Wednesday, March 7th, 2007,
by Fred (,
Gene Nichol, religion, William & Mary, wren chapel
,
As I predicted yesterday, some of those who opposed Gene Nichol’s decision to remove the cross from Wren Chapel are not happy with the College’s decision to display the cross in the sacristy along with other religious objects. Although the Save the Wren Cross site is still not updated, two of the activists behind the petition drive were quoted in the article in today’s Times-Dispatch
An Internet petition called savethewrencross.org garnered more than 17,000 signatures calling for Nichol to restore the original policy.
Benjamin Locher, a W&M senior from Pittsburgh and co-founder of the site, said he is satisfied with the compromise.
“Hopefully, this gives us enough common ground that we can all rally behind it,” he said.
Joe Luppino-Esposito, another co-founder of the site who is also chairman of the student Senate, said he has some reservations and would prefer the original policy. “Putting [the cross] in a glass case makes it museumlike,” he said.
Locher and Luppino-Esposito said they spoke only for themselves and would need to consult with others before reaching any decision on the future of their Web site and petition.
It’s just delicious that Luppino-Esposito is now arguing that the compromise is unacceptable because it makes the cross “museumlike,” given that his website exists to “Defend and Honor William & Mary’s History.” If the cross should stay to honor the College’s Anglican history, then making the cross “museumlike” is entirely appropriate.
The T-D’s comments section contains lots of commentary objecting to the compromise as well. Like this one:
I doubt that ACLU, Brown-Shirt Nichol would have been offended by a swastika or hammer and sickle in the Wren Chapel upon his initial arrival to the W&M campus.
Or this one:
Get real President Nichol! Placing the cross in a glass display case does not in any way, shape or form return it to it’s place of honor in the chapel. It must be returned and displayed in the manner which was in effect before the ACLU entered the case. Maybe in years to come it will be seen proper to inter the remains of Gene Nichol in a glass display case somewhere on campus as a memorial to political correctness gone awry. What the heck! It worked for Lenin!
These people want the College to say that Christianity is superior to all other beliefs. It simply shouldn’t do so. The compromise adequately addresses the history of the building without endorsing religion.
Share This
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007,
by Fred (,
Christianity, cross, Gene Nichol, religion, William & Mary, wren chapel
,
From an email I just received from William and Mary President Gene Nichol and Rector Michael Powell:
Following its meeting yesterday, the William and Mary Committee on Religion in a Public University unanimously recommended a compromise practice on the display of the table cross in the Wren Chapel. We accept and will immediately begin to implement the Committee’s recommendations, which we quote in full:
THE WREN CHAPEL CROSS SHALL BE RETURNED FOR PERMANENT DISPLAY IN THE CHAPEL IN A GLASS CASE. THE CASE SHALL BE LOCATED IN A PROMINENT, READILY VISIBLE PLACE, ACCOMPANIED BY A PLAQUE EXPLAINING THE COLLEGE’S ANGLICAN ROOTS AND ITS HISTORIC CONNECTION TO BRUTON PARISH CHURCH. THE WREN SACRISTY SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSE SACRED OBJECTS OF ANY RELIGIOUS TRADITION FOR USE IN WORSHIP AND DEVOTION BY MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE COMMUNITY.
The cross will still be available, of course, for use on the altar during appropriate religious services. This practice is similar to that used by other universities with historic chapels, including the University of Virginia. Other religious symbols, which may be stored in the sacristy when not in use, will also be welcome during the services for which they are appropriate. Under this policy, the Wren Chapel will continue to play its unique historic and affirming role in the life of the College: a place of worship for our students and a site for our most solemn occasions.
This compromise is eminently reasonable. The response to the new policy will be telling. If those who opposed President Nichols’ decision to remove the cross oppose the compromise as well, then it means they will oppose any policy that does not place Christianity in a superior position to all other beliefs, which is a completely unacceptable position for a public university to take.
Share This
Tuesday, March 21st, 2006,
by Fred (,
creationism, education, intelligent design, religion
,
Archbishop of Canterbury says no to creationism in schools
The spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans does not believe that creationism — the Bible-based account of the world’s origins — should be taught in schools.”I don’t think it should, actually. No, No,” said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reflecting on the bitter education debate over religion and science that has so divided the United States in particular.
Williams, head of a church which has no problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution, told the Guardian newspaper: “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory, like other theories.”
Asked if he was comfortable with the teaching of creationism in schools, the mild-mannered and usually cautious theologian said: “Not very. Not very.”
