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