William and Mary president resigns in disgrace
The head of the College of William and Mary, Gene Nichol, has resigned in disgrace. Several readers send along his resignation letter. You’ll recall that he roiled the campus with his decision to hide the cross at the famous school chapel to make it “less faith-specific.” More recently, he hosted a sex workers show on campus while restricting
critics who wanted to tape it.
Here’s his letter:
Dear Members of the William & Mary Community:
I was informed by the Rector on Sunday, after our Charter Day celebrations, that my contract will not be renewed in July. Appropriately, serving the College in the wake of such a decision is beyond my imagining. Accordingly, I have advised the Rector, and announce today, effective immediately, my resignation as president of the College of William & Mary. I return to the faculty of the school of law to resume teaching and writing.
I have made four decisions, or sets of decisions, during my tenure that have stirred ample controversy.
First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events — both voluntary and mandatory — in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community. The decision was likely required by any effective notion of separation of church and state. And it was certainly motivated by the desire to extend the College’s welcome more generously to all. We are charged, as state actors, to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none. The decision did no more.
Second, I have refused, now on two occasions, to ban from the campus a program funded by our student-fee-based, and student-governed, speaker series. To stop the production because I found it offensive, or unappealing, would have violated both the First Amendment and the traditions of openness and inquiry that sustain great universities. It would have been a knowing, intentional denial of the constitutional rights of our students. It is perhaps worth recalling that my very first act as president of the College was to swear on oath not to do so.
Third, in my early months here, recognizing that we likely had fewer poor, or Pell eligible, students than any public university in America, and that our record was getting worse, I introduced an aggressive Gateway scholarship program for Virginians demonstrating the strongest financial need. Under its terms, resident students from families earning $40,000 a year or less have 100% of their need met, without loans. Gateway has increased our Pell eligible students by 20% in the past two years.
Fourth, from the outset of my presidency, I have made it clear that if the College is to reach its aspirations of leadership, it is essential that it become a more diverse, less homogeneous institution. In the past two and half years we have proceeded, with surprising success, to assure that is so. Our last two entering classes have been, by good measure, the most diverse in the College’s history. We have, in the past two and a half years, more than doubled our number of faculty members of color. And we have more effectively integrated the administrative leadership of William & Mary. It is no longer the case, as it was when I arrived, that we could host a leadership retreat inviting the 35 senior administrators of the College and see, around the table, no persons of color.
As the result of these decisions, the last sixteen months have been challenging ones for me and my family. A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign — on the internet and in the press — has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters. It has been joined, occasionally, by members of the Virginia House of Delegates — including last week’s steps by the Privileges and Elections Committee to effectively threaten Board appointees if I were not fired over decisions concerning the Wren Cross and the Sex Workers’ Art Show. That campaign has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.
It is fair to say that, over the course of the past year, I have, more than once, considered either resigning my post or abandoning the positions I have taken on these matters — which I believe crucial to the College’s future. But as I did so, I thought of other persons as well.
I thought of those students, staff, faculty, and alumni, not of the religious majority, who have told me of the power of even small steps, like the decision over display of the Wren Cross, to recognize that they, too, are full members of this inspiring community.
I have thought of those students, faculty, and staff who, in the past three years, have joined us with explicit hopes and assurances that the College could become more effectively opened to those of different races, backgrounds, and economic circumstances — and I have thought of my own unwillingness to voluntarily abandon their efforts, and their prospects, in mid-stream.
I have thought of faculty and staff members here who have, for decades, believed that the College has, unlike many of its competitors, failed to place the challenge of becoming an effectively diverse institution center stage — and who, as a result, have been strongly encouraged by the progress of the last two years.
I have thought of the students who define and personify the College’s belief in community, in service, in openness, in idealism — those who make William & Mary a unique repository of the American promise. And I have believed it unworthy, regardless of burden, to break our bonds of partnership.
And I have thought, perhaps most acutely, of my wife and three remarkable daughters. I’ve believed it vital to understand, with them, that though defeat may at times come, it is crucial not to surrender to the loud and the vitriolic and the angry — just because they are loud and vitriolic and angry. Recalling the old Methodist hymn that commands us “not to be afraid to defend the weak because of the anger of the strong,” nor “afraid to defend the poor because of the anger of the rich.” So I have sought not to yield. The Board’s decision, of course, changes that.
To my faculty colleagues, who have here created a distinctive culture of engaged, student-centered teaching and research, I will remember your strong and steadfast support until the end of my days.
To those staff members and alumni of this accomplished and heartening community, who have struggled to make the William & Mary of the future worthy of its distinctive past, I regret that I will no longer be part of that uplifting cause. But I have little doubt where the course of history lies.
