Cross removed to make Wren Chapel less 'faith-specific'

The Flat Hat ^ | October 6, 2006 | Angela Cota

[kubla]

The cross from the altar area of the Wren Chapel has been removed to ensure that the space is seen as a nondenominational area, Melissa Engimann, assistant director for Historic Campus, said in an e-mail to Wren building employees.

“In order to make the Wren Chapel less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths, the cross has been removed from the altar area,” Engimann said.

[Jorge]

It used to be THE church for the College. Services were held there (even when I was there). practically and historically it is/was a church.

But it's not anymore..... not according to the article.

To say "it's not a church" is frankly denying reality.

"...the College is now public and nondenominational..."

It's not a church.

[Right Wing Assault]

If it has pews, rip them out so the Muzzles can lay down. Put Mecca arrows on the floor.

[exit82]

Good for you, Blueflag. Many more of your fellow alumni need to do the same thing.

This is outrageous. If anything, the cross is open to all.This is an historic building that has always been a church.

The faith of those famous Virginians who met down the road in Williamsburg(not a long road either)fueled the passion for founding this country and enshrining the freedom of worship of all faiths.

What was especially repugnant was the announcement, written in overwrought PC nonsense.

This borders on the unbelievable. And it worsens each day.

But you took action--I commend you for it.

[onedoug]

Wait to see a waxing quarter moon replace it.

[onedoug]

Actually, in truth, it's a "waning" quarter. My bad.

[Sisku Hanne]

Perhaps the azzhats can replace it with a statue of the non-demoninational roaming gnome.

[opinionator]

Who owns the building? That is who gets to decide what the room is used for. Unless you're a Christiano-fascist?

[patriot_wes]

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

[Blueflag]

Jorge, are you an alumnus of the College of William and Mary?

Do you have any idea of the history of that building?

IF you have ever set foot inside the chapel at the Wren building (homecoming is this weekend by the way) you would see that it is unmistakeably a Protestant church. They still have , periodically, Christian church services in it. But this is all moot anyway. The real argument is about the College's decision to remove a Christian symbol under the guise of not offending other religions.

Sr. Christopher Wren, for whom the building is named, was a famous architect of Christian cathedrals -- St. Paul's if I recall correctly. The College of William and Mary in Virginia (commissioned by King William Stuart) was most decidedly a Church-of-England-based institution at the time. ALL OVER the oldest buildings on campus and in Williamsburg there are Christian symbols and references.

Would you support removing the Star of David from an ancient synagogue in the Middle East just so Arabs would "not be offended"? Perhaps you would. The problem here is that so much of the world suddenly finds Christian symbols and the faith itself 'offensive', when in reality it is just folks being intolerant bigots against Christianity.

No genuine Christian cares if a synagogue has the star of David, or a mosque has the Koran etc etc. Why must a historical church (called a chapel cuz it's small) have it's Christian symbols removed so that people of other faiths won't take offense? (REM: when you are in the W&M chapel, it's architecture is OBVIOUSLY that of a colonial-period church. must they also change the architecture so as not to offend??) The presence of another religion does NOT preclude you from practicing your own, unless you choose to make it an issue.

harrumph

[ChildOfThe60s]

BTT

[444Flyer]

The cross is the only religious symbol being removed anywhere. This demonstrates the power in its symbolism. "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18

[Blueflag]

My my, you have a profound sense of history. The CHAPEL was first opened in 1603, IIRC, because the Christian faith was integral to education at the College at that time. IT served as a chapel well into the 70's I know cuz I was there and attended CHRISTIAN services there. The building can remain authentically historic as a Christian chapel without offending people of other faiths who choose to meet and pray there.

Don't you get it? If YOU can't pray because the icons of another faith are in sight, then YOU have the problem.

The College has MANY options to place a non-denominational chapel besides the historically significant Christain chapel in the Wren building. The Student Union is about 150 yds away and has plenty of available rooms. The College is making the willful choice to remove the cross when other options are more suitable to the history and legacy and sensibility of the community.

[Blueflag]

Typo -- 1693, not 1603.

Bear in mind the Wren building was first built when Thomas Jefferson was a student (who flunked out of W&M) -- it burned and was rebuilt several times -- and always had the chapel.

Some of my favorite memories of the chapel were the organ recitals there.

[VeniVidiVici]

Leave the poor man alone. It's obvious it's just another room on and old college campus

;-)

[Jack Hammer]

This can be summed up in a single word: idiocy. Excuse me while I take a moment to pick my jaw up off the floor. It's certainly true that our "modern times" have witnessed some moronic episodes, but this must set some sort of new low.

[MistrX]

F them all!

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The Taj Mahal was most likely a Hindu temple

The history of the Taj is well known. It was built as a memorial to the wife of the Muslim ruler of that time. Its architecture is the same as most Muslim mosques, based on the architecture of the Byzantine empire. Hindu architecture is more varied, and very different.

Both Hindus and Muslims have a tradition of building their worship centers on the site of their competitors, in earlier times Christians often did the same to former pagan temples. This even applied to the Parthenon, which for most of a thousand years, until the Ottoman conquest of Athens, was a Christian church, about the same amount of time as its original dedication to the pagan goddess Athena.

[DoughtyOne]

Nice verse. Thanks. So true...

[Blueflag]

OK ;-)

[little jeremiah]

Read this, if you have an open mind it will likely change your mind. I've read quite a few articles about it, and I am totally convinced. Muslims had a habit in India of turning Hindu temples, forts and palaces into Muslim buildings and then claiming that they built them.

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/taj_oak.html