This is, sadly, not a PC argument. Its an argument about the permanent placement of religious symbols in public spaces. There is a world of difference, both practical and legal, between a public space and a student organization. If William and Mary were a private university, this would be a non-issue. The fact that it is a public university, however, means that it falls under the same constitutional rules as those regulating religious symbols at other public spaces. Student groups can and do use public spaces for all sorts of private purposes, on a temporary basis. That is perfectly constitutional, and non-controversial. The President did perhaps have other options--for example, he might have appealed to the Virginia legislature to return the building to the control of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. That would have been in keeping with its historical purpose. But so long as the building belongs to the College of William and Mary, it is public property. Does anyone know the history of the building? If it predates the dis-establishment of the Church of England, then there is a rich irony here. After disestablishment, evangelical groups waged a bitter and successful campaign to strip the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia of most of its property. That property then reverted to the State, and much of it was sold off to private individuals. The irony, of course, was that in the eyes of politicized evangelicals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, building like the Wren Chapel already were desacralized, and were fair game for state confiscation. The spiritual ancestors of the people upset today about the removal of the cross from the Wren Chapel were 180 degrees on the other side of the issue at the time our Constitution was drafted and ratified! Kevin ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 22:52:01 -0500 >From: James Brothers <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Wren cross at W&M >To: [log in to unmask] > >Although I can't say this for sure, it is very likely that there are >organizations dedicated to other religions or ethnic groups at Wm & >Mary that are supported by both tax dollars and student activity >fees. It certainly is the case at all of the other colleges and >universities I've ben associated with. Last I checked there was no >way to stipulate that money you give to a university, be it public or >private, in the form of fees or tax subsidies can be in any way >restricted so that they do not support organizations or activities >with which an individual does not agree. The chapel was built as a >Christian Chapel, it seems reasonable that it remain so. Why should >it be secularized just because it is a public university? The same >argument would say that any organization at a public university can >not restrict its membership or it must restrict its funding. This is >a really silly PC argument. Next people will be demanding that >because churches are subsidized by the government (through tax >exemption) that it is unlawful for a Roman Catholic church to require >that its priest be Roman Catholic. After all a religious leader is a >religious leader, why not have communion administered by a Tibetan >Lama? I'm equally sure that many attendees at a mosque would be a bit >upset to find a female Episcopal Priest leading the Friday prayer. > >James Brothers, RPA >[log in to unmask] 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