And, finally, to the life-changing and soul-inspiring students of the College, the largest surprise of my professional life, those who have created in me a surpassing faith not only in an institution, but in a generation, I have not words to touch my affections. My belief in your promise has been the central and defining focus of my presidency. The too-quick ending of our work together is among the most profound and wrenching disappointments in my life. Your support, particularly of the past few weeks and days, will remain the strongest balm I’ve known. I am confident of the triumphs and contributions the future holds for women and men of such power and commitment.
I add only that, on Sunday, the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds” or make any other statement about my departure without their approval. Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely. We, of course, rejected the offer. It would have required that I make statements I believe to be untrue and that I believe most would find non-credible. I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale. Neither are ours.
Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency. I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise. But I have believed, and attempted to explain, from even before my arrival on the campus, that an emboldened future for the College of William & Mary requires wider horizons, more fully opened doors, a broader membership, and a more engaging clash of perspectives than the sometimes narrowed gauges of the past have allowed. I step down today believing it still.
I have also hoped that this noble College might one day claim not only Thomas Jefferson’s pedigree, but his political philosophy as well. It was Jefferson who argued for a “wall of separation between church and state” — putting all religious sects “on an equal footing.” He expressly rejected the claim that speech should be suppressed because “it might influence others to do evil,” insisting instead that “we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some if others are left free to demonstrate their errors.” And he averred powerfully that “worth and genius” should “be sought from every condition” of society.
The College of William & Mary is a singular place of invention, rigor, commitment, character, and heart. I have been proud that even in a short term we have engaged a marvelous new Chancellor, successfully concluded a hugely-promising capital campaign, secured surprising support for a cutting-edge school of education and other essential physical facilities, seen the most vibrant applicant pools in our history, fostered path-breaking achievements in undergraduate research, more potently internationalized our programs and opportunities, led the nation in an explosion of civic engagement, invigorated the fruitful marriage of athletics and academics, lifted the salaries of our lowest-paid employees, and even hosted a queen. None of this compares, though, to the magic and the inspiration of the people — young and older — who Glenn and I have come to know here. You will remain always and forever at the center of our hearts.
Go Tribe. And hark upon the gale.
Gene Nichol
Brian Ledbetter says: DLTDHYOTWO!
Reader Rob:
Typical pick and choose ‘logic’ from Nichol with the quote from Jefferson. In his version of reality, he’s unable to stoop to the possibility that he is the one who has committed the “errors.”
Keep up the great work Ms. Malkin.
Rob Menna
Class of 2007
Graduate Student pursuing M.A. in History
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hillary Clinton's Deconstructive Firewall [Dan Collins]
- Think Progress » Right Wing Succeeds In Campaign To Bring Down Progressive College President
- BizzyBlog » Academic Cleanup at William & Mary
- Radio Left
- snapped shot
- the politics of the College of William & Mary | iRobyn|iWitness Culture|iWrite
- the politics of the College of William & Mary | iRobyn|iWitness Culture|iWrite
- The People's Republic of Seabrook
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
This was more of a matter of style than substance. His decisions were controversial. Although I 99.9% agree with those four actions*, he didn’t handle the first two with the nuance one would expect from someone in his position. He was too dismissive of people who disagreed with him.
*The ban on videotaping a public art show was certainly not something I support.
Addled Idiot Intent Upon Indoctrination Ends Occupation Of Administrative Offices.
DLTDHYOTWO!
His letter sounds as if he still feels he did the right thing, even if no one else did. Typical liberal. When I was in college, we still put up “Christmas Trees” and other such symbols. The people of other faiths just had to realize the USA is a majority Christian country. If the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or others wanted to do something, they were free to do so. But we Christians weren’t going to take down our symbols just so they could put theirs up.
And boy, was his letter WINDY!
Perhaps he can go over to Saudi Arabia? He’d fit right in over there. I understand now that nothing red can be displayed because Valentines Day would be an insult to the bearded one.
The guy is a committed liberal with no logic.
He states he banned the cross on campus:
So if these religions are offended, you ban a cross? What about having Christians feel “meaningfully” included? But then he says he won’t ban a sex workers show, which offends Christians, because:
Selective tolerance and intolerance. Pornography is protected and those offended should have “tolerance,” but if you are offended by a cross, you should NOT have tolerance and others should. It is okay to offend Christians with “protected” pornography, but not okay to offend other religions with a cross.
Very confusing liberal BS, but I’m sure he will have many offers in the future from other univesities, though.
And that’s a problem because?
