Round 3: 'Tolerance' on American Universities???
POSTED BY: cartoon
UPDATED: Saturday, December 16, 2006 08:38
VIEWED: 5862
PAGE 1 of 6
As Round 2 was also getting a bit long, I took the liberty of following Soup's previous move, and continuing the thread here.
This thread originated at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25454, and was subsequently continued to http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=25599.
I heard the following by Mark Earley on "Breakpoint" commentary just a few hours ago. It's something else to chew on, related to this discussion...
Quote:
Founded in 1693, the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia (my alma mater) is the second-oldest college in the United States after Harvard. Like Harvard, William and Mary was founded for explicitly Christian purposes: The Royal Charter listed the training of “ministers of the gospel” and the propagation of the Christian faith among the “western Indians” among the school’s founding purposes.
Not surprisingly, given the school’s history, one of the oldest buildings on campus is the chapel, designed by Sir Christopher Wren who also designed St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. On the altar stood a gold cross that was donated to the school by the nearby historic Bruton Parish church in the 1930s.
I say “stood” because in October, William and Mary President Gene R. Nichol ordered that the cross be removed from the altar. His goal was to “make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific” place and to “make it more welcoming” to people of “all faiths.”
As you probably guessed, Nichol could not cite a specific instance of non-Christians being made to feel unwelcome by the presence of the cross.
Not surprisingly, the decision did not go over very well with William and Mary alumni and students. One alumnus wrote Nichol asking whether William and Mary students are “so fragile that the mere symbol of a religion, which they may or may not agree with, should reduce them to [a] pool of blubbering Jell-O?”
Even worse, from the school’s point of view, were the words of an alumna who has been “very generous to the college since [she] graduated.” She pledged not to “donate another penny to the school until the cross is returned to the altar” and to encourage other donors to do the same.
After the intense reaction, which included editorials in leading Virginia newspapers criticizing the move, Nichol offered another rationale: that the cross was not part of the original design of the chapel, and removing it is in keeping with the restoration of the Wren Chapel. This is my favorite, really.
This concern for William and Mary’s history here is, at best, selective. The concern for the “original” William and Mary is limited simply to architecture: the Wren Chapel being restored to its original design. But if returning to originality were really the main concern, then there would be a discussion going on about returning William and Mary to its original mission of training ministers of the Gospel and propagating the Christian faith. That discussion is not occurring.
While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed. This “fear” is also why Christian programs like the InnerChange Freedom Initiative® launched by Prison Fellowship are under attack by people who think that unwanted exposure to religion will irreparably damage people.
Understanding this fear still leaves us with the question of how do we respond in a culture that is increasingly less welcoming to our faith? For both the Christian students at William and Mary and for you and me, the answer is to be “Christ-bearers,” ourselves—living crosses.
The above transcript was taken taken from: http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5878
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bump
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think this is simply another reflection of what I said before: Xtians are so accustomed to being the unquestioned norm that they view ANY limitation on religious expression as "intolerance". My gut response is: Suck it up and deal with it. As an atheist, I am such a reviled minority that I can say for certainty that you have no idea what it feels like to be excluded.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I heard the following by Mark Earley on "Breakpoint" commentary just a few hours ago. It's something else to chew on, related to this discussion...Quote:
...
While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed. ...
Thanks for the new thread, cartoon.
I'm highlighting the above sentence from the commentary because it is wrong. The electronic paper trail has been preserved quite well by savethewrencross.org . Here's the notification e-mail that went out:
Quote:
from http://www.savethewrencross.org/melissasemail.php
Dear Spotswoods,
In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area.
Students and groups wishing to have the cross temporarily returned to the space--for special events, worship services, private prayer, etc.--may request it while they are in the room. Please direct all requests to either Louise or me, and we will be happy to return the
cross for the time allotted.
If you encounter questions, concerns, or resistance to this change, please direct the person/group with the inquiry to us. If we are not in our office, a stack of our business cards are in the InformationCenter. Offer a card and inform the person they are welcome to contact us with their concerns.
Please continue to interpret the room as the Wren Chapel. Is has always been the Chapel and will continue to be the Chapel even without the cross on the altar. Inform visitors (as you always do) that the College was once affiliated with the Anglican Church, and while it is now a public university, the Wren Chapel continues to be used as a nondenominational chapel. Weddings, memorial services, and student-led prayer services are held here, as well as initiations and their student activities. For those interested in hearing the antique organ, an organ recital is scheduled for every Saturday morning at 10:00 am.
Thank you, and my best to you all for a warm, safe, and happy homecoming
Here's a confirmation e-mail from Nichol:
Quote:
from http://www.savethewrencross.org/nicholsemail.php
Questions have lately been raised about the use of the Wren Chapel and the cross that is sometimes displayed there.
Let me be clear. I have not banished the cross from the Wren Chapel. The Chapel, as you know, is used for religious ceremonies by members of all faiths. The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services.
