http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85 The <a href="http://www.wm.edu/">College of William and Mary</a> existed in Williamsburg, Virginia long before there was a constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state.  Indeed, as the school was founded in 1693, it existed before there was a US Constitution or even a nation under which it operated.  Thus, it likely seemed a natural thing for William and Mary's founders to place a Christian cross on the altar of the main chapel on campus.  But, that was then and this is now and w en-us Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:32:09 EST Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:13:25 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#9 <i>But the First Amendment is pretty clear about the establishment of religion being a no-no. So establishing a religious place, and yes for any religion, is a problem...I think the university should make it over into a general use building which may be u Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:13:25 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#8 There really isn't a constitutional guarantee against the involvement of government in supporting old people.  But the First Amendment is pretty clear about the establishment of religion being a no-no.  So establishing a religious place, and yes Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:45:35 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#7 <i><br> You mean all those old churches being converted into shelters, and bars are a "detriment to religion"?  </i><p> No - not a detriment to religion, but as I said - to the religious intent behind the purpose of the building's construction and thu Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:36:38 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#6 You mean all those old churches being converted into shelters, and bars are a "detriment to religion"?  <p> The real question here is whether a public university can (1) legally maintain a pre-existing religious structure, and (2) has the legal right Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:58:18 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#5 I tend to agree with port1080. If you change something that was intended to be religious into something secular you are causing detriment to the original religious purpose/intent.<p> On a historic level, the Hagia Sophia was once an Eastern Orthodox church Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:35:17 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#4 Hold on.  A great deal of things were once religious, but now secular.  Massachusetts, for example.  It is not hostile to re-purpose a religious building as secular, especially when you own it. Wed, 10 Jan 2007 16:24:57 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#3 If the presence of an 18" cross is too much of a an infringement upon civil liberties, what are we to make of an entire university devoted to a foreign king and queen? I say the entire school (save the Thomas Jefferson bit) is a pro-British conspiracy, and Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:40:30 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#2 I'm an atheist, but this still rubs me wrong. If "the chapel was originally built as an Anglican place of worship" then the cross should stay - once a building is built as a place of worship for a specific faith, it <i>is</i> hostile to that religion to t Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:07:55 EST http://www.treesandthings.com/story/2006/12/27/141327/85#1 I think this is much more an issue of community and leadership than anything else. Certainly, W&M is a public institution and thus falls under certain church-state considerations. But as we've seen most recently in the Dixie County, Florida Ten Command Tue, 9 Jan 2007 18:05:17 EST string http://www.treesandthings.com/search/