<p>“All were welcome when the cross was displayed. Nichol’s sequestering of the cross was meant to make all people ‘feel’ welcome.”</p>
<p>So you’re arguing that it’s wrong to try to accommodate people’s feelings?</p>
<p>What’s the pupose of having a chapel on campus at all if you don’t care about the feelings of the members of the community? Spirituality is based on feeling. If feelings don’t matter, you should just knock the chapel down and build something with a purely rational purpose, like a dorm or a science lab.</p>
<p>At any rate, most of the people arguing on behalf of the old policy seem pretty emotional about it.</p>
Hanna,
at what point did this ‘giant’ cross begin to stand in the way? What evidence do you have of this? According to the College, there has been but one complaint made over having to endure the presence of a cross…in the <em>chapel</em>. </p>
<p>Do I assume from this that up until now only one non-Christian has ever used the Chapel? …or that the non-Christian’s, like myself, who did use the Chapel found that the presence of someone else’s religion did not offend them?</p>
<p>Who or what is driving this obviously ill-considered change (by all accounts none of the faith groups on campus were consulted before the unilateral removal of the cross from the chapel)?
………………….</p>
<p>
No, not at all.
I was referring to <em>Allmusic</em> and her “open-minded” crew, not <em>Mommusic</em> (i.e.: the crew) though I can see where this would be an easy mistake to make–I make it all the time myself. </p>
<p>…………………………</p>
<p>Washdad,</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. It matches what I know, as well.</p>
<p>Actually the Muslims would not bother to enter the chapel. They feel quite free to kneel in any building, playground, indoors, outdoors, etc., facing east, even if there is a temple or church in their field of vision. In fact last year at the Continental Arena in NJ, a group was found during a game, by security, kneeling east, which unfortunately happened to be also facing all the ductwork, and they were all taken into custody for suspicious behavior.</p>
<p>…I can assure you that there is absolutely NO possibility that any Muslims complained about a cross being in the chapel.</p>
<p>…I can equally assure you that no Hindu’s complained, either (also feel pretty comfortable saying no complaints came from any First-Nations people, fwiw).</p>
<p>“and we’re worried about symbols putting people at a disadvantage?”</p>
<p>Symbols individual students bring with them during brief periods of using the chapel are different from symbols placed above all chapel users by the governmental organization in charge of the building. This is fundamental to the distinction between government and private actors.</p>
<p>“In fact last year at the Continental Arena in NJ, a group was found during a game, by security, kneeling east, which unfortunately happened to be also facing all the ductwork, and they were all taken into custody for suspicious behavior.”</p>
<p>Wow, I don’t think I could have come up with a better argument for providing a a meditation and worship space for everyone to use. Apparently Muslims need to worry about being arrested if they’re seen praying elsewhere? That’s very troubling.</p>
<p>“Do I assume from this that up until now only one non-Christian has ever used the Chapel? …or that the non-Christian’s, like myself, who did use the Chapel found that the presence of someone else’s religion did not offend them?”</p>
<p>The vast majority of minorities are used to being treated as second-class citizens in all kinds of minor ways. Most of us take it for granted. If we complained about every small act of disrespect, we wouldn’t have time for much else. So we don’t; only the people who view a particular incident as being unusually important go out of their way to complain. But that doesn’t change the fact that people in charge are doing the right thing when they try to make every space as welcoming as possible to the entire community. If I were a W&M student, I wouldn’t have filed a complaint about this, but I would still be very happy about the change, and I would be much more likely to start praying in the chapel, which I would not have done before. Administrators should do the right thing whether people are complaining or not.</p>
<p>“So you’re arguing that it’s wrong to try to accommodate people’s feelings?”</p>
<p>No. The old policy accommodated people’s feelings by allowing them to request the cross be removed. I’m arguing that Nichol made accommodating feelings a question of degree. To be more accommodating to the feelings of some may mean that others feel less welcome. Nichol was aware of this likelihood, otherwise why would tour guides have been told, “If you encounter questions, concerns, or resistance to this change…”, prior to any announcement of the decision and subsequent reaction to it? Nichol created a controversy where none existed.</p>
