Its very easy to cast out accusations about "political
correctness," as Mr. Adams does below. But in what sense,
exactly, does the accusation apply, in this context? It is a
kind of veiled ad hominem, of the kind that distorts and
corrupts so much of our public discourse. If we are going to
have a reasoned, civil conversation here, this is really a
quite inappropriate kind of remark.
The Chapel at the College of William and Mary may or may not
have been consecrated. I think it quite likely that it was,
but either way, its an easy thing to figure out. And if it
was, it should be deconsecrated. Churches do this all the
time--there is nothing especially controversial about the process.
The larger issue is separation of church and state. That is
as much a legal issue as it is a religious one. The
jurisprudence of the issue is long settled. There is, right
now, absolutely nothing controversial about it, in a formal,
legal sense. If you do not like it, by all means work to
change the law. But in the mean time, you and I, like
everyone else in this country, have a moral obligation to obey
the law.
Obedience to the law as it is currently settled is simply not
something just to be dismissed and condemned as mere
"political correctness." Indeed, last time I checked, the
notion of "ordered liberty" was a bed rock principle of
American conservatism. We have means for changing our laws,
and those can and should be pursued by folk who are unhappy
with them. But in the mean time conservatives especially have
an obligation to model obedience to justly constituted
authority. Mr. Adams should re-read Abraham Lincoln's "Young
Man's Lyceum Speech" for the argument as to why this is a
necessary and desirable course of action.
It is a mistake to dismiss an issue like this as secular
versus religious. Too many of today's evangelicals do not
understand the arguments of their forefathers--it is a very
sad thing when people like Mr. Adams, who obviously cares a
great deal about public life, remain uninformed about our
history.
Separation of church and state is something that all
conservatives, and certainly all religious conservatives,
should support. Up until about 100 years ago, the most ardent
supporters of separation were evangelicals, who remembered
vividly the consequences of establishment. As Edmund
Randolph--a religiously devout Virginia founder, and the man
who proposed the Virginia plan in the Philadelphia
convention--put it, establishment leads to complacency and
lack of energy on the part of the clergy. Randolph supported
disestablishment because he believed, correctly, that it would
be *good* for religion. The history of religion in Europe
reinforces Randolph's insight--establishment leads to
religious decline.
My guess is that if we moved the conversation from "state
religion or separation" to "WHICH particular religion should
the state support," we would face a rapid fragmentation among
the various religious groups that currently are critical of
our jurisprudence. That is probably not something you want to
happen, if you are an evangelical anyway.
So in summary, this is an argument that evangelicals want to
push just aggresively enough to keep the issues alive, without
actually winning the argument. To win the argument would, in
the long run, be to lose it, and in a big way.
All best,
Kevin
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 17:56:44 -0600
>From: John Philip Adams <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Wren Cross at W&M
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>On whose authority can and should the Chapel be
unconsecrated. Is this
>another example of the PC mindset in action. Enough is
enough. If those who
>do not wish to be contaminated by the touch of Christianity,
DON'T go to the
>chapel. Maybe they should find another school, if this is so
offensive.
>The constitution says Freedom "OF" Religion, not "From". Read
the document
>and then try to interpret it properly.
>
>John Philip Adams
>Texas
>[log in to unmask]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald W. Moore
>Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:55 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Wren Cross at W&M
>
>If the Wren Chapel was ever consecrated at some point in the
past by
>Anglican (colonial period) or Episcopalian (post-colonial
period)
>clergy, and if the "chapel" is now to be considered just
another
>room, then it should be officially unconsecrated.
>
>___________________
>Donald W. Moore
>Virginia Beach, 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
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
