The College of William & Mary, the nation’s second oldest, lost its president last week after a culture-war clash that began when he ordered the removal of an 18-inch brass cross from the altar of the historic Wren Chapel.
His decision, an act of legal principle to some and a blunder of liberal activism to others, touched off a revolt among conservative bloggers and alumni of the state-supported school in Williamsburg, Va., and led to his resignation Tuesday.
The dispute underscores the deep divide over the role of religion in public institutions, and shows how an ideological firestorm can be sparked on a college campus.
Couldn’t access the LA times article, but the AP article is available at FOXnews [url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330470,00.html ]here[/url]. In particular about removal of the cross, we have:
[blockquote]Thousands of alumni, students and others signed petitions and one donor rescinded pledges to give $12 million to the school. [/blockquote]
Also, the school hosted a pornography as art show:
[blockquote]Last week, William and Mary brought to campus the “Sex Workers’ Art Show” featuring monologues and performances by porn actors, strippers and other sex workers. It sold out.[/blockquote]
Of course they give the guy a golden parachute:
[blockquote]In his e-mail, Nichol said that the Board of Visitors offered him and his wife “substantial economic incentives” to refrain from characterizing the decision not to renew his contract on ideological grounds or make any other statement about his departure without board approval.[/blockquote]
Surprising, wasn’t it, Robroy, that there are so many benighted fools who don’t recognize that Romans 12:1-2 obliges them to support the State and its institutions unconditionally. How could they ever suggest that there is a legitimate place for accommodating religion and personal value systems within the context of a unitary secular legal system? I suppose they’ll be lopping off hands next.
This guy went looking for trouble (the initial complaint about the Cross was made by a personal friend and dinner guest of his) and he got one. William and Mary is living history and honors its past and traditions. My university did not need to be the center of the cultural war in America. Go Tribe!
#2. [uUnconditionally?[/u] You will have to explain that one a little more since I really did not understand what your second sentence was saying, if anything.
Dale, “accommodating religion and personal value systems” seems to be only when it’s Religion and not when the personal value system is a “Sex Workers’ Art Show.” It looks like all should be treated equally or not at all. There seem to be a lot of people who regard secular things as a right and religious things forbidden. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
That’s just the way I see it and I’m old and stubborn.
Guys, I think that Dale had his tounge firmly in cheek. While we may disagree with Dale on some things, I don’t think he supports a faith free public square. At least that’s how I read his #2.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I’ve heard Pres. Nichols speak. He is suave, articulate, urbane and very young. But he is completely out of touch with much of the William and Mary constituency. I’m glad to see him go. Of course, it should be remembered that historically, W & M was originally an Anglican university, designed as a southern and Anglican counterpoint to Puritan Harvard. How are the mighty fallen!
David Handy+
Frequent visitor to the W & M campus from nearby Richmond
Re #6: Perhaps I should have put in a /sarcasm tag! The context for the remark was the discussion of Abp. Williams further down the page, where robroy defended the notions (1) that a democratic society requires that everyone be treated alike with no allowances to be made for religious convictions, and (2) that Romans 12:1-2 demand obedience to the state above all else. I was struck by his adoption of a contrary position here in #1, where he clearly approved of the efforts to remove one of “the powers that be” precisely because he did not make appropriate accommodations to faith and personal values.
#8, Dale Rye,
Although robroy is perfectly capable of defending himself, I’ll stick up for the illustrious President of the NRAFC for a moment. The comment of his you cite as if it represents the opposite of his #1 above was clearly intended in a tongue in cheek fashion. And the citation of Romans 12:1-2 illustrates this quite well. If he had been serious, he would have cited Romans 13, where Paul enjoins submission to the emperor and other earthly authorities. But in citing Rom. 12:2, he was emphasizing the need to AVOID being conformed to the world.
One thing about robroy, he is actually very consistent in his opinions. Just go back through the record; he’s posted over 1600 comments now between SF and T19 put together. And he strikes me as highly consistent in his views. That’s one reason why I like him. Very outspoken, very clear. My kind of guy.
David Handy+
Founder of the NRAFC (and proud of my cabinet)