Monday, November 20, 2006

[wren chapel] calling all libertarian bloggers

I first read of this act of desecration at Gates of Vienna, then here, then here, then here and finally where an action group has been set up to tackle this. Now you might ask many questions: 1] why should a high-end, esoteric, American alumni issue concern us 2] so what, if they removed a heritage icon to appease other faiths?

My answer to you would be that most blogs I’ve read have been rabbiting on about PC atrocities and appeasement and the assault on our way of life for months. All right – here’s a clear case of political correctness gone mad in the removal of a cultural icon, for no other reason than it is a cross.

Now here’s where the power of blogging comes in. The MSM won’t touch it because they’re under wraps. It’s only through you and you and you and you that this damnable PC can be exposed and the cynical administrator who perpetrated it and all such administrators can be made to see that they can’t run roughshod over the heritage of the people and get away with it.

There’s the challenge to the blogosphere. If you are genuinely concerned with liberty, will you pick up on this one and run with it? Will you do that, fearless bloggers? Liberty might just depend on it.


  1. James, thank you, I'll send your comments to Vince Haley.

  2. As I commented over at Gates of Vienna, I've had the pleasure of visiting the Wren Chapel, during a brief stopover at William and Mary some years ago. This is a disgrace.

    Unless I'm much mistaken, Margaret Thatcher is, or was, the Honorary President of William and Mary - I'm not sure of the exact title. Maybe we should get her to fire off a rude letter.

  3. I have come across this unwillingness to allow symbols of non-atheism in public spaces many times recently, but I just can't work it out. Why do atheists need to protected from symbols of faith, even in chapels? Are they really so chippy and insecure that this is necessary? My experience of atheists suggests that most don't give a damn. Or is this just another example of a single aggressive secularist, for his own reasons, wanting only his own worldview represented in the space he occupies or passes through?

  4. You raise an excellent point, Tin Drummer but I can't think of anyone who's going to like my answer. In Christianity, there is a 'for Me or against Me' mentality. Let's pretend, for the moment, that this might be correct. Therefore, there is a light side, under the Big Boy and a dark side, under That One. an atheist, therefore, is of That One's party unwittingly or at least serving the same ends. Therefore, he's going to hate the cross and might not even know why.

    In the case of William and Mary, there are two parallel and ancient traditions which have always been an undercurrent there - one is Christian.

    Of course I might be totally wrong.

  5. Interesting point about the worldview of Christianity. I have a feeling Himself said much the same; but isn't it the case that such a "for me or against me" mentality is inherent in any worldview, whether supernaturally based, or based upon the creation of absolute but not really existing values (like "tolerance, equality and diversity", for example)? Certainly secularists can be guilty of this, as here.

    I will admit to not knowing much about William and Mary though , but from what I can gather, the Christianity has always been important to it. It doesn't sound like the Christian side has been defeated in a long running battle, more that it has been elbowed aside with some meaningless phrases and empty rhetoric.

    We could all be wrong, James, that's what gives life its spice. I can't imagine thinking I was actually right - that would defeat the purpose of blogging for me, and all I would have to do is sit back in my armchair and gaze lovingly in the mirror.

  6. We'll have to wait and see where this issue goes.