Gene could have a family dinner, look around the table and see “no persons of color” there. Maybe he’ll fire on of his daughters and adopt a Darfur refugee to even things out. Then again, maybe he won’t.
How can you be ‘inclusive’ by excluding something? Taking down the cross excludes Christians, how does that INclude persons of other faiths?
Perhaps he should’ve just added other faiths’ Holy symbols in strategic area’s.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I would suggest that this guy read up on Jefferson’s “political philosophy”. He would be quite surprised. Obviously, he knows nothing of it…or his so-called “argument” on separation of church and state. These liberals think Jefferson is great, yet have no idea what he stood for…the complete opposite of their agendas. As far as a neutral chapel goes, that’s okay. Don’t put a cross in it, as, as he learned, it will just cause trouble. Best be generic, in the first place. You’re right, Tatters, it was windy!
Did he take a job in Berkley ?
People. Having a cross in a public building is endorsing a religion. It tells people of other faiths that their religion is not supported by the university. And that is unacceptable for a public school.
It’s no different than banning the Ten Commandments from an Alabama court room. And although many of you may have disagreed with that, the courts did not. Nichol very well could have prevented a lawsuit.
Loser!
Gabe #6, exactly.
Goodby dopey College President, hello dopey Law Professor.
meatpie, you took the words right out of my mouth!
First, as is widely known, I altered the way a Christian cross was displayed in a public facility, on a public university campus, in a chapel used regularly for secular College events — both voluntary and mandatory — in order to help Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and other religious minorities feel more meaningfully included as members of our broad community.”
Watching the left perform mental gymnastics to get around the truth of the matter never ceases to amaze me.
This guy needs more training… His moves take way too many words…
Why not just say that he hates Christians. He was trying to do anything to insult them. And.. If you don’t like it, lump it!
I might actually respect him a little bit then…. but probably not.
*snore*
apparently, he feels like he’s the victim.
notice in this letter, he says nothing about helping the schools standing in anything that truly matters – like academics. but it’s more diverse…and he did it!
as a minority, i’ve been the only minority enough times in my life that it doens’t phase me. and what’s even stranger, is that i’ve never found it to phase the non-minorities i’m around.
but what’s truly insulting to me, is this condescending racism that oozes from the left – that to be ‘diverse’ you have to lower standards. THIS is his crime. he sacrificed standards for the sake of diversity – which seems to lead to resentment, which can (and sometimes does) lead to racism.
you’re not helping my cause, pal.
Geez! I almost fell asleep reading his resignation letter.
So, he was told he was not going to have a contract renewal or extension this Summer, saw the writing on the wall and resigned. He will now go back to teaching in a tenured position?
His letter could have been so much more succinct…
“I’ve been told that I have not done a good job, because my positions are too liberal even for this school. I quit! By the way, I will still get to assert my liberal influence over the students of this university as a professor. Have a nice day!”
As an alum of William & Mary I say what took so darn long!
One quick question – what do people expect to find when they step into a CHAPEL? Just out of curiousity as it seems to me that people are shocked, outraged and offended that a cross would in fact be in a chapel. By definition a chapel is – a holy place or area of worship for Christians.
Rusty, it’s a “chapel“, just as Nichol asserted himself.
Chapels are used for religious expression. Otherwise, it would just ben an auditorium sitting there. The “chapel” may also be used for non-religious events but it is a chapel, first and foremost. Why look for opportunities to justify bad behavior by Nichol?
Yes. And it’s a chapel used by people of other faiths. And a building used for speeches, seminars, etc. that are open to all faiths. Yet there’s only a cross there. Unacceptable.
Actually, what was unacceptable was his behavior which is why he got the boot. DLTDHYOTWO.
Hmmm? Call me crazy but chapel tends to be synonymous with the Christian religion.
Don’t Buddhists go to temples, Muslims to mosques, Wiccans to…. – where to they go, field to build a fire? – …etc.
I don’t know Mr. Nichol but based on his letter of resignation he was more a bridge too far than a captain of the ship. Perhaps suffering from toxic amounts of PC Kool-Aid and social engineering delusions. Next step on his agenda might have been to rename William and Mary, William and Larry. Why he would be allowed to return to teaching with such an agenda is beyond imagination.
That’s right Rusty if you don’t agree with it is unacceptable. Tell me which part of the three branches of government is a school? I’m looking forward to the day that islamists cut your head off, don’t worry though we will surely say that it is unacceptable, and then we will forget you ever existed.
According to which Founding Father? And where is that in the Constitution?
Finally, why is “tolerance” always a one-way street? How about other faiths showing tolerance for Christianity (which is not a “religion;” it comprises many religions).