<p>Who are these others who feel less welcome?</p>
<p>Christians who want to continue to pray beneath a state-provided cross without booking it in advance?</p>
<p>If so, it seems to me that they feel less welcome because they are now being treated like everyone else, instead of getting a special privilege.</p>
what i was saying is that they don’t care where they are praying…and yeah, if they chose to bend over some ductwork, that’s not a great choice. Don’t selectively highlight</p>
<p>Dorothy…your arguments remind me of the same ones you made on the XMas tree thread a while back. </p>
<p>You are ASSUMING that anyone who doesn’t want a cross displayed in a NON denominational chapel is NOT religious at all themselves and are simply secular and do not practice organized religion. That is a broad untrue assumption. As others have pointed out, nobody is saying to take down crosses in Christian churches and to “sanitize” them and make them secular. Here, they are talking of a chapel that is meant to be non denominational, meaning that it should not appear to represent one religion over another by displaying only one religion’s artifact. (by the way, I see no connection like you made to museums…where artifacts are on display for museum purposes, not for religious purposes). Nobody is trying to do away with religion. At a public institution, no singular religion should be the dominant one in a public place of prayer and reflection. A person of another religion shouldn’t have to feel like they have to pray in “church” just to pray. The idea of the chapel is for prayer in a place that doesn’t represent any particular religion. That’s what non-denominational means. For Christian services, events or prayer, a cross can be brought in. For just regular visitation, it is open to all religions who don’t have to feel that they are praying in a Christian church but a place of prayer meant to encompass all religions. You keep making the argument that those who oppose a cross on display in the non denominational public building want to do away with religion, do away with Christianity, do away with tradition, do away with XMas, and so on. Not the case at all. This is a public space. Crosses are more appropriate in a Christian church, not a non-denominational public space. Just as I don’t think symbols of my religion need to be the singular one on display at a public university chapel. People who do not feel a cross is appropriate on permanent display in this space are not at all necessarily anti-religion or not observers of a religion or simply secular. The point isn’t doing away with religion. It is putting religion in religious houses of worship and then in public non-denominational spaces, welcoming all religions and not favoring any particular one. There is nothing “anti-religious” about that. It is a concept of welcoming ALL religions. It is not an attempt to make everything secular. As mini said, that is not the “lowest common denominator” but the “highest”.</p>
or, on the other hand, we are simply not so petty, as portrayed by the likes of Mr. Nichols…amongst not a few here. </p>
<p>Let’s face it, this has absolutely nothing to do with religious minorities. Nothing at all. If it did, the university would have the leaders of these communities, front and center. They don’t. Ever wonder why?</p>
<p>I don’t. I don’t suppose anyone else needs to either.</p>
<p>Because we all, rightly, assume it is because this is not a matter of multicultural faith at all, but rather a skirmish in that tired old battle that secularist and atheist wage over what they considered to be the affront of religion in the public sphere. </p>
<p>Dottie- You know a lot of big words, unfortunately you dont know how to use them. I dont know which emotion I’m feeling is stronger , pity or disbelief. In these situations I pray for someone. Logic obviously cant help you. Therefore I will pray that God removes the suspicion and bitterness in your heart. I will pray that you receive compassion and sympathy for what you have been through. Something has hurt you in life to make you feel this way and I hope that God can help your healing.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t adding the symbols of other religions do more to promote diversity and tolerance than taking away symbols? If a Christian is quietly using the chapel, does that then interfere with another, say, Jewish student using it at the same time? Since it is a place for the worship of religion, it would seem that religious symbols are not out of context there.</p>
<p>I beleive this to be a tempest in a teapot: despite the caterwauling, students are not waiting in line to pray in the chapel. Not Christians and not Jews, Muslims or Hindus etc.</p>
