Gingrich says Wren Chapel endangered

Gingrich says Wren Chapel endangered
Former House speaker concludes feelings are being applied as law

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the arbitrary removal of a donated brass cross from the historic Wren Chapel at the College of William and Mary simply leads "to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved, a tyranny of the easily offended."

WND broke the story last Oct. 27 when university administrator Melissa Engimann circulated an e-mail noting that the cross was going to be placed in permanent storage in order to make the chapel "less of a faith-specific space."

The cross had been in the chapel for decades; the chapel has been on the campus of the second-oldest university in the United States for centuries. Nevertheless, newly-appointed President Gene Nichol ruled, he had a single written complaint and the cross must go.

In a column in National Review Online, Gingrich was joined by Christopher Levenick, another Fellow at American Enterprise Institute, in saying that those "who needlessly disturb the peace are thus at direct odds" with the Constitution's goal of reducing religious conflict.

"The controversy at William and Mary is one of Nichol's own creation, based on vicarious offense taken in the service of arbitrary principle," the editorial said. "He would have been better served to heed the counsel of … the liberal Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer. Breyer has recently come to understand that, whatever else may be said of the matter, the Constitution intends to diminish the possibility of religious conflict."

Nichol already has backtracked on his decision to remove the cross from the chapel, but students and alumni who have assembled more than 10,000 signatures on a petition to restore the cross say those efforts haven't been enough.

Nichol has e-mailed the "college community" admitting he "acted too quickly and should have consulted more broadly" in the decision to remove the cross. To make up, he dictated, a plaque would be put up in the chapel and the cross would be put on the altar for extended hours on Sunday.

Students and alumni assembled in a group called SaveTheWrenCross.org, said that was just another unilateral decision.

"After apologizing for his failure to involve others in this historic decision, Nichol went on in his letter – apparently unaware of the irony – to dictate what he obviously thinks is a compromise solution to the problem he created," said the organization.

Gingrich noted that the decision was another incident supporting "the regrettable fact that the relentless secularization of public life continues unabated."

He said the college, founded in 1693 by British royal charter, boasts the Wren Building, reputedly designed by England's greatest architect, Sir Christopher Wren.

Inside that building is a "gorgeous, walnut- and pine-paneled chapel, with an altar that has been graced for decades by a simple brass cross."

Then came Nichol's order to remove it, because he feared the cross "sends a message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."

"This line of reasoning bears the unmistakable influence of former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose major contribution to church-state thinking centers on her concept of endorsement. (That Nichol would invoke O'Connor is not particularly surprising – O'Connor is the new Chancellor of William and Mary, and Nichol – a former law dean – has praised her work in glowing terms.)" Gingrich wrote.

"'Endorsement,' according to O'Connor, 'sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.' Nichol's decision to remove the Wren Cross obviously relies on O'Connor's logic, at times even borrowing her specific turns of phrase," he said.

But Gingrich noted the "endorsement test" is unhelpful because it is "indeterminate, bordering on arbitrary" and its foundation is "subjective perceptions."

"Its first consideration is not how the law actually treats people, but rather how people feel they are treated by the law. Taken to its logical conclusion, the endorsement test leads to the rule of the perpetually aggrieved…" he said.

"A strict application … would require not just a stripping of the altar, but a shuttering of the chapel," he said. "After all, if the presence of a cross in the chapel signals that non-Christians are less than full members of the community, then the presence of a chapel on a public campus must similarly signal that non-believers are somehow outsiders."

In another opinion on the issue, Cesar Conda & Vince Haley wrote in the Daily Standard that the 400th anniversary of the landing in America of the English colonists who ultimately settled at Jamestown will be on April 29, 2007.

"In one of their first acts, they erected a cross to give thanks to God for safe passage across the ocean," they wrote. "Four hundred years after the raising of the Cape Henry Cross, the symbol is under assault in Virginia."

But if Nichol's argument is sustained, it would "directly and logically lead to the repudiation and dismantling of the historic Cape Henry Cross, and other important crosses in Virginia."

The editorial then noted that the language Nichol used, such as the chapel belonging "more fully" to some, and there being "insiders and outsiders," appeared to be drawn from the same source as many ACLU letters that challenge the Christian heritage in the United States.

"Take for example Connecticut ACLU staff attorney Sam Brooke's December 2006 explanation as to why the ACLU objects to a Connecticut high school holding graduation ceremonies in a local Baptist church while its football field was being renovated: "It unequivocally tells Christian students . . . that they are 'insiders, favored members of the political community; those who are of different religion, or no religion at all, are told that they are 'outsiders,'" the editorial said.

The writers, both graduates of William and Mary, said Nichol's use of the terminology should be expected, since he's been involved in the ACLU for 20 years.

"What is surprising is that Nichol would use his perch as college president to advance a secularizing agenda," they said. "Normally, when the ACLU seeks to remove religious symbols, it must either file, or threaten to file, a lawsuit. But if a leader of a public institution shares the ACLU world view, one can dispense with the bothersome exercises of litigation and persuasion. Instead, they can achieve their ends by administrative fiat."

They noted Nichol already has implied a threat to the chapel itself. He recently created a "presidential committee" to examine the role of religion at public universities, and charged members with deciding "[h]ow does one square the operation of an historic Christian chapel with a public university's general charge to avoid endorsing a particular religious creed?"

"Four hundred years ago, the Jamestown colonists waded ashore at Cape Henry and erected a cross in thanksgiving. Today, Gene Nichol, along with his ACLU allies, are working to push them back into the sea," the graduates wrote.