Taking down the Wren Cross at the College of William and Mary

CorporateWhore

This issue has recently become national news, putting my small college on the map, so to speak.

Our newly appointed college president recently decided to remove a 2 foot brass cross that adorned a table in the historical Wren Chapel. The wren building, with the adjoining chapel, was supposedly designed by Christopher Wren, one of England's most famous architects. W&M was chartered in 1693 and is the second oldest college in the U.S. The Wren was built in 1723.

The cross had been there for 67 years. No previous president had ever found fault with the presence of the cross, but President Nichol changed all of that.

Apparently, a jewish individual was offended by the presence of the cross.

Newt Gingrich said my views best:

"Unfortunately, the “endorsement test” has proven itself a decidedly unhelpful legal criterion. It is indeterminate, bordering on arbitrary, because it focuses primarily on subjective perceptions; its first consideration is not how the law actually treats people, but rather how people feel they are treated by the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the endorsement test leads to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended."

ThumbingMyWay32

When are you going to learn that when one is offended we're all offended.

Right?

CorporateWhore

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Where are you going to learn that when one is offended we're all offended.

Right?

I'm not offended by the cross. They should learn some respect for our traditions.

ThumbingMyWay32

CorporateWhore wrote:

I'm not offended by the cross. They should learn some respect for our traditions.

Well I'm sorry, but you're going to have to find another country to do that in.

even flow?

If you see some guy named Bareroom Nero floating around the school, say hello for me.

Pacomc79

it's just a cross on a table. It's not offensive... neither is the star of david.


What ever happened to telling people to "just get over it."

I drive by churches and synagogs(sp) every day. Nothing says...be offended other people believe differently than you.

blackredyellow

stupid....

William and Mary is a private school, right? In my opinion they can put up whatever they want.

That being said, it's the appointed president of the university that decided to do it, not the state or whomever forcing him to do it. I'm sure if the university didn't agree with the move, the board of trustees (or whoever appointed the president) could over-rule him.

inmytree

CorporateWhore wrote:

This issue has recently become national news, putting my small college on the map, so to speak.

Our newly appointed college president recently decided to remove a 2 foot brass cross that adorned a table in the historical Wren Chapel. The wren building, with the adjoining chapel, was supposedly designed by Christopher Wren, one of England's most famous architects. W&M was chartered in 1693 and is the second oldest college in the U.S. The Wren was built in 1723.

The cross had been there for 67 years. No previous president had ever found fault with the presence of the cross, but President Nichol changed all of that.

Apparently, a jewish individual was offended by the presence of the cross.

Newt Gingrich said my views best:

"Unfortunately, the “endorsement test” has proven itself a decidedly unhelpful legal criterion. It is indeterminate, bordering on arbitrary, because it focuses primarily on subjective perceptions; its first consideration is not how the law actually treats people, but rather how people feel they are treated by the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the endorsement test leads to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended."

that's too bad, sorry for your loss...

Will your studies be affected...?

chopitdown

there was something in our student newspaper this morning about the cross incident. It said something about 13,000 signatures have been collected in support of keeping the cross in place. I hope they keep it there. And the article said that if you were using the chapel you had the right to ask for the cross to be removed while said group was using it...is that true?

cincybearcat

inmytree wrote:

that's too bad, sorry for your loss...

Will your studies be affected...?

Will anyone's studies be improved?

Not a very good barometer for deciding if this is ok to do.

Like someone else said, it's the school president deciding it. Certainly if you disagree you should fight it, but at least it's an inside job.

chopitdown

inmytree wrote:

Will your studies be affected...?

prob not as much as that poor kid who felt offended. I bet he could barely function knowing there was a cross on a chapel.

inmytree

cincybearcat wrote:

Will anyone's studies be improved?

Not a very good barometer for deciding if this is ok to do.

Like someone else said, it's the school president deciding it. Certainly if you disagree you should fight it, but at least it's an inside job.

perhaps the offended jewish student's studies will improve...:)

I wonder, five years from now, heck, five weeks from now, will it really matter...

