<p>Of course not. Because a traditional synagogue or mosque is not a nondenominational chapel. No one is imagining Wren Chapel as a “secular gathering place.” It’s a nondenominational chapel intended to be used by people of all faiths on campus. Why is “nondenominational chapel” such a difficult concept for some to grasp?</p>
<p>Nichol’s compromise makes sense to me. A plaque to acknowledge the chapel’s historical beginnings and the day-long display of the cross on Sunday, the traditional day of reflection and worship for Christians. Very reasonable suggestion. </p>
<p>The article linked by DPX contains even more alarmist nonsense about the so-called war on Christianity and making Christianity “illegal.” The overwrought suggestion that this step is the first on a slippery slope to sanitizing religion out of every aspect of American life and raising imagery of crosses being chopped and chiseled off the architecture of existing churches and chapels is just ridiculous. We don’t have enough real enemies and real issues to worry about that we have to invent these unnamed enemies and phantom threats to rail against? Such a waste of mental energy.</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>I think so too. He is seeking the HIGHEST common denominator, and I think the College is very fortunate indeed to have such a clear-eyed leader.</p>
<p>Here is a page with an interior shot of the famous Touro Synagogue, built in 1763 in Newport, Rhode Island. (Somewhat later than the chapel at W&M.) Note the architecture–columns, nice wood railings, arched windows, a chandelier. You could put a cross in here and call it a church. You could put a Torah in and call it a synagogue. You could remove said items, replace them with plaques, and use the building as a banquet hall. </p>
<p>Perhaps instead of removing the cross, the better thing to do would be to add symbols of other religions. Afterall, if we are trying to promote diversity and tolerance, wouldn’t that be the way to go. Removing the cross just seems to say “your symbol offends me.” Personally, I’m not offended by other people’s religious symbols - they don’t have a personal religious meaning to me so they are rather like a piece of art. I’m sure plenty of us have looked at religious art in museums and were not offended.</p>
<p>Vango–nice idea, but do you know how MANY different symbols you would have to put in to keep everyone happy? Up to and including the Wiccan star? No, we’re not going there.</p>
<p>Actually I think it’s a great idea Vango. Why not add symbols of every religion that would like to be represented? Wait, there are groups that would protest that too. </p>
<p>Remember the Seattle airport fiasco? When the authorities chose to remove the trees rather than display another religious symbol, that was criticized. So d****** if you do and d***** if you don’t.</p>
Well, no stretch there…
We’ll provide you with a very nice building which is available on demand specifically for worship, we’ll supply you with religious artifacts appropriate to your religion (at least if you’re Christian), and apparently we’ll even make sure those artifacts are always there unless someone asks to have them removed temporarily. No doubt about it: absolutely no “tolerance” for religion at all.
It’s the “War on Christmas” all over again.
</p>
<p>I think that his compromise is a very fine deal. I just don’t think he should’ve acted the way he did, without consulting anyone, and now he has to back off. He is fairly popular with the students on campus, and had a hard act to follow in Timmy J.</p>
Sounds like diversity and pluralism…but wait, let’s hear from the liberal elite…
Ah, Vango my friend,
clearly you are not keeping score. Neither do you know the lay of the land–the religious desert so longed for by the Sanitizers (find me one well known spiritual leader from the diverse faith community (Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist etc.) that would support this putsch). </p>
<p>You see, your suggestion would, to the contrary, encourage religious diversity and thus the religious conversation generally; Xmusic and her fellow-travelers want less religion and no conversation, neither diverse nor otherwise; they will have the conversation instead of and for the faith community.</p>
<p>The little generals talk over the people of faith, not with them (as with the ever-earnest Mr. Nichols and his secular fiat).</p>
<p>As I have repeatedly said, this radicalism is not being pushed by the diverse faith community (Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc.), they are wiser and more compassionate than this. As it is, W & M has only one registered complaint, so why the rush? This is the handy-work of the “religion-is-backward” anti-faith, secular social engineers. For them religion is at best a quaint anachronism. </p>
<p>Your suggestion could actually facilitate the religious experience on campus. Yikes! Thus to Xmusic et al, your suggestion is a complete non-starter. To wit “No we are not going there.” Case closed (it is their “democratic” impulse that moves them so). </p>
<p>They are, too often, absolutists in wolves clothing.</p>
<p>“Not going there” is where we would be if every religion that could potentially use the chapel insisted on constant representation. Like the Arlington Cemetery flap on Wiccan stars, we could have never-ending litigation on the Chapel symbols.</p>
<p>And believe me, the conservatives, not the “liberal elite” as you say, would be the ones protesting the strange symbols cropping up in their Xtian chapel.</p>
<p>Dottie- you have such a warped reality. The issue is either all religious symbols or none. I dont think an eskimo totem pole will fit in the Wren Chapel.
