As an alumni of William & Mary who was raised in the Episcopal church, I wish to express my complete agreement with Kevin's post.

Anne Gwaltney

-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Joel Berland <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Feb 20, 2007 7:37 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Wren cross at W&M
>
>Though perhaps the specific means adopted by the new president of William & Mary could be seen as arbitrary or needlessly stealthy, there is (in my view) much merit in the action itself.  Why should it be seen as appropriate to enshrine (I use that word advisedly) one specific religion in a public university in a pluralistic society?  Why should "cross free" mode not the default mode?  It is clear that many Christians assume their faith is the norm.  As a non-Christian myself, I am constantly made aware of this assumption in public places, and I know I'm not alone in this.  Of course, from the historical perspective, the Wren Chapel was intended as a Christian place of worship in a Christian (specifically Anglican) institution.  The affiliation of the institution has changed; significantly, so has the way the chapel conformed with traditional Anglican requirements.  The changes documented in the recent argument were more than decorating fashions--they rendered the !
> Wren Chapel an "interdenominational" space equally appropriate for various Christian practices.  I do not know whether Anglican traditionalists found this change troubling.  If the chapel is to be preserved in the way historical sites are preserved--as a museum or as a working historically accurate facility--it should be restored to its original configuration and limited to the English liturgy.  If it is to serve as a space for the William & Mary community to use for religious purposes, a compromise is necessary, one that recognizes the religious plurality of the community.  To do otherwise is implicitly to make Christianity the official religion of the college.  Again.  As I see it, the Wren Chapel affair is a matter of freedom of religion--Christian practice is not constrained by offering the public a cross-free chapel.  A cross can be installed for functions that require it.  But the freedom to practice other religions (or to live without organized religion) is!
>  affected by practices that demonstrate the primacy of one rel!
> igion.  
>We learn from history that our understanding of matters changes over time--the founders, for instance, said they believed all men were created equal, and they meant only men, and specifically men of a certain race and economic class.  We are comfortable today with extending the boundaries of liberty to include women and people of every class.  So we ought to be able to extend our understanding of religious freedom to include consideration of the always present and still growing population of non-Christian citizens.  This is too important an issue to be dismissed as ACLU-think.  
>
>Kevin Joel Berland
>
>P.S.  As a Jewish American, I am comfortable with the slow dismantling of official Christianity, a religion whose rites and beliefs are worthy of constitutional protection, but which have never deserved the exclusive charter assumed by so many.
>
>P.P.S.  If the question of maintaining historical authenticity still concerns you, consider the claim that it would be more historically appropriate to raze the chapel and plant trees, bringing the sacred place back into line with the religious beliefs of the original inhabitants of what we now know as Virginia.
>
>
>
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html