Rushlimbo

CorporateWhore wrote:

Newt Gingrich said my views best:

"Unfortunately, the “endorsement test” has proven itself a decidedly unhelpful legal criterion. It is indeterminate, bordering on arbitrary, because it focuses primarily on subjective perceptions; its first consideration is not how the law actually treats people, but rather how people feel they are treated by the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the endorsement test leads to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended."

If Newt says it then I agree. What about Buchanan's view on this? I mean you seem to choreograph your life based on his views.

soulsinging

CorporateWhore wrote:

"Unfortunately, the “endorsement test” has proven itself a decidedly unhelpful legal criterion. It is indeterminate, bordering on arbitrary, because it focuses primarily on subjective perceptions; its first consideration is not how the law actually treats people, but rather how people feel they are treated by the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the endorsement test leads to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended."

god help me i kind of agree with newt. our current test has become pretty abstract and arbitrary. it's become problematic becos it's so unpredictable that nobody knows whether a proposed plan is legal or not.

even flow?

Don't the States have all the different colleges to keep segregation alive and well. No matter who's eyes we will call the kettle black from. Maybe the complaining student should just go to where they won't see a problem.

I wonder how well it would have went over if the reverse was called upon? How quick that person would have been labeled a hater of a race. Ridiculous, sad and pathetic all wrapped into one nice story. Not like we haven't been seeing this type of story from all over with all kinds of people making noise about nothing at all.

hippiemom

A two-foot brass cross on a table in a chapel is causing all this fuss?!

Clearly, no one at William & Mary has enough work to do, particularly the student who initially complained.

This is a chapel, right? Shouldn't people who are bothered by crosses stay out of chapels?

CorporateWhore

blackredyellow wrote:

stupid....

William and Mary is a private school, right? In my opinion they can put up whatever they want.

That being said, it's the appointed president of the university that decided to do it, not the state or whomever forcing him to do it. I'm sure if the university didn't agree with the move, the board of trustees (or whoever appointed the president) could over-rule him.

W&M is a public college. The Wren chapel was built before it was public and the cross was placed there while the college was public. It had been there for 67 years without any questions of church/state problems - after all - the chapel is a clearly christian place.

CorporateWhore

chopitdown wrote:

there was something in our student newspaper this morning about the cross incident. It said something about 13,000 signatures have been collected in support of keeping the cross in place. I hope they keep it there. And the article said that if you were using the chapel you had the right to ask for the cross to be removed while said group was using it...is that true?

That is true.

norm

CorporateWhore wrote:

W&M is a public college. The Wren chapel was built before it was public and the cross was placed there while the college was public. It had been there for 67 years without any questions of church/state problems - after all - the chapel is a clearly christian place.

Wait, wait, wait - there is a cross in a chapel??? I'm really confused. What possible reason could there be for being offended by this? IT'S A CHAPEL!!!


What are we becoming?:(

CorporateWhore

hippiemom wrote:

A two-foot brass cross on a table in a chapel is causing all this fuss?!

Clearly, no one at William & Mary has enough work to do, particularly the student who initially complained.

This is a chapel, right? Shouldn't people who are bothered by crosses stay out of chapels?

The problem lies in whether a state-sponsored school can put up a cross in an historical chapel. Before 67 years ago, no cross existed in the chapel because they were seen as idolatrous. Nonetheless, the Anglican church did accept crosses after that.

The place is a publicly funded Anglican-style chapel and is also used by other groups for religious purposes.

blackredyellow

CorporateWhore wrote:

W&M is a public college. The Wren chapel was built before it was public and the cross was placed there while the college was public. It had been there for 67 years without any questions of church/state problems - after all - the chapel is a clearly christian place.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But like I said, (from what you originally posted) this was a decision by the school to do this.

I do think removing it is a stupid move, but if that is what the school wants to do, then it's up to them. The only thing that people who oppose it can do is complain to the school or take their tuition money elsewhere.

I just can't understand how someone can walk into a chapel and be offended by a cross.