A cross is not endorsing one particular religion. That is why NO Founding Father would have banned a cross from a public building. In fact, our ancestors tried to escape this type of intolerance. But liberals, like Rusty, care nothing about the Constitution.
Rusty, don’t people have a choice? if this were a local elementary school, then i’d agree. the reason being that kids generally do not have a choice as to what local school they can attend. however, there’s nothing forcing a person to to to W&M. that cross had been erected for 70 years, longer than anyone who’s attending has been alive. if that cross were so offensive, then why go to the school?
Nichol has a history of attacking Christians. He is a committed member of the ACLU and his statements reflect that the only thing worthy of protection is that which is stated in the Constitution as he interprets it. Anything that smacked of morality and spirituality was rendered meaningless during his tenure at W&M. From the Cross to the Sex Show on campus, Nichol made it obvious that he had little regard for the local community, the alumni who disagreed with him, and even the legislature of the State of Virginia.
The sooner he leaves the campus the better as his remaining on campus can do nothing but stir controversy and disable his successor.
This is unacceptable to Rusty; however, Yale’s Sex Week is an absolute must-have. Don’t waste your time. tgusa got it right – “That’s right Rusty if you don’t agree with it is unacceptable.”
That’s all it is.
Post his mug shot on every street post in the state. Harass him until he picks up his sex toys and leaves, preferably to Russia or China. It is time to confront these destroyers of civilization among us for the future of our kids if nothing else.
How do people this stupid rise to such important positions?
For some of you people still thinking that public schools have to obey the Constitution and not endorse religion, the law is that Congress doesn’t endorse a specific religion. Just for FYI, some states had official religions when the Constitution went into effect. I believe, for example, Massachusetts had Congregationism, Maryland had Catholism. That was fine by the Convention. That’s why it said, “Congress” only. Public schools are run by the states. Hmm. Seems to me a public school is exempt from “separation of church and state” which appears nowhere in the Constitution, just in the minds of a very mixed up group of judges.
One thing about the Cross. There was one, I repeat one, anonymous complaint about the Cross being on the altar of the Wren Chapel. This complaint, which occurred about a month before the 2006 election, an election that featured a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage, was used as the excuse for changing policy. Nichol consulted no one before making the policy change, a stark contrast to his extensive consultative over feathers in the W&M logo. (I believe Nichol was striking out at the local community for its overwhelming support of the marriage amendment. Can I prove this, no! But the timing is just too convenient and the pro/con associated with the amendment split down political lines to a great extent.)
By the way, the previous policy had been for students of other faiths wishing to use the 400 year old Wren Chapel to ask for the removal of the Cross. This request was always honored. The Chapel was even used for years by Jewish students until a local temple was erected.
The Cross episode, along with other examples of anti-Christian and anti-morality behavior, started the ball rolling. He died as President at his own hand.
Classy tgusa. You hope that Rusty is killed by jihadist Muslims…nice.
I don’t know a ton about this guy, but the whole cross in the chapel thing is silly IMHO. I don’t have much use for organized religion of any kind, but I’ve got no real problem with the cross. This guy sounds like a prof who ran smack dab into the “Peter Principle” when he was promoted to the job he just quit…lousy administrator who did a mediocre job of running W&M.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
The First Amendment, which also applies to states, forbids a government from endorsing a specific religion. Since William and Mary is government property, featuring a cross and no other religious symbol is sanctioning one religion over all others.
That’s right Rusty if you don’t agree with it is unacceptable. Tell me which part of the three branches of government is a school? I’m looking forward to the day that islamists cut your head off, don’t worry though we will surely say that it is unacceptable, and then we will forget you ever existed.
Of course, if I were school president, I would have been a bit more delicate with the issue than Nichol was. Religion in the public sphere is one of those things that gets people riled up and he handled it like it wouldn’t be a big deal. Oops.
#31 On February 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
“This is unacceptable to Rusty; however, Yale’s Sex Week is an absolute must-have. Don’t waste your time. tgusa got it right – “That’s right Rusty if you don’t agree with it is unacceptable.”
That’s all it is.”
Correct.
I’m waiting for the obligatory “I believe in live and let live.”
The problem is that the opposite worldview does NOT let ‘our worldview” live:
1) Not when sex shows publicly celebrating and promoting random, biological sex acts are hosted on campus.
How does that help us guide our offspring to the types of adults we hope and pray they will become?
Answer: it doesn’t help…it fights against us.
To add insult to injury, it’s funded with fee dollars sucked from paying parents; or, in the case of some students who are not paying the full freight, possibly with fee dollars sucked from taxpayers.
2) Not when a (?how to describe??) bizarre parade is held in Berkeley in full view of kids.