<p>This was meant to be a symbolic removal for political (PC) purposes. Nothing else explains it.</p>
<p>D_PX–you can call it political correctness all you want, but it is the right thing to do. </p>
<p>Like many of the changes that have taken place in this country in recent years–the ADA act for instance. No longer can a business say “well we’ve never had any complaints about not being accessible to wheelchair users.” “No blind person has ever tried to come here.” “No deaf person has ever called us.” :D</p>
<p>And there are none so blind as those who will not see.</p>
<p>heaven forbid a symbolic gesture is made for political purposes and to make a point</p>
<p>and so what if that is what is was, a gesture to show that the school is inclusive and that no one religion "owns’ the chapel, even in spirit</p>
<p>gosh, what a horrid thing to do!!! show that the chapel is for all, SYMBOLICALLY…isn’t KEEPING a cross in a non-denominational chapel SYMBOLIC…so symbols are good for one group, but no others…got it</p>
<p>Ripley…believe it or not (sorry, could not resist), it is not about feeling threatened. I would not feel “threatened” by a cross in a non-denominational chapel. I’d feel that the chapel represented a particular religion, however. Imagine if the chapel ONLY had a Star of David or a Torah on display at the front and no crosses, etc. A Christian might find that they were worshipping in a Jewish house of worship, rather than a non-denominational public space. That’s what it is about. It is not about taking away religion or threatening anyone. It is about a public space being non-denominational and putting crosses up in Christian (etc.) houses of worship where one would expect to find such an artifact. If I go into a Christian church, I feel that I am in a Christian place of worship. If I go into a non-denominational chapel, I’d like to think of it as not representing a Christian house of worship. With a cross on display, that is what it would feel like it was, a Christian house of worship. It doesn’t “threaten” me. But it doesn’t feel non-denominational. Just like I would imagine for a Christian to enter the public non-denominational chapel might feel if the ONLY religious symbol on display was the Star of David or Torah or similar artifact that represents a particular religion, not all religions.</p>
<p>Only one person complained. That doesn’t prove anything. </p>
<p>The absence of a pile of written complaints — no one really knows how many people might have spoken to administrators about their discomfort without “filing” some kind of official complaint — doesn’t mean that everyone on the campus or visiting the campus was comfortable with the situation or liked having a prominent symbol of a particular belief ---- the “We’re No. 1!!” message to other believers — displayed in a so-called nondenominational chapel. </p>
<p>If I never walk into a restaurant because the decor or the prices make me uncomfortable, I’m not going to complain about it. If I’m bothered by a rude or unhelpful salesperson but don’t take the time to complain, does that mean the person’s behavior cannot be considered a problem that should be addressed? What if only one person complains? Does one complaint mean there’s not a problem to be addressed? Kind of depends on who’s listening, I guess. </p>
<p>St. Andrews: </p>
<p>How does a *lack *of a cross displayed make Christians feel less welcome in the chapel? Can you explain how walking into what is clearly a religious edifice with pews etc. would make a Christian uncomfortable simply because the cross is not prominently displayed? </p>
<p>What you’re really arguing for is for the cross to continue to be THE prominent greeting when anyone walks into the chapel. Nichols is saying that that is not welcoming to many others who also feel strongly about their faiths. Why is it so tough to see this issue from someone else’s perspective? Think about it. Christian students and visitors may walk in at any moment without thinking about it ahead of time and feel perfectly at ease — it’s THEIR chapel after all. NonChristians students who might like to have that same sense of ease and acceptance have to ask first for the cross to be moved (probably in writing with a specific date in mind) and wait whatever time it takes for university staff to accomplish this. Otherwise, they can walk in to use the chapel with the prominently displayed symbol of the Majority Religion with its inherent you-are-the-other message to greet them. Not exactly fair, is it?</p>
<pre><code>And students who feel they can only be comfortable in the chapel if the cross is front and center can go on Sundays, when it’s there all day under Nichol’s proposal. Nichols seems like an individual who is good at listening and willing to compromise. I hope the university community supports him.
</code></pre>