Thank you for the thoughtful and respectful comments.   But we have to consider the difference in circumstances between a military chapel and a college chapel.  
   
  The military provides places of worship for everyone.  A serviceman stationed on a base in the States can choose between attending Synagogue, Mosque, or churches of different denominations. When the military builds Mosques, it tries to do so in a way that doesn’t offend any of the different sects of Islam. When temporary chapels of worship are constructed, they tend to be more nondenominational in character.  The military, operating under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can build churches or chapels for specific denominations.  Publicly funded schools, operating under the Constitution, can’t.  
   
  Wm & Mary has Wren Chapel.  The mission of the Chapel is to be overtly welcoming to faculty, visitors, and students who are often away from home for the first time,  and is meant to have a prophetic and even positive evangelistic impact on *outsiders*.  The purpose of not constantly displaying the cross was not to deny Protestant origins or faith, but to open the Church to all.   It was in that spirit that the cross was removed on weekdays, and put in the sacristy.   It can be brought out during the week for anyone who wants it, and is displayed in the Chapel on Sundays. The great public controversy was created by people wanting the cross displayed at all times, and not by those who have defended being tolerant.
   
  I agree with the previous statements that the historical significance of Wren has been overlooked. At first, my feeling was that seemed too dead, and implied a museum or shrine to the past, which doesn’t seem appropriate for a chapel.   The chapel should be “overtly welcoming”, active, and alive. On second thought, I see no reason why the chapel can’t honor the past, commemorate the Anglican to Protestant heritage, as long as that is done in historical context,  remain active in outreach, and remain a place of prayer for people of all faiths. In other words, the goals of all could and should be met. 
   
  A chapel is not a church. It is less formal, smaller, and often built with the specific purpose of being available for people of different denominations, and seldom contains many symbols. Some Christian denominations don’t believe in displaying symbols.  It seems that displaying the cross on Sunday, removing it, except when its presence is requested on other days, is one logical compromise, but there may be others. 
   
  It seems to me that if well-meaning people had truly been concerned their symbol was removed, they could have had gone to the President, and had reasoned, civil discussion about their feelings. Instead, Vince Haley, of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative political think-tank, and others, chose to make a public political issue of it.  Haley actually urged alumni not to give money to the college!   I fail to see how that does anything but damage the institution.  For those who are truly concerned about the value of Wren Chapel, this has become nothing but a “no win” situation. Not only will it be harder to have that calm, thoughtful, and unemotional conversation, but when the college compromises, Vance and friends will no doubt claim victory for the evangelicals over us godless heathens, just as he took credit for stirring up the controversy in the first place.
   
  Langdon Hagen-Long
   


Jim Thomson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  As a Catholic veteran I have often worshiped in places that were government
supported and were also shared with others. Of course, along with Baptists,
Methodists and others the Catholic Church was illegal in Virginia during
colonial times, and even now is a minority religion here. But we worshiped
in chapels which displayed both the papal and Protestant flags, and chapel
spaces also occasionally displayed the star of David as well.

We simply considered it a sign of respect for our colleagues who were
respectfully faithful to other religious organizations and took no offense.

With that background I have to wonder about the 'tolerance' being shown by
those who complain about the mere passive display of a cross. As thoughtheir God cannot tolerate them worshiping or even existing while such a symbol exists. How can anyone who demands the removal of the cross claim to be doing that in the name of tolerance? Isn't that request itself intolerant and disrespectful of others?>>


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