How does that help us raise our kids?
Answer: it doesn’t help…it fights against us.
3) Not when right & wrong, good & bad are seemingly always made to appear conditional, relative, situational.
How does that help us raise our kids?
Answer: it doesn’t help…it fights against us.
4) Not when the definition of marriage is rewritten, seemingly overnight, by activist courts and lawmakers.
How does that help us raise our kids?
Answer: it doesn’t help…it fights against us.
Think I’ll stop here.
Don’t want to make Mr. Nichol’s book end up looking like a just a paragraph.
I’m not interested in your view of classy I am interested in my people my country and you are right I don’t give a rats rear what happens to them. They asked for it and they would bring it on us all if given the chance. Womens rights, for or against? Freedom to be a Christian, Jew, Atheist, ex Muslim, Leftard, pervert, whatever, for or against? You do classy I will do nasty lets see who is there in the end.
I didn’t know, and neither does any Constitutional lawyer, that when the word “Congress” is used, it means the states too. I thought Congress is the body of government located in D.C. I guess Congress means everyone and everything. Gee…learn something everyday.
Even the Convention delegates didn’t know that, and passed the 10th amendment.
I’m with you, grayson. Perhaps I have learned something – Congress is a synonym for no one. And, here, for all these years, I thought Congress was the legislative body in our nation’s capital. I guess I’m never too old to stop learning, huh?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
How is a cross “establishing” a religion. If so, what religion would William and Mary be “establishing” as a state religion with a cross? Catholicism? The Methodist Church? The Baptist Church? Seventh Day Adventist? It would not be establishing any religion.
“Christianity” is not one particular religion. In your comment. you’ve changed the word from “estabish” to “sanction.” There is a big difference. Sanctioning a religion is not unconstitutional.
Anyway, which Founding Father would have intended the Constitution to forbid the cross in a public building?
Okay Rusty, since you brought it up. What religion does the Ten Commandments “establish”?
blah blah blah
Same old socialist liberal rant. Anyone who disagrees with their perverted ideals is a hater.
They live at the alter of pervesion and cover their dirty deeds under the cloak of diversity.
Gabe,
Simple questions that cannot be answered if one studies history. It just amazes me how they make an argument using the old “establishment clause” to justify ignoring history (and fact).
If, for the sake of arguement congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, why pray tell did most of the original states have an official religion?
Gabe his on a key aspect here. The people that immigrated here from across the pond were escaping the perscution of a state/government established religion. The Founding Fathers were addressing the estalishment of a state church/religion that could/would infringe upon the free exercise of an individual’s own religion.
#37 On February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm, Rusty said:
‘“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
I think I know English at least as well as any – any – of the Supreme Court justices of the last 50-60 years.
The first amendment forbids CONGRESS from ESTABLISHING RELIGION.
It says NOTHING about any particular religion (Note that there is no word between establish and religion.)
Also, as far as I am aware, the 10th amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It seems pretty clear from reading these two amendments that this whole “separation of church and state” argument is empty as far as public displays of Creches and The Ten Commandments are concerned.
Reading the English in the Constitution, one can see that Congress can NOT constitutionally forbid public displays of Creches and the Ten Commandments; Congress, in this case, can NOT tell the states, nor the people, what they can or cannot do.
Only an activist with a predetermined goal, who is dazed and confused by emanations, penumbras, and a “living, breathing document”; would interpret allowing such public displays, even on public property, even funded by tax dollars, as the establishment of religion.
Allowing, yes.
Encouraging, yes.
Establishing, as in a state religion, as in Caesaropapism – most definitely no.
Favoring, OK, sure.
But, in a democratic republic, the majority rules; while the rights of minorities are respected.
Well, just what things are rights?
And, just what constitutes disrespect of those rights?
That would appear to be the issue.
As far as adducing “That’s what the courts have found” as evidence in an argument…please.
Considering the disasters that “the courts”, activist as they have been, have given us over the past four decades should make clear to you how little worth should be attached to the opinions of those particular courts.
Why don’t the socialist liberals just come out and say it? They hate Christianity and everything/everyone associated with it. They hate the thought of their perversions and things they enjoy being considered morally wrong. They are only happy when trying to remove the rights of Christians and impose their ways on the rest of us. When that doesn’t happen they pull out the hate, prejudice, ignorance card.
William & Mary, a Christian school founded in 1693 by the Crown, and existing under a charter that openly declares that it will exist in perpetuity (which our Commonwealth continues to acknowledge).
The Wren Chapel is 300 years old.
It is a Christian chapel. Why should the chapel turn itself into something it is not? By lib logic, why don’t you just ask them to tear it down?
