Put up symbols of every religion (PM - 3/2/2007 9:49:51 AM)
Including some of the minor ones, like the sect that worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Or Scientology's portrayal of the 8th Dynamic, aka God:
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Insidious Post-Modern RhetoricDear President Nichol:
Respectfully, Sir, your explanation for the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel is the most insidious form of post-modern rhetoric. For more than three centuries, the College has stood against the tides of fancy by keeping to the highest traditions of its founding and by resisting the intellectual equivalent of the flavor of the month. Those of us who made the coveted walk past the Sunken Garden on our way to commencement have always taken a special pride in knowing that our revered institution has resisted the temptation of the politically correct multi-cultural gibberish that has so invaded the policies of other, formerly prestigious institutions.
You couch your argument in gentle, inclusive language, but your vision is clear - this is a perilous first step onto a path that will ultimately eradicate any vestige of tradition and value in our community. We are not excluding those of other religious faiths when we celebrate an historical artifact. Would you repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would you advocate the destruction of Europe's greatest examples of architecture simply because the cathedrals are laid in the form of a crucifix? At what point, Mr. President, does history gain a rightful place in your Utopia? Are not the products of Christian heritage worthy and deserving of your protection as well? Where does it end?
I know that my opinion is representative of the vast majority of alumni, and if you believe our collective opinion is of some value, then I would urge you to have the moral courage to admit a mistake and put the history back where it belongs. Committees and panels are the machinations of bureaucrats and politicians, people who seek to obfuscate a simple decision by drawing the discussion into the realm of the abstract.
The amount of time this unfortunate incident consumes could be deadly to the College's reputation in the coming years. Only you have the power to end it quickly, and history will record this moment as the turning point when the nation's alma mater either reaffirmed its standing and character or surrendered to the pseudo-intellectual group hug of post-modern mediocrity.
Steve Cheng
Class of 1991
As an alumnus of another university, I don't have the same attachment to Wren Chapel. But it's pretty clear that a number of alumni do. I would hope that Nichol took these concerns into consideration before making a decision.
The mystery here too me is:
What prompted Nichol to take this initiative?
1. Did a student complain?
2. Was he threatened with a law suit?
3. Did he simply walk through the Chapel one day, and with the best-of-intentions think "not all people are Christian at William and Mary, I think they might be offended by this cross, maybe I should remove it"?
4. Was it something else?
#1. Would be tricky. My thought would be to use the occasion to let each side air out its differences. At the end of the day the president or the college board of directors would need to make a decision with the full awareness that a number of people would be angry with the outcome, and that the decision would have implications for future alumni support.
#2. I don't know the full legal ramifications here, but my sense is that the legal outcome would depend in large part on historical tradition. At a modern public university I don't think you could use state funds to build a church, but if one was there dating back to the 1700s or 1800s which contained a cross (or even a replica), I think the college might have a pretty solid defense.
#3. Is the worst possible explanation. If this was simply the president's preference, prompted simply by his own concerns and best intentions, then he clearly made the wrong choice. The decision needlessly aggravated the few students who actually care about the cross, and, in the process he's jeopardized the support of some die-hard alums whose money could be used to foster a multi-cultural environment in other ways (e.g. bringing in speakers from other religious faiths, cultural exchange activities on campus, etc, etc).
(I'm not overstating my case to make a political point. Seriously, no one here cares and this small group of crazies is making us all look bad.)
Or Scientology's portrayal of the 8th Dynamic, aka God:
Or Scientology's portrayal of the 8th Dynamic, aka God:
Sorry to be so iconoclastic, but I'm in the middle of reading about the archeology of the Old Testament, written by the head of that department at Tel Aviv U. The Creationist advocates ought to read it.