<p>I, for one, feel less welcome. If a cross isn’t welcome in a chapel on campus, where is it welcomed? The cross is symbolic to me as a christian; its removal is symbolic of the secularization of W&M.</p>
<p>You are suggesting that those who are troubled by the removal of the cross shouldn’t feel that way, or even have no right to feel that way. But in the realm of feelings isn’t it judgmental to say that one person’s feelings are justified while another’s are not? Personally, I don’t like dealing on a feelings level, but this is the basis of the debate as initiated by Nichol.</p>
<p>I’m not judging you or anyone else who wants the cross to remain. I’m disagreeing with you. I’m saying that there is inherent institutional unfairness in making some students go to steps in advance to have the cross removed if they want to use the chapel without feeling uncomfortable. </p>
<p>I see this move on Nichols part as a symbol of acceptance that students are of multiple religions and cultures, not a symbol of secularization. I see Nichol’s proposal as a fair compromise. I guess we will simply agree to disagree on this.</p>
<p>Exactly. The cross is symbolic to me as a Jew, also. That’s why it shouldn’t be in a non-denominational chapel. In a Christian church, yes. But not in a non-denominational chapel.</p>
<p>Or maybe you’re trying to make me feel uncomfortable??</p>
<p>If the people protesting the removal of the cross are doing so because they oppose what they consider the “sanitizing” or secularizing of the chapel — not that they simply want the majority religion to “rule” in the chapel, perhaps they can accept a different compromise. </p>
<p>Now, displaying the symbols of all religions at all times might get touchy over the matter of placement — which symbols end up hanging off to the side and which get to hang in the most prominent spot, front and center. So, at the risk of setting someone off again on a label-flinging mission, let’s not go there. </p>
<p>Instead, here’s a modest proposal for a nonsecular compromise. </p>
<p>Divvy up the months of the year centered around the major holidays of various religions. For a couple months around Christmas and Easter, the cross alone is on display in the chapel as before. For the months around the Jewish High Holy Days, the cross is moved out and a prominent Star of David is displayed in the same position of prominence. And so on. For some months around the significant holidays of the followers of the Muslim, Hindu, or any other faith, the symbols of their faiths will hold that position of honor.<br>
Some months could have no symbol for those who adhere to no religious faith but might like a quiet place for contemplative thought. Fund-raising will pay for the construction of the new religious symbols to be displayed. A committee of students, administrators and religious leaders will draw up a fair monthly schedule for the display of the various symbols each in its own turn. </p>
<p>There. A bit complicated, perhaps, but do-able. Imminently more inclusive and even-handed. Everyone would have an equal shot at feeling welcome in the chapel on a walk-in basis and everyone can learn to appreciate the religious symbols of their fellow human beings. Everyone learns to share this lovely chapel. In fact, use of the chapel would probably increase. </p>
<p>The issue is about avoiding sanitization and secularization, right? It’s not really about keeping the Christian symbol dominant in a public university’s nondenominational chapel, is it?</p>
<p>I have not read all the posts here, but feel compelled to write because I just read an article about Nichol’s decision in my city’s Catholic newspaper. The bottom line is, the removal of the cross makes the chapel welcoming to anyone (and everyone) who wants to use it. It is a non-denominational chapel. In Vail, Colorado (and many other places too, I’m sure) there is a chapel called the Vail Interfaith Chapel. When Christian services are taking place, they place a cross (which is normally stored in a small room to the side) on the altar . That small room also holds some Jewish symbols which I am sure are displayed during Jewish services. From what I have seen, it works very well.
I cannot think of anything more inclusive and more fair. Good job Nichols!</p>
<p>I guess there are those on campus who feel this issue has been hijacked by Newt Gingrich and his crew. Don’t blame them for wanting to run in the opposite direction.</p>
I suppose this would work as long as, as you say, your “time of need” coincided with your “major holidays.” It is possible, I suppose.</p>
<p>Or, along those lines, how about if, in the sprit of democracy, the times were allotted in accordance with the raw numbers in the faith community? </p>
<p>Neither to me is a solution. Because neither addresses a real problem but rather a manufactured problem. So we have an artificial solution to an artificial problem.</p>
<p>Again, the issue is not about adding a Christian religious symbol to a chapel; but rather to remove an existing Christian religious symbol because it is offensive. I do not see this as a Christian issue but rather a “religious” issue, in the universal sense: the dumbing-downof religion; a little water in the wine. </p>
<p>There is a difference.