People of other faiths can ask for and probably get a building or room somewhere else for their worship.
Let me remind you of a little something. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is a separation of church and state.
What don’t you understand of “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof……”
When do we get to tear down the symbols of the left’s religion of secular humanism?
Thomas Jefferson would be very proud to know that, today, he is the final authority of a document he never wrote. He neither attended the Convention (being in Paris at the time) nor endorsed/approved (based on his letters to Madison). He wanted an agarian society with a weak federal government, not a business/industrial society with a strong (national) government.
Rusty, you stopped reading too soon and apparently missed the second part of the first part of the first amendment.
Here’s the whole thing:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
note the bolded section and please enlighten us how Nichol, as an apparent agent of Congress, was not prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity when he forcibly removed the sign of Christianity from the Chapel?
The only thing the Wren Cross was in that building was a symbol of the school’s history. If you don’t like a school’s history, you should choose another school. It’s a free country for a few more months.
But I’m really confused why he didn’t cancel the sex show for fear of being offensive to Muslims.
Today that amendment has changed. “Neither Congress nor state/city/county government or any government official/school, elected or not, shall endorse or show any preference to any religion, specifically Christianity, or allow the free exercise thereof, unless it is Islam, which will be allowed and given support in its practice.”
Dang! And, I missed the memo.
I’m a nonbeliever, but I think I actually agree with granite at comment #49. What I would like to see as public policy and what the Constitution actually says are not necessarily the same thing.
tgusa, guessing our hostess is probably not too thrilled about some jackass wishing death on a fellow poster. Tool.
Dang! You guys are good! Rusty, you must admit that your head was just handed to you. (Not literally of course!)
Too true to laugh at anymore.
Um. I am a Christian. The Bill of Rights applying to the states was a long process culminating in the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. All of the amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to states as well as to federal laws.
The cross was allowed for Christian services. Just not for secular events. Why should an atheist who rejects God have to be reminded that this school opposed his beliefs. In this case the state government established Christianity as the officially sanctioned religion at W&M. That’s a violation of the First Amendment. No different than having a Nativity scene on the lawn of the town hall.
If there was a Crescent Moon instead of a cross in the building during secular events, you would be ecstatic if it was removed. The real issue is that people think America is a Christian nation. It isn’t. Most Americans are Christian, but the government was specifically designed to separate itself from that. And W&M, as a public school, is part of Virginia government.
You use the term endorsing as meaning proselytizing or preaching. It is not. You mean “To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction.” Even that is a stretch.
Unless students are forced to worship a given religion or attend meetings of such, it is effectively meaningless. Are people instantly converted by the sight of a cross, an om, a star of David? No, they are not. Does a swastika turn you into a white supremacist or a Nazi? Offensive as it is, no. But we cannot say that a religious symbol is offensive in the sense a swastika now is, but that is what Rusty and Nichols are trying to say.
Given that most of our laws are based on the Ten Commandments and overall Judeo Christian laws, you will have to effectively rewrite the Constitution and all laws after that, to purge religion out of our law. Is that what you want?
If the courts reconsider that decision of the Alabama court room, will that be okay with you? Any reasonable reading of the First Amendment could see that the meaning is clear: no state religion as in England. If it is not clear, the framers wrote much on the individual amendments in places such as the Federalist paper, so that there is no reason to guess their intentions: they spelled them out to allay the fears of those faced with a new form of government.
Graysonret, what makes you think I’m so keen towards Islam?
Nothing about you, Rusty. It wasn’t directed at you at all. Just a comment about the popular understanding of what it stands for today.
Diances says (#39):
That is an interesting point in itself. Would muslims abide by the display of a cross or a star of David in their mosques in order to “to respect and accommodate all religions, and to endorse none?”
I think not. Start there, Rusty, and we will work our way back to the Christian chapels.
It’s a “chapel“, Rusty.
And, did you read Dianeces post in #51?
You may also want to read what Fineous wrote in #54, again or for the first time, if you didn’t read it already.
Soak in the actual words this time and read them for what they say, not what you have been told and are already bringing with you to this debate.
In the beginning and through our march forward in history the church more often than not doubled as a school house. We have all seen the picture of the prairie church on Sunday/school on Monday thru Friday. A huge contribution to what we have developed came from the church. The church was more than happy to share their buildings with teachers it’s too bad the teachers didn’t learn a lesson of tolerance from the church. It is no wonder that now that we see the church being demonized we see a loss of liberty right along with it. The pendulum has swung wildly to toward the intolerant among us but the pendulum always swings back. What the church wrote about individual rights centuries ago is light years ahead of what the modern educators write today. Some people are always slower than others but c’mon, this is ridiculous.
A chapel owned by the government. Precisely what the First Amendment is trying to prevent.
And re comment #54, no one’s free exercise is being messed with. The cross can be used for Christian services. Just not secular ones.
I’d swear Franklin Foer was a co-author.
Rusty,
Is it just beyond you to read the full information available in post #54 that was put up there for you?
Try reading it without substituting your own persons/entities in for words that are actually there.
Maybe its that whole “living, breathing document” thing you are having a problem with. But, the words have stayed in the same order all of these years from my readings.
Rusty if you are the socialist liberal you portray yourself as on here pushing for abortion rights, homosexual special rights, sex ed for younger and younger children, handing out condoms and day after pills to high school children, etc. then your Christianity is in name only. Those things are as opposite of Christian as they can be.
Just got a follow-up letter from the Rector. I e-mailed him back that he just doesn’t get why Nichol was a problem. At any rate, I feel we may get our school back on track. Now we need to replace the board.
I responded to Nichol directly when I received his letter to alumni, but got so angry I never sent it. He is an atheist with an ax to grind. I’m not against atheist. I just want them to be as tolerant as they are constantly demanding from religious groups
Time to run, for now. It’s been interesting. I may get to check back in on Rusty’s progress later tonight.
Comment #71 is really obnoxious. Birth control is in no way anti-Christian. I double dare you to find where in the Bible birth control became sinful. As for homosexual rights, I don’t believe homosexuality to be any more sinful than eating shrimp, wearing clothes made of more than one cloth, or any of the other wacky antiquated laws in Leviticus. Romans mentions homosexual promiscuity as sinful, but the exact same standard should be applied to heterosexual relationships.
As for pro-choice and pro-sex ed, I hate to break the news to you, but not every one in this country is Christian. To many, abortion and pre-marital sex isn’t sinful. So why should they have to live up to Christian law? Christian behavior should come from within, not mandated by laws and government.
Sam, what really makes Christian is that I know I don’t have to ever answer to you. Your judgment matters little. But if you think you’re the one who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn’t, then that is the least Christian thing I’ve read in a good long while.
And Sam, re the “socialist liberal” tag, if you studied Scripture you’d know that tag could very well apply to Jesus as well.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Jim Jones never directly killed anyone but the words he spoke and the actions he took did. The same is true of Manson and I would suspect many others throughout history. This guy knows darn well that muslims have a problem with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists, Ex-Muslims. He knows that non Islamic religious artifacts are systematically being destroyed all around the world yet he wants to force upon us the majority of tolerant religions this murderously intolerant group? He surely has heard that in Saudi Arabia they will burn your bible melt your crucifix stone you for converting to any other religion so what kind of monster is this guy anyway? All you ladies out there better cover up you wouldn’t want to offend anyone. Well that is the logical conclusion, cover up the cross and eventually cover up the women all in the name of tolerance. Now I know how jack felt in one flew over the cuckoos nest.
Looking forward, although fitting does somehow mis the mark, looking a-head, to the logical outcome is better. No animus here.
What the Heck? I’m against Islamic symbols on town squares and government owned buildings as well.
I never alluded that you were, what are you talking about?
The state or one man?
I am shocked that a Christian does not know that there is NO such “religion” as Christianity. I have yet to see a church called the Church of Christianity. There are plenty of different religions that are “Christian” and, yet, not one of them is state or federally backed, sponsored or established.
That was hollow – try again.
On February 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, Rusty said:
WOW – WOW – WOW. That scripture leads you to believe that? You are a Christian and take GOD’S words out of context.
It is settled then, I am not a Christian.
Which religion is the state “sponsoring” when it allows the Nativity scene on public land?
Soap, Christianity is a religion. There are many denominations of Christianity, but only one religion.
Orthodox, conservative, and reform are all parts of the religion of Judaism.
And Sunnis and Shiites are both parts of the religion of Islam.
And it’s silly to try to pin a political label on Jesus. I apologize for doing so. That being said, that quote I used above is an incredibly socialist thing to say. Wealth distribution is the only way into heaven!
Um, that would be Christianity. I feel like I’m missing something here. Since only Christians worship Jesus as the Son of God, what other religion would benefit from celebrating His birth?
JESUS was not talking about “wealth distribution” to get into heaven. As one who has “studied the Bible” you should know that.
Alas, I will not thread-jack to prove that point.
As for Christianity being a religion, WRONG. Again, I will not thread-jack to prove my point.
If Michelle wants to start a thread so we can debate what a religion is, I will set the record straight. If Michelle wants to start a thread on JESUS being a socialist, again, I will set the record straight.
As for government backed religion, there are two I can think of. Global Warming takes a lot of faith to believe in. So does evolution.
Not to keep correcting you but:
There are many religions that believe that JESUS is Messiah. Some Jews even believe.
Okay, we have people here who really need to read some history on the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process, in regards to amendment No. 1. Yes, people came across the “pond” to escape persecution from governments that had only 1 religion. France=Catholism, England=Anglican/Puritanism. However, these people settled in colonies that endorsed the religion they wanted. If, for example you were Catholic, Maryland was a nice colony to settle in. If, however, you appreciated Puritanism, Massachusetts Bay Colony was very nice. At the time of the Convention, the question of a strong national government was a concern to all the states, who were independent at the time under the Articles of Confederation…a nice arrangement if you liked state rights. Under the arrangement presented to the states, the loss of state rights was too much for most of them; small states in particular. One of the biggest arguments against it, was the “general welfare” clause. Taken as is, it might the Congress could pretty much do as it pleases in the guise of “general welfare”. So, in order to appease the state ratifying committees, a promise was made to introduce amendments as soon as the Constitution was approved. The 10th amendment was meant to block the “general welfare” clause that is so quoted by people who believe in a “living, breathing” document. Understand that many states had their own religions and they, and the people, were not about to give their religion up to support something they had many questions. In other words, why change a good thing for us(states)? So, under the 1st amendment, in order to protect the states and their populations…yet, still show support for all religions, the term “Congress” was used…meaning the national government. The state religions were protected. Then came “Cantwell vs Connecticut” in 1940. Justice Hugo Black…by the way, a KKK supporter (it was okay then)and anti-catholic, ant-semitic…wrote the opinion. He claimed the 1st amendment applied to all states and local governments and quoted Jefferson’s now-famous letter. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. Didn’t write it or support it, initially…until he became President in 1800. This was to prevent support for any catholic schools. It has been blown up since then and now encompasses all schools and anything at all to do with any form of government. Now, does that explain it?
So many forget that the first amendments purpose was to add to not take away from the discourse. This president is taking away religious symbols historic to the campus, removing open display on public property, and giving selective groups preference. This guy needs to attend some classes not teach them.
Rusty – Jesus was never about wealth distribution. Once again you prove your utter ignorance.
DLTDHYOTWO!!!!!!!!
Rusty, haven’t you ever heard of this?
I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but you might reconsider being so absolute when commenting on either the Constitution or the Bible. It’s a sure way to ruin your credibility.
Wait, what? Rusty’s at it again?
Yesterday he was busy telling us Sex Week at Yale was a good thing and college students have sex anyway so you can’t stop it, and if you disagree you’re wrong.
Today he’s telling us W&M, a religious university founded by the Crown (not the US), has no right to display a religious symbol, for fear that it might offend someone?
So which is it, Rusty? Do you allow universities to make any decision they please, indulge students’ desires, consequences be damned; or do you accept only those decisions which appeal to students’ carnal impulses?
Higher learning, indeed. While Yale is busy teaching co-eds have to get each other off and extolling the virtues of pornography (readily supported by Rusty), W&M is busy hiding all religious symbolism, so as not to alienate the poor, poor wittle minorities by showing them the eeevill cross.
I am glad this guy is gone. I’ve always believed his agenda was personal and bitter. Diversity is not the promotion of immorality and irreligiosity, but it’s hard to see that I guess when you’re an atheist with a grudge.
A steaming pile of fancy twaddle utterly devoid of meaning.
Discussion of Obama’s character is another thread.
I must confess that I consider Christianity my religion…period.
There are a number of denominations: Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Congregational, etc; but, I’ve thought all these years, as the son-in-law of a priest, and as a former altar boy, that Christianity is indeed a religion.
But, that is NOT the point of this thread.
Nice try with the liberation theology, Christ-was-a-socialist gambit.
Jesus may have said that giving all one’s belongings to the poor is a way to folow Him and enter Heaven;
however, He never – never – said that the belongings of everyone who had wealth above an arbitrary level should be confiscated and redistributed.
Note that He said “give”…NOT “create a bureaucracy armed with deadly force that will take what it deems it should from those from whom it deems it should”.
Confiscation can arguably be considered simply stealing with the power of the state behind you, and with the guns in your hands.
Forcibly taking away from someone, no matter if with supposedly “good intentions”, is still taking away…in other words, a sort of robbing.
BTW, in case you hadn’t noticed, stealing is forbidden by the Eighth Commandment.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Nichol is GREAT at LAWYER SPEAK!!!!
Or is it Democrat – Socialist speak?!