Nichols policy is the most common sense option available.</p>
<p>While we are at it, to preempt anothe rant in the future: the earth is not flat,there is not a secret cabal ruling the world, and pop rocks and coke wont explode your stomach.</p>
<p>Hope this helps and call doctorb for an appointment to update your prescriptions.</p>
Ah…the tiresome if all to common ad hominem argument employed yet again.</p>
<p>“Swish” (…you picked it) </p>
<p>On the occasion that a First-American (the proper non-derogatory nomenclature) requests a totem ‘pole’ (yikes: again, scattershot stereo-typing: the vast majority of Inuit-Americans/Canadians, as you know, are Christians by faith), I should think it should be considered, if only from a practical and compassionate point of view. </p>
<p>As it is, I’m betting that not a single Inuit ever has or ever will demand a “totem-pole” in the chapel (they are, on the whole, I assume, less pig-headed than your average malcontented tradition-hater); though a great majority, as Christians, may prefer to have a cross or two, which, it should be said they would be denied if you and your crew had their way.</p>
<p>There is, as you may guess, a difference between ‘trouble-makers’ and people of faith. Guess which ones want to remove the tradition of the chapel for their own selfish reasons?</p>
<p>…and please, dispense with the un-necessary stereo-typing of ethnic and religious minorities. It is uncalled for. Besides, I suppose them to be able to speak for themselves without your paternal patronizing, Swish (bold choice).</p>
<p>Northwest Indians didn’t carve totem poles until Europeans brought the steel tools that made them possible. A lot of that sort of carving was produced for the tourist trade, just like much of Chinese art was (and still is) produced for export to the west. Just because the PNW Indians were non-technological doesn’t mean they were stupid. Europeans liked the carvings, and the Indians wanted manufactured stuff – it was a good deal.</p>
<p>The role of what Europeans think of as religion is very complicated in the tribes of the PNW. This is a gross over-simplification, but there really wasn’t a clear demarcation between the physical world experienced daily and what – for lack of a better term – you might call the “spirit world.” I don’t have a reference to a scholarly work handy, but you can find a great layman’s description in “A Passage to Juneau” by Jonathan Raban. By the way, the native peoples of the PNW coast are not Inuit, and generally refer to themselves as “Indians.” The social culture of the coastal Indians was unique, and certainly didn’t have a lot in common with the peoples of the taiga or Arctic. Outside of a fairly small number of First Peoples types, actual descendants-of-those-Asians-and-maybe-Europeans who got to North America earlier than the-second-wave-of-immigrants-from-Eurasia-and-Africa seem to be comfortable with the easily prononunced “Indian.” In my experience, YMMV.</p>
<p>D_PX, I am at a loss to explain your overreaction to my post. Do you really think there would not be a Pandora’s Box opened? It’s really too rediculous. </p>
<p>I hope you understand I am not against any group displaying their symbol WHEN THEY USE THE CHAPEL. ok?</p>
<p>And as far as my “open-minded crew”–you flatter me too much. You make it sound like I get together with my minions to plot–I don’t know–perhaps what stand to take on your sometimes overheated posts.</p>
<p>You are new here and perhaps don’t understand that this discussion is just a pastime and not intended to raise your blood pressure. So chill.</p>
<p>“By this logic, the altar table in Wren Chapel cannot stay. Some will be offended. Neither can the altar rails. The pulpit cannot stay”</p>
<p>Bwuh? Where in the world is this coming from?</p>
<p>The logic is that the chapel should be made as neutral a space as possible unless a special event requires denominational symbols. In between events, it is a quiet space for all students to use for prayer and meditation and spiritual thought. The altar rails and pulpit don’t detract from that use, but a big brass cross does.</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of being “offended” by a cross. It’s a matter of feeling that you’re in a Christian church, and therefore that your Jewish/Muslim/Hindu prayers are not appropriate. At a public university, students who want a quiet place to kneel towards Mecca between classes should not be at a disadvantage compared to students who want to pray to Jesus between classes. Having a giant cross on display every day stands in the way of that goal.</p>
<p>“Nichols policy is the most common sense option available.”</p>
<p>So you are applauding Nichol for coming up with a common sense option for a problem of his own making. There’s no virtue in that. Nichol’s policy changed nothing. All were welcome when the cross was displayed; all are welcome when the cross is not displayed. Nichol’s sequestering of the cross was meant to make all people ‘feel’ welcome. His action was based on accommodating people’s feelings, er, make that one person’s feelings.</p>