« AP Describes Cop-Killing Moonbat Bandit Judith Clark As "Freedom Fighter" | Main | Harvard's Conception of Meaningful Information »

Gee, didn't know W & M was a "diversity"
Of course the prez doesn't care...he still gets overpaid.

Might I suggest the donor slate that 12 million to keeping
more "diversity" from crossing our borders.

He may be publicly crowing, but I'm sure he's taking heat from someone! Good for the donor for sticking up for principle!

Are we a little jealous that you can't charge $40k a semester to people to attend your blog?

Good point. Only the best blogs charge that much per semester.

The core values of the university are not for sale. We threw them out on the trash heap long ago.

Van, I must apologize...it seems Paul followed me over here.

Suppressing Christian displays and oppressing Christians in a Christian chapel at a Christian founded university is "diverse." Got it.

When do they begin sawing off heads and bombing crowds? By not allowing these things, they are oppressing islamopithecines.

Pule:

Nobody requires you to desecrate your religion before visiting this blog.

What if the university banned head lice and wife beating from its mosque? Would that offend you as much as a Christian wanting to enjoy his constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion?

Are hijabs, burkas and toilet paper banned from William and Mary? The right to free expression certainly is.

Are you a little jealous that you cant afford $400,000 a year to do anything? I guess religious oppression does have its price. At William and Mary it's $40,000 a semester for the oppressed.

I'm always at a loss when reading underinformed comments about the William and Mary cross situation. First of all, where did that $40,000 per semester figure come from? William and Mary tuition and fees are around $12,000 a semester for out-of-state students, and $4,000 per semester for in-state students.



Second, the "Christian-founded" comment is misleading at best. The College was not founded by a church, but rather by the British government, which is inextricably linked with the Church of England. That's just the way things were in 1693.



Finally, I'll share what I perceive to be the fundamental difference between the two sides of this issue, and why I fear we'll never reach an understanding. Some people believe that the Wren Chapel is a "Christian chapel" and as a result, are appalled at taking a cross off of permanent display and see it as persecution of Christians. Others believe that a chapel at a public university cannot show favoritism to a single faith and is meant to serve all students regardless of religion (or lack thereof). As long as you believe that this is a Christian space, and as long as I believe that it is no longer so narrowly defined, I don't see how the issue can ever be resolved.



That said, I also feel the need to point out that Christians are not prevented from worshiping at the Wren Chapel, nor are they prevented from displaying the cross (yes, the very cross that is the subject of such controversy) as they do so. It just means that at other times, such as orientation events, concerts, and other non-religious events, the cross is not on display by default. I fail to see the oppression.

Lets play your game for a second Sarah. If a Muslim religious icon was forcibly removed from a chapel how much criticism do you think that would generate? Please give that some sincere thought.

Now lets look at the circumstances under which William and Mary was founded. It was Reverend James Blair that founded the school as an Anglican institution (the Church of England). The good reverend was made president for life. All professors were required to declare adherence to the 39 Articles of Religion. The University only severed its ties to the Church of England after the Revolutionary War. All of the school’s presidents were Anglican reverends of the Church of England until this time.

The first paragraph of the charter given to the school by the British government reads:

“Forasmuch as our well-beloved and faithful subjects, constituting the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia, have had it in their minds, and have proposed to themselves, to the end that the Church of Virginia may be furnished with a seminary of ministers of the gospel, and that the youth may be piously educated in good letters and manners, and that the Christian faith may be propagated amongst the Western Indians, to the glory of Almighty God; to make, found and establish a certain place of universal study, or perpetual College of Divinity, Philosophy, Languages, and other good Arts and Sciences.”

Now you are a slick propagandist Sarah, but when you claim that others are misleading - you shouldnt proceed to make a grossly misleading statement of your own.

Harvard & Yale were originally founded as schools of divinity and see how far they've fallen from their beginnings as well.

Any building that claims to be a "chapel" is sacred to a particular faith. Nothing common or worldly should be held there, regardless of what secular activities take place. No other faith should be practiced there either since this is profane. The problem we have is that we no longer have a line drawn to separate the sacred from the profane. If the muslims, wiccans or non-Christians want a chapel at W & M they should get their own.