Were the situation reversed, I would never support a disturbance (adding a Christian artifact). Certainly not, as here, by fiat. What’s more, I think few if any religious leaders–of any faith–would support this action for the reasons I state. If there are, I would like to see some link or source to them: Jewish, Muslim, Hindu etc. This issue of faith is being driven by a secular agenda, not a religious one.</p>
<p>jazzymom–the alternate display would not work b/c often holidays collide. Easter and Passover, for instance.</p>
<p>But thank you for the “myths and distortions” link, which sheds light and not heat, unlike some posts.</p>
<p>Bottom line–W&M has been a public institution for 100 years. It’s NOT Christian! And the origional, historic Anglican chapel would NOT have had a cross! Okay then.</p>
<p>This argument is like the “one nation, under God” problem in the pledge of allegiance. Once certain factions have added something, it becomes terribly hard to take it out.</p>
<p>Jazzymom,
I read ourcampusunited. Pretty weak in my estimation. If they had any real arguments they would not need to resort to using the word “attack” repeatedly, call some conservative W&M students “agitators”, or give the misguided impression that outsiders were behind everything. I guess they are hoping that the articles they link to are not actually read because they do not support their argument; they weaken it. The “different point of view” I found was that OCU thinks conservatives are wrong and anything they touch, including the Wren cross debate, can be assumed to be motivated by political purposes.</p>
<p>Well, first of all, I was trying to make a subtle point in the “divvy up the months” post. “Modest proposal” …nudge, nudge. It wasn’t a serious suggestion since I was aware of how much holidays overlap.</p>
<p>But if, long shot, the university’s committee addressing the issue comes up with such a proposal… that is, each religious group has a similar 2-foot brass symbol made to sit on the chapel altar and the symbol remains there in place of honor for whatever agreed upon months… it would not satisfy those calling for the cross’s permanent return because the issue is not about loss of religious symbols plural (as in share the chapel) it’s about loss of one particular symbol’s dominant position in the chapel. </p>
<p>Here’s another solution with historical merit: Return the chapel to its appearance before the cross was added to the altar table. Everyone can appreciate the stark beauty of the chapel interior and focus on their own thoughts and prayers, which is probably what the Anglicans had in mind by not having symbols inside. Who could argue with that?</p>
<p>DPX, if you’re actually interested in the substance of this story, and not just an opportunity to score points of the “other team”, consider this:</p>
<p>The cross was added to the chapel just 60 years ago, 200 years after the chapel was built. Now it’s been taken off permanent display, available on request. Why the controversy over action #2?</p>
<p>You’re absolutely correct that this isn’t a “real” issue but a manufactured one; you’re just 180 degrees off on who manufactured it. It’s your buddies in the right wing propaganda movement, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, funded by the same group of right wing financial backers, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; etc., who have manufactured the “controversy”. That’s right - the same folks who funded the publications you have worked for recently are behind the manufactured “issue”. And you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.</p>
<p>Dorothy, you continue to maintain that this is an anti-religion campaign and that non religious folks want to do away with this religion stuff. I don’t see it that way AT ALL. It is very similar to the arguments you made on the XMas tree thread at Sea-Tac. People are not saying to do away with Christian symbols at the public university chapel. They are saying it is a NON DENOMINATIONAL chapel in a PUBLIC setting and so each religion can bring in their symbols when they want to. But to display just ONE religion’s symbols favors one religion OVER others. Yes, this isn’t about religion vs. secular…but about one religion vs. all religions. Same with Sea-Tac…a public space…either display symbols of many religions’ holidays or none at all in a public gathering space. With the school chapel…one could argue to put up symbols of each religion (though this could invite problems as to all that exist, etc.) or simply do away with all religious symbols in a non-denominational public chapel and let each religion bring in their own symbols when they are using the chapel for religious purposes. Then each person or group brings it in as a religious choice, rather than the institution displaying THEIR religious choice for ALL. </p>
<p>I don’t know why you keep pushing the notion of an anti-religion or secular campaign and act as if everyone who is against a cross on display in the school non denominational chapel is against religion or against Christianity and wants to secularize everything. I think many are saying, put crosses in Christian churches. For public spaces and non-denominational chapels, keep them free of singling out one religion over others, so that all feel welcomed and do not feel that one religion dominates the place of worship and reflection. It is a public space. Religious symbols are more approrpiate in religilous institutions such as churches and synagogues. Nobody is against religion here or against symbols of religion. It is about WHERE they are displayed. Nobody is saying to “sanitize” and make everything secular. Religious artifacts have their place in certain settings and not in others. That is what it is about. Saying that those against a cross on display at this public non-denominational chapel are against religion is completely false. There are many posters right here who agree with this decision, yet are practicing religion themselves. One may be very religious but still feel that it is inappropriate to favor one religion over another in a public setting.</p>
<p>Since Jesus specifically and emphatically preached against all public prayer (including prayer in synagogues/churches) and told his followers to close the door and pray in secret (as he practiced) and in a closet, the cross has been put where he would have wanted it to be - in a closet.</p>
<p>Why is that a hard one for Christians? It isn’t for me.</p>
<p>“its removal is symbolic of the secularization of W&M.”</p>
<p>Secularization of a public, government-sponsored institution? Heaven forfend!</p>
<p>It’s a good thing we agree about what’s going on here: some students at W&M are losing the favored treatment they are used to, and that makes the small fraction of Christians who believe they are entitled to special privileges very angry indeed. I don’t dispute that they have every right to feel whatever they want, but the fact that they are upset does not mean that they have actually been mistreated.</p>
<p>I, for one, feel less welcome. If a cross isn’t welcome in a chapel on campus, where is it welcomed? The cross is symbolic to me as a christian; its removal is symbolic of the secularization of W&M.</p>
<p>…not the sort of religious reasons one would have suspected, given that this is a church/chapel and not, say, a library or lecture hall.</p>
<p>The chapel (it is not a church) is used for multiple purposes, some of which have absolutely nothing to with religion. The fact is that in its design the chapel will hold roughly 130+ individuals, and as such, suits itself quite nicely to intimate/special ceremonies, which are of course not limited to those of a religious nature. Why then should it be the case that the chapel contains a singular religious item, unless otherwise requested?</p>
<p>It is only a chapel by name, and, likely, if it were not for historic purposes and being tied into Colonial Williamsburg, the chapel would have been converted long ago. The building in which the chapel is housed contains classrooms, offices, etc. This was long overdue and sends a strong message that the chapel is open to all that wish to enter.</p>