Get Religion has an interesting post on the controversy surrounding the removal of a cross from the Wren Chapel at William & Mary.
I wrote about the tug-of-war over the cross in this post a while back. My main irritation with the removal of the cross was its historical place at what was originally a religious school. It seemed strange to me that Christian symbols should not be tolerated at a school originally founded as a religious one, which is now a public one.
Terry Mattingly has an interesting question about the controversy:
Why have a cross in a multi-faith, state-funded chapel?
It's a good question and an angle I hadn't thought about before. Mattingly points out that the school doesn't have any other chapel, so students of other faiths must use the Wren Chapel if they wish to hold services.
Commenters there give some interesting responses, ranging from "if they want religious services, build their own chapel" to "students should be able to attend university without religious influence." I'm not so sure I agree with either sentiment.
Because it is a public university, virtually all facilities are supposed to be open to all students. That just makes sense, just as it makes sense for all student organizations to get money from the university if any do. In this sense, it is offensive for anyone to try to exclude students from some space because of their religious faith.
On the other hand, it seems silly to me that someone would attend a school with a religious history and not expect to have to "deal with religion." If you don't want to deal with religion, go to a big, public university that has always been that way. There are plenty of fine secular institutions that have no religious history to deal with. It makes no sense to go to a place with religious ties and then complain about those ties.
So, to answer Mattingly's question, I'm not sure there is a legal reason for keeping the cross in the Wren Chapel once the institution went public. Making the cross removable makes the space more inviting to all students.
I complained about the influence of Sandra Day O'Connor on the decision, but after looking at Mattingly's argument, I think I've changed my mind and agree with the school's decision.
|