Read Ezekiel chapter 8...a vision of many religions practicing under one roof...by doing so they've kicked out the God of heaven and earth...this is apostasy.

I will address your points in reverse order. As to the religious founding - yes, it was 1693. Until the Revolution, the College was under the control of the British monarchy. I see it like this - when it was founded, it was a state institution, and that state was inextricably linked with a church. Today, it is again a state institution, and our government is not - in fact, it is charged with not favoring any religion over another.

I honestly can't say what the reaction of the public, or alumni, or faculty of the College would be to the removal of a Muslim icon in a similar situation - I definitely couldn't have predicted the reaction to the removal of the Wren Cross from permanent display, so I am not much of a prognosticator.

I can, however, tell you my own reaction, which would be that in the same set of circumstances, I would support the removal of the Muslim item from display during times that it was not specifically requested for worship or other religious events. I would feel the same way if the College had a symbol of my own religion available for use during worship - I would not wish it to be on display during the times that the chapel was used for other purposes, and I would be glad to be able to bring out the symbol for use during the worship services of my own faith. Of course, the College does not have a symbol of my religion available for use in the Wren Chapel - it only has a cross - so if the student group of my religion at William and Mary wants to hold a worship service in the Chapel, they'll have to bring their own.

In response to Jael, I'm not even sure how to begin to respond. Many, many public universities have chapels, and few, if any, are sacred to a particular faith. Chapels at public universities are intended to serve all students - in fact, they have a responsibility to. The alternative would be not to have a chapel at all - rather than declaring an existing chapel the property of one particular religion, and to tell others to "get their own." If you honestly believe that a public university should provide a Christian chapel and no other, we're not just not on the same page, we're not reading from the same book (or Constitution).

Sarah,

It is quite convenient that you cant fathom what the public reaction would be to the removal of a Muslim religious icon from a chapel.

I am also sorry to hear you “admit” that you couldn’t have predicted the reaction to the removal of the Wren Cross from permanent display either. Since you are so adept at the sophisticated tactics of political rhetoric it is strange that you cant forecast the obvious reaction to such a maneuver. These high school debate team tactics don’t make for stimulating conversation.

At least you admit the significance of the Anglican Church to the founding of this institution.

I have no objection to any other religion that wants to use the Wren Chapel. Have at it… There is no reason why the symbol of any religion could not be displayed beside the cross. A chapel would be an ideal place for such items.

The idea that the mere presence of a cross can spark intolerance from non-Christians is disturbing.

Because I am incapable of anything more advanced than high-school debate-team tactics, I will use the phrasing of William and Mary President Nichol to ask the question I still am unable to find an answer to:

Given that, I changed the way the Wren Cross is displayed—placing it on the altar when requested. This seemed no great loss to Christian worshipers like myself. The cross would be ever-available for our use. It seemed odd to demand, in a compelling way, that it be displayed when we’re not there to ask for it.

These are honest questions - I'm not trying to engage in political rhetoric or propaganda, I'm just trying to understand the other side in this debate: why is it important to display a cross during times that Christian worship is not taking place? Would it make a difference if William and Mary was a private university rather than a public one? Should nonreligious events even be taking place in the chapel, or should it be restricted to worship services only? Should the cross remain on permanent display, even when other faiths are holding services at the chapel?

I'm honestly trying to understand. While President Nichol's gesture to be welcoming (which I believe to be sincere) has resonated with me and brought me closer to my alma mater, what makes me sad is the disconnect I feel with the fellow alumni of the College who so vehemently oppose him. I am trying to understand other viewpoints so I can try to find common ground, if there is any.

Ahhh... but I never said that you were incapable of more intelligent tactics my dear. I was simply trying to elevate the conversation to a higher level. I usually debate my opponents by answering their questions directly and fairly. Those who resort to evasive rhetoric are not highly regarded in my book. At least you are civil and that is your saving grace.

To answer your question, I have no problem with the act of removing the cross. What I find horrible is the intolerance behind it.

I don’t see how a cross could offend or make anyone feel intimidated. All of a sudden it needs to be packed away after sitting there since the 1940s.

