Too Much Of A Cross To Bear?
MayorBob.
Posted to Religion on Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:32:09 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.
The College of William and Mary 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 what seemed natural then is anything but now. Now, we're in the midst of an era of diversity and inclusion and the cross was seen as potentially divisive by some. Thus, an effort was made to reduce the divisiveness and make the chapel a more "welcoming" place to all. But there is no such thing as an effort to make everything more "welcoming" which doesn't get viewed as an attempt to marginalize something else. So it is with the case of the cross and the college.
William and Mary is no longer a private school; it's been a public institution since the beginning of last century. Gene Nichol is the president who decided having an 18-inch-high cross on the altar of the Wren Chapel might be offensive to some. After all, the chapel is considered a general gathering place on campus with Christian services only taking place on Sundays. In October, Nichol ordered the cross removed and stored in the chapel sacristy until someone specifically asked that it be placed on the altar for services. He also ordered a plaque mounted on a wall noting that the chapel was originally built as an Anglican place of worship.
Nichol's decision was met with a firestorm of protest from alumni and students who formed a group called Save The Wren Cross (STWC). Their major complaint is that an attempt to be more inclusive for others is marginalizing Christians, reeks of "political correctness" and is part of a plot by "radical secularists" to rid public spaces of any religious symbols. They organized an effort which resulted in over 7,000 people signing an online petition deploring Nichol's decision. Nichol mulled over all of the consternation his decision wrought and announced some modifications to his decision in a letter to the college community. He allowed as how his decision might be characterized as "hasty" and he's decided the cross could remain on the altar on Sunday. But, for the most, he's sticking to his guns about the cross, it's potential divisiveness, and the goal of inclusiveness on campus:"Does the Wren Chapel, our most remarkable place, belong to every member of the College community, or is it principally for our Christian students? Do we take seriously our claims for religious diversity, or do we, even as a public university, align ourselves with one particular religious tradition?"
Vince Haley, founder of STWC, is not mollified. According to him, STWC's going-in position was that the cross belonged in the chapel 24/7 and anything else is an affront. He is joined by conservative bloggers and media types decrying the situation as well as Liberty Counsel, a legal group with ties to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Liberty Counsel has made noises about this becoming a First Amendment issue and the dean of Liberty's Law School said that Nichol's actions "showed hostility .. not neutrality to religion." Meanwhile, back on campus, the case of the cross has sparked debate but no formal move to rescind Nichol's decision. The student senate overwhelmingly defeated a motion to restore the cross. Although some non-Christian student groups said they hadn't been calling for the removal of the cross, they weren't upset that it isn't on the altar 24/7 either.
< When Does Eminent Domain Trump Free Speech?
I'd Like A Mastiff, Only Make It Fit Into A Pocketbook And Color It Blue. >
