everyone is sick of this thread. We’ve already seen the news on the compromise.</p>
<p>And higherlead seems to have a problem.</p>
<p>or a highly developed sense of the absurd</p>
<p>If you don’t think liberals are humorless listen to Al Franken for an hour or the Daily Show since John Stewart started to take himself seriously.</p>
<p>I apologize to any Native American who is offended by my suggestion that their adoption of Euro-American standards of dress might be a misappropriation of another people’s culture similar to a Caucasian, Asian, or Negro wearing traditional Native American clothing.</p>
<p>
Uh - TheGFG - have you actually read the ten commandments lately? There seems to be some disagreement about just what exactly the last few are, but the first four are pretty clear:
Not a whole lot there about “love and respect.” Not really a “summary of our laws” either. Mostly a lot about religion - of the “I’m the one true God” type. Kind of unwelcoming for non-Christians, eh? If I worshipped a non-Christian God (or no God at all) I have to think I’d feel at a disadvantage in a court festooned with those sentiments. Museum? Sure. Church - of course. Courthouse? No. Not right.</p>
<p>i dont believe the originals were carved with Crosstians in mind. In fact, the Mosaic issue was entirely pre-Crosstian, almost Druid if not outright Talmudodruid.</p>