If it is a multi-faith chapel, then why can’t the cross be displayed with relics or icons of other religions?

Sarah:

You must be a genuine Brit. You don't even know the definition of the word "chapel." A word coined by your country. Your fallacious argument hinges on that definition, so back to school with you!

I hear Oxford still makes a dictionary. Check it out. Just don't bother with the present politically correct version. Check an older version that lists actual definitions rather than common (and often incorrect,) usages.

You are an able representative of the most poorly educated and Godless country in the Western world.

Oh, wait. Do Malta and Turkey count as Western countries? How about Croatia? Maybe you lot aren't at the bottom after all.

Cheer up. You are the fattest country in the Western world hands down, so you excel at something. Blaming your bulging waistlines on America doesn't diminish your societal accomplishment. Funny that representations of pigs are fast becoming verboten in a country of such swinish proportions.

Along with intolerance for Christianity, petty crime and pathetic America envy are also crowning British achievements in the twenty first century. You must be so proud.

By the way, how many stars and crescents are displayed on the William and Mary campus? Eh? That many? Is hypocrisy a British virtue, then?

I guess because I didn't know that William and Mary isn't an American university, all my facts are rendered invalid. Are you insinuating that Christians have the right to practice their faith unmolested in Neville Neville Land? They sure as hell arent allowed to do so at William and Mary.

You staunchly defend the right of islamopithecines to practice their religious intolerance. If a Christian group lobbied to have all koranimal cult paraphernalia removed from the chapel, would you support that? I guess it's O.K. to have a cross in a chapel, so long as there aren't any tolerant adherants of the religiin of peace present to see it.

Tell me. Who books the majority of chapel time years in advance to exclude others? Is it Christians? No? It's islamopithecines? Wow. Why have a mosque built when you can seize a chapel from the kafirs.

You've sold me. Where do I sign up? I want to help you oppress Christians and promote rabid islamopithicine/politically correct intolerance. I'm ready and willing to assault anyone who disagrees with us. "Orf wif der eads!" Only videotaped decapitations allowed, of course.

Sarah...your contention that a chapel should be multi-faith is very typical of most people, whether those folks profess Christ or not. In fact, at many college and at some Universities, there are chapels or rooms designated as being devoted to one faith or another.

But what I'm getting at goes much deeper and apparently the point is entirely missed (not just by you) but by most. When the Lord (YHVH) said that no others should come before Him and that there was a definite demarcation between sacred and profane (meaning other religions), He meant that the separation should extend to places of worship as well as what's in the heart. The fact that most folks don't see this is what's at the heart of the problems we have in Christendom and in this world. I know that most will not be convinced of this, but the scriptures make it clear...no mingling. Like I said...Universities can make way for other faiths by assigning rooms or chapels for these faiths, but they shouldn't be mixing them together.

To all Brits present except Sarah: I was just sticking it to her with the anti-British insults. I actually like your country. I just don't like twats like her.

Hey "verist", you really are a jerk who deserves no response other than the one I'm giving right now.

While I disagree with Sarah's argument, at least I didn't stoop to your level. Twat? Whether you meant that term in the vulgar sense or to call her an idiot...regardless, your misogyny is showing. You really have a problem with women don't you?

Yup, I agree Jael.

Sometimes Verist can be damn funny, but there was nothing amusing about that comment.

Sarah's comments make her seem like a kid just regurgitating what her teacher told her. She seems to want to convince us because thinking her way is the cool way to think. Like saying "I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise" or "Everyone else is onboard with this, what's YOUR problem?"

hehe, kind of funny actually.

I suggest that if they want a multi-faith chapel, they build one. Not take it away from one faith. It's akin to taking a Jewish Temple or a Muslim Mosque, removing symbols specific to that faith, and saying "sometimes a pig eating infadel wearing shoes will come in here and pray to Jesus, and there's nothing you can do about it"...oh, and one for our friend Sarah "there's nothing you can do about it, and I just can't understand your undiverse attitude. Everyone else thinks it's fine."

Its a pity that Verist scared her off because we were just getting around to the nitty gritty of the issue...