But the Chapel is also used frequently for College events that are secular in nature--and should be open to students and staff of all beliefs. Whether celebrating our happiest moments, marking our greatest achievements, or finding solace during our most profound sadness, our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all.
I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital. For this reason, and because the Chapel is surpassing important in William and Mary's history and in the life of our campus, I welcome a broader College discussion of how the ancient Chapel can reflect our best values.
So it sounds like the decision was made to change the cross' status from "always there" to "there if you want it to be there."
In other words, here is the message from those who want the cross brought back permanently, "It's important for all groups who use the chapel for organized worship to continue to display a Protestant cross during their service. That way you can continually be reminded of the true faith and hopefully repent the error of your ways."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One other point on "intolerance": My tax dollars are supporting faith-based initiatives.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In addition to Soup's discovery that the policy of W&M was misrepresented in the posted article, there is one other point that needs to be made: While W&M was originally a Xtian university, it became a public university in 1906. That means it is state funded. Finding an "instance" of a person who feels unwelcome by the presence of a Protestant cross IMHO is a prolly moot point. Likely the state has something in it's own constitution about separation of church and state. The alumni are psuedo-Xtians throwing their considerable financial weight behind a lop-sided relgious display.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Soup,
As much as I respect your opinions, I think you're off target on this one. The passages you quoted to confirm that Earley's statement was incorrect, actually confirmed Earley's statement.
Earley said, "While a subsequent compromise will allow the cross to be displayed during Christian events, the fear of offending someone still prevailed."
The info you found, stated: "Students and groups wishing to have the cross temporarily returned to the space--for special events, worship services, private prayer, etc.--may request it while they are in the room."
Also: "The cross will remain in the Chapel and be displayed on the altar at appropriate religious services."
Earley: "displayed during Christian events". Your info: "returned...for special events, worship services, private prayer," as well as "displayed on the altar at approp. religious services."
They say the same thing. How is Earley incorrect in his assessment?
Regarding the second point, Earley said: "the fear of offending someone still prevailed..."
Your info stated: "...our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all."
Again, they are saying the same thing.
Your info also omits the fact that the cross was not returned until after certain alumni from the university made a big stink about it's removal, and Nichol had to quickly cover his tracks.
Personally, I could care less about objects which are supposed to typify something related to the Christian faith. As Jesus said, we are to worship Him in "truth and in spirit". Where we worship, and the objects which adorn the place of worship have no bearing on worship.
What bothers me about this is the same thing which bothered me about the initial article quoted for this thread. That this is now the "norm" -- to try to please everyone else at the expense of Christians.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Likely the state has something in it's own constitution about separation of church and state.
I'm not familiar with the Virginia state constitution, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as I stated previously -- and seem to have to keep repeating myself) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Putting up a cross is not "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion." How anyone can interpret it to mean such is clearly beyond reason.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My gut response is: Suck it up and deal with it. As an atheist, I am such a reviled minority that I can say for certainty that you have no idea what it feels like to be excluded.
Minority status is relative. You're certainly not the minority in this forum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is typical of Xtian blind-sidedness. I would say that you had a point if there were a minorah and star of David; a crescent moon and five-pointed star; statues of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu; an altar to the ancestors (complete with incense sticks); a totem pole; other religious symbols; and a cross and ONLY the cross was removed. But that's not the case. There was ONLY the cross, the represetation of a sole religion. Now it's being treated like all other religious symbols. And this, apparently, is what Xtians can't abide. In fact, it still gets special preference because I doubt the university has other religious symbols in it's store-rooms, ready to be dragged out for other religious observances.
What bothers me about this is the same thing which bothered me about the initial article quoted for this thread. That this is now the "norm" -- to try to please everyone else at the expense of Christians.
Quote:The point is that the university, being state funded, must follow the state constitution.
I'm not familiar with the Virginia state constitution, but the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as I stated previously -- and seem to have to keep repeating myself) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Putting up a cross is not "Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion." How anyone can interpret it to mean such is clearly beyond reason.
AFA begin a minority- I think you and I are about the same standard deviations away from the norm, you as a fundamentalist Xtian and me as a firmly practicing skeptic. Because altho not many people agree with YOU, most of the ppl on this board are religious in one way or another. Me- not so much.
----------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
They say the same thing. How is Earley incorrect in his assessment?
Simple. The e-mail I quoted is the start of the controversy.
In other words, the policy outlined in that e-mail (the cross has been removed and the cross will be brought out if you want it) is the policy that people had a problem with. It's not a subsequent compromise.
The old policy (the one the protesters want to return to) was that the cross was present unless a group requested it to be taken down for an event. The new policy (the one the protesters are protesting) is that the cross is absent unless a group requests it to be brought out for an event.
Now reread Earley. Do you see the mischaracterization?
* edit to add some parenthetical stuff
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME