First up from the God Machine is an interesting religion story that stirring some hard feelings in Virginia. The College of William and Mary, one of the nation’s oldest public universities, decided to remove an 18-inch brass cross that had been displayed on the altar of an on-campus chapel.
[College President Gene R. Nichol, who is Catholic] ordered the cross removed in October to make the chapel more welcoming to students of all faiths. Previously, the cross could be removed by request; now it can be returned by request.
“It’s the right thing to do to make sure that this campus is open and welcoming to everyone,” Nichol said. “This is a diverse institution religiously, and we want it to become even more diverse.”
This, as one might imagine, has not gone over well with some of the school’s Christian students and alumni, many of whom want official recognition for their faith, even if other religious traditions are a) offended; and b) given second-class status. Vince Haley, a researcher for Newt Gingrich, said, “The message that is sent by removing the cross is that we no longer value that part of our heritage, and that’s a mistake.” He’s organized an online petition that’s generated 10,000 signatures, and is threatening school officials, warning that alumni will withhold support from William and Mary unless the cross is returned permanently.
Haley appears to be wrong on both counts. First, the cross is hardly part of the school’s “heritage.” William and Mary has been a public university for over a century, and the brass cross wasn’t added to the chapel’s altar until the 1940s. If the concern over the school’s religious traditions is really that important, Haley and others may want to help the school transition back to being a private university — chartered by King William III and Queen Mary II in 1693 to be affiliated with the Anglican Church.
Second, this isn’t about denigrating Christianity; it’s about respecting a diverse student body at a public school in which everyone is equal. “Does that marvelous place belong to everyone, or is it principally for our Christian students?” Nichol said. “Do we actually value religious diversity, or have we determined, because of our history, to endorse a particular religious tradition to the exclusion of others?”
For what it’s worth, Nichols’ decision was endorsed by faculty and by Campus Ministers United, Jewish, and Christian clergy who advise campus religious organizations.
Next up from the God Machine is a lesson on religious history from none other than Karen Hughes.
The FSHK Blog noted that one of the president’s most trusted aides is in the Middle East, promoting American principles. Here’s an example of what Hughes is teaching outsiders about our constitutional system. (via Cliff Schecter)
QUESTION: Going back to the subject of the President, did anyone speak specifically about President Bush — their feelings about him, objections to him?
UNDER SECRETARY HUGHES: I haven’t really heard a lot of that. I had one person at one lunch raise the issue of the President mentioning God in his speeches. And I asked whether he was aware that previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our Constitution cites “one nation under God.” He said “well, never mind” and went on to something else. So he sort of was trying to equate that with the terrorists’ (inaudible). So I explained that I didn’t really think that was something you could equate. And he sort of dropped it and moved on. He was one of the opposition leaders in Egypt.
It might be a more worthwhile anecdote if Hughes knew what she was talking about. Our Constitution does not mention “one nation under God.” Indeed, the Constitution doesn’t make any reference to God whatsoever. (“One nation under God” was added to the pledge and all U.S. currency in the 1950s, nearly two centuries after the writing of the Constitution.)
And finally, we wrap up This Week in God with the latest controversy from everyone’s favorite TV preacher.
A plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against Pat Robertson says the televangelist threatened his life and that of his family at a legal proceeding Wednesday in the Norfolk federal courthouse.
The accuser, Phillip Busch, is suing Robertson for misappropriation of his image in the promotion of Robertson’s protein diet shake.
According to a complaint Busch filed with the Norfolk police, Robertson entered a room in the courthouse Wednesday afternoon to be questioned for a deposition – an out-of-court form of testimony – and told Busch: “I am going to kill you and your family.”
Robertson’s attorney insists no such threat was made, but in the interest of adding additional context, I thought I’d add a little Robertson history. About 10 years ago, Robertson and broadcaster Mark Peterson had a commercial Bible study venture. The business failed, and Robertson fired his partner. Peterson later sued Robertson, alleging that he made a veiled death threat in a telephone conversation with Peterson’s sister.
A fine Christian gentleman, to be sure.