<p>I feel like I’ve fallen into Surrealand at Walt Disney World. I’m sure the Roman Catholic Church – something of a generally-recognized authority on Christianity – will be surprised to find that is sinning against Dictionary.com by holding mass in the Sistine Chapel. It would be hard to imagine a less non-denominational place.</p>
<p>On the other hand, dictionary.com does not say that a “chapel” has to be non-denominational. In fact, none of the 16 definitions of the word in dictionary.com requires the building to be non-Christian.</p>
<p>Some are missing the point of what a nondenominational chapel offers to the student body, comprised of many faiths, and that is the unplanned-for, walk-in moment to sit and contemplate or pray in a time of need. </p>
<p>A non-Christian should not have to walk into the chapel on the spur of the moment and be greeted with a symbol that all but declares ‘this place is for others, not you.’ It’s one thing to say that the cross can be removed upon request for a wedding or something, but that’s not the point of an on-campus chapel. It should be a welcoming place for all students to have a quiet moment without having to undergo advance planning to avoid the feeling of “otherness.” </p>
<p>I think Nichols is doing the right thing. This is not a private college, it’s public and the chapel of all places should be as inclusive and welcoming as it can possibly be. For some non-Christians, having a cross in a building sends a clear exclusionary, this-is-not-for-you message. The cross is available to be placed in the chapel for a special event upon request, which is as it should be. It should not be mounted there all the time. It’s not a historical work of art and this is not the Sistine Chapel.</p>
<p>I should have said THIS CHAPEL, not a chapel in the broader sense, but I really do think those that made that picky point new what I meant, but my points still are the same</p>
<p>non-denominational in intent is pretty clear, but if you need that cross so you can feel the place is YOURS and that others feelings don’t matter what, that intent is gone</p>
<p>sometimes, the truely spiritual thing to do is to let go of your “needs” and see the potential hurt towards others, and if that means removing a symbol, so be it</p>
<p>a chapel, in THIS circumstance, is as jazzymom described…</p>
<p>I think those that are so attached to this particular piece of metal are missing the bigger picture</p>
<p>I think about the person the cross represents, and somehow I wonder if those that are so attached to this hunk of metal really think about what He would want, a man whose whole existence was for those in society on the edges, in so many ways</p>
<p>I wasn’t trying to chime in on the main thread (count one vote for removing symbols of specific faiths from interfaith chapels), but making some pedantic comments about word usage. Hey, I even used the [pedantic] flag…</p>
<p>WashDad–your post #64 certainly looked like you were arguing for the exclusive use of “chapel” by Christians. Yes, it’s the Sistine CHAPEL, but let me tell you all that when a Jewish synagogue has two areas of worship, the larger one is the main sanctuary, and the smaller one is referred to as the “chapel.” </p>
<p>WashDad, I missed your question last night (because the only time I’m not on CC, I think, is when I sleep). Here I am, back at my desk this AM (because I’m addicted to CC at my place of employment – this could become a problem [hell, I think it’s already a problem – work about two hours a day, CC about six hours a day] – but I digress --) –</p>
<p>ANYWAY: Others have answered the definition thing about “chapel” being a Christian place of worship. It’s not. It can be, but the generic form of the noun is not Christian.</p>
<p>What history? It’s been there less than seventy years, in a three hundred year old institution. Doesn’t matter who built it. It’s been denoted non-denominational, not Christian, and it’s part of and maintained by a state institution.</p>
<p>chocoholic–I would venture to say almost all of our country’s oldest colleges were built by Christians. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Massachusetts colonies were originally “Christian.” </p>
<p>But now we have separation of church and state. We enshrined in our Constitution these ideals which welcome all without regard to religion, ethnic background, place of origin, color, or sex (ok, those last two took a little longer.)</p>
<p>W & M is just doing the right thing, regardless of who “built and paid for” its chapel 300 years ago.</p>
<p>PS. You may be wrong but I like your screen name. :)</p>
<p>scroll down and you can see a picture of the interior of the Chapel…
Seeing it, there can be no doubt that this is a church, not a secular gathering place</p>
<p>Interesting topic. It is quite a challenge to create a “universally” welcoming worship/prayer/ceremonial space. Separate from acknowledging the Anglican origins which the OP just mentioned, for institutions that want to be truly nondenominational without coming across as antiseptic, it is a lot easier to do so in the concept & construction phases.</p>
<p>Two ideas which have worked to attract peoples of all faiths are these:</p>
<p>–structures that that are more organically related to their natural surroundings, with a respite, meditative angle. Specific identifiable religious imagery (torah scrolls, crosses, crucifixes) absent.
–For a period in my life my family attended a nondenominational church whose images were limited to stained-glass windows on the sides of the church. Those windows variously had images of every faith, as well as great “secular humanists” – a neutral phrase that has become an epithet of the Right. The Church had a diverse membership, including families who had just moved into town, did not belong to a synagogue or church yet, etc. It was good design because you weren’t faced with any images directly in front of you, yet you felt that the place was inclusive.</p>
<p>Some years ago, our k-8 school considered moving to new quarters. The available space was a church that was being offered for rent by the diocese. Many Jewish families objected to the site as it was full of Catholic imagery that could not be removed, such as stained glass windows. So in the end, we did not move.</p>
<p>The issue, I expect, is not whether the chapel is a religious or secular space but whether it is non-denominational, i.e. available for use by people of different faiths.</p>
Very well said. I agree with and would support the idea; if there was in fact a call for such a space on campus. I presume there may be.</p>
<p>It is certainly a better idea than picking the flesh off traditional religious places of worship for no rational reason and to accommodate no serious person. I am sure that we would not be having this debate if the edifice in question was a traditional synagogue, or even mosque. In fact, there would be an uproar…that I would support.</p>
<p>But, honestly, I do not believe this is the point in W & M. As the post above notes, there is only one registered complaint from anyone within the faith community.</p>
<p>This move is secular to the core. And a shame.</p>
<p>Sanitizing is for hospitals and prisons, not places of worship.</p>
<p>"chocoholic–I would venture to say almost all of our country’s oldest colleges were built by Christians. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Massachusetts colonies were originally “Christian.” </p>
<p>Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were colonies with large Quaker pluralities, and, for a time, Governors and legislatures in which Friends held sway. You wouldn’t have found a single cross in their Christian houses of worship. </p>
<p>Again, I don’t see what the problem is. Christians are welcome to worship with the cross in the chapel any time they wish. What should they care that the cross isn’t there when the chapel is visited by heathens? It’s like the sound of the tree that falls in the forest - if the Christians don’t hear it, does it have to be Silent Night?</p>
<p>places of worship…k…so at least admit that the Christians want this to be a Christian place of worship…to do otherwise is dishonest…to claim, well it is for everybody, but not really?</p>
<p>When an institution claims they have a non-denominational chapel for ALL to use and feel welcome in, then it should be that, as claimed</p>
<p>To PRETEND as seems to be the case of the protesters is disingenous
The archetecture of the building is what it is, BUT ADDING adornments, well that is a putting in items to give the feeling of exclusion…</p>
<p>SO what if it is an old building and at one time was designed as a CHristian Chapel…times have changed for the use of that building, imagine, things changing, and buildings having the same layout, but a different use…how bizarre!!!</p>
<p>“Sanitizing”? What a strange way to look at this situation. The President took bold action based on strong moral principles, then compromised based on others feedback. I cant imagine better leadership. W&M is fortunate to have Nichols!</p>
<p>If someone of Jewish/Muslim descent filed a formal complaint, then people would be b**ching and moaning about “reverse discrimination”. Nichols did the right thing for the right reason.</p>