Too bad Missouri legislators aren’t Anglicans.
Share This
Friday, March 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
evolution, HB1266, intelligent design, Missouri, religion, SB1249, science
,
First it was making Christian proselytizing in public schools OK by non-binding resolution. Now the Missouri legislature is considering a bill that would restrict teaching of evolution.
Dubbed the “Missouri Science Education Act,” the bill would require teachers to distinguish between “verified empirical data” and theories. The bill further calls on teachers to “minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism and understanding.”
The Post-Dispatch notes that “evolution” is mentioned nowhere in the bill (bill status, bill text). This is true, but it is clear evolution is the target. The bill attempts to distringuish between “verified empirical data” and everything else.
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, extrapolation, estimation, unverified data, consensus of scientific opinion, and philosophical belief, such information shall be within the purview of critical analysis and may be critically analyzed. Critical analysis includes the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
It’s not clear when science moves from the realm of theory to “verified empirical data.” The bill defines verified empirical data as
information representing physical reality based on repeated independent human observation, measurement, and experimentation with consistent results. Verified empirical data is without significant inference and is not theory, hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, estimated data, extrapolated data, or consensus of scientific opinion.
Does the legislature think that quantum mechanics is verified empirically? What about string theory? Parallel universes? What kind of science comes without inference or extrapolation?
It’s clear, however, that this bill is all about evolution. Under the bill, information that is not verified empirical data must be identified as such, and may be “critically analyzed.” Critical analysis means
the teaching of anomalous verified empirical data, contrary verified empirical data, missing supporting data, inadequate mechanisms, insufficient resources, faulty logic, crucial assumptions, alternate logical explanations, lack of experimental results, conflicting experiments, or predictive failures where applicable;
So most of the time, teachers and administrators have freedom to choose whether to “critically analyze” scientific theory that is not verified empirical data. But the bill’s sponsors don’t trust biology teachers, who have been teaching evolution without governmental interference. So the bill has special language for biology:
When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount. If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.
Not only do teachers have to identify scientific thought on biological origins as special, they have to teach it in a special way so as to minimize its import. And what else do they have to teach? “Alternate logical explanations”. Not alternate scientific theory, but alternate “logical” explanations. What is the best known “logical” explanation of biological origins? Our good friend intelligent design.
The creationists have been trying to shoehorn ID into the Missouri curriculum for years, but have failed to get their bills out of committee. So this time, they say “theory or hypothesis of bilogical origins” instead of evolution, and “alternate logical explanations” instead of intelligent design (which itself is used instead of what they really mean, biblical creationism). And to make sure they could get the bill out of committee, they resorted to subterfuge, putting the bill on the agenda at the last minute and without notice, ensuring that the scientific community wasn’t represented:
Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said few testified against the bill earlier this week after it was placed on the agenda with little notice. He said officials representing science teachers were not present at the hearing, but would be eager to weigh in.
Contact your legislator and tell them to oppose HB 1266/SB 1249.
Share This
Thursday, March 2nd, 2006,
by Fred (,
church and state, legislation, Missouri, religion, Search, seizure
,
According to the AP, Kenyan state police have attacked Kenyan media, shuttering the Standard newspaper and Kenya Television Network.
Masked, plainclothes police carrying assault rifles staged a midnight raid on the country’s oldest newspaper and its sister television station early Thursday, burning tens of thousands of newspapers in the most dramatic attack on the press in Kenya’s history.
The closures of The Standard and the Kenya Television Network marked the first time a Kenyan government has shut down a major media company and followed the detentions of several journalists.
The Kenyan media have angered the government by reporting on corruption scandals involving President Mwai Kibaki. The government left no doubt this was why they arrested reporters and burned newspapers:
“If you rattle a snake you must be prepared to be bitten by it,” Interior Security Minister John Michuki told journalists. Speaking in Swahili, he said the police raid was necessary to demonstrate state authority.
Police are still holding three reporters and two editors from The Standard following the raid. Justice Jessie Lesiit of the Kenyan high court has summoned the police commissioner general Hussein Ali to court Friday to state why he is still holding three journalists. KBC had hoped to have the station back on the air by now, but their website still states that “Kenya Television Network, KTN is off-air and Standard newspapers off streets after people said to be security agents conducted an overnight operation shutting down their facilities.” [screenshot].
This is bad news for Kenyans. When embattled, corrupt politicians attack independent media, it is often a precursor to larger assaults on the populace.
Share This
