After the Brandy

http://dogstreetjournal.com/story/4165

Dear me. It's hard to find exactly where to start with this article. The DSJ (who reads that? just curious...) have been running a series of (truly asinine) "Tribe Vibe" pieces for consumption by freshmen. So, after talking about such harmless things as the (grossly overstated) academic mentality of WM students and a-capella groups, the sages at the DSJ decided, "Hey! You know what would be a great idea? Talk about religion!" The writer (predictably) concentrated on the "diversity" of religious expression and how much WM needs a "dialogue" on religious affairs. She, in so doing, says the following:

• Nichol tried to talk about religion, and the conversation exploded in our faces.

• Now, the few who still care are left speculating about the long-term impact of the Wren cross issue, be it actually religious or merely political.

Oh my. Gene Nichol and the Wren Cross, diluted for the unwashed newcomers. And placed in a discussion about campus religious expression to boot! But let us examine the central claim, which is (loosely) that Nichol sought "dialogue" about the place of religion at WM. The fact that the central piece of evidence is the Committee on Religion in a Public University (hereforward CRPU) suggests that this is misleading if not false. Nichol arbitrarily decided to remove the cross. The consummate Democrat used the undemocratic power of fiat rule to assert his own view of the Establishment Clause on an all-too-willing campus populace. Had he convened CRPU beforehand, he would have come across much more favorably to those who disagreed with the decision. The result might have been tolerable to most (including the alumni who bankroll many major capital expenditures) without cutting the wounds the initial removal opened. If anything, Nichol taught us how NOT to talk about religion. He taught us NOT to act hastily without considering alternative views and attempting to reach a livable solution.

But instead of concerning herself solely with honoring the man of one mind and enumerating the various religious communities in the Williamsburg area, the author has chosen to lecture the "us" (i.e. not her) on the need for "dialogue" as if it will "bring us together." Religion is a touchy subject, like politics. There is a reason the proverb my mother taught me long ago was phrased "don't talk about politics OR RELIGION until after the brandy" (the implication being that the next morning no one would remember the hurt feelings of the night before). It isn't that Hindus, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews cannot be friends. It isn't that each cannot practice his own faith with his fellow believers (he should). What is is that any matter of religion will arouse passions, and any addressing of religious matters or policy must be undertaken with THE GREATEST POSSIBLE DELICACY. It is NOT true, as the DSJ author posits, that "If anyone in the world should be able to discuss religion, it should be us." We are college students. We don't know everything. We sure as hell don't know how to deal with different religious groups in a way that does not seem to favor one or another (such an arrangement is probably nonexistent). Silent aggreements of tuus cuique (to each his own) are certainly better than a forced "dialogue" that would likely consist of the same banal ecumenism that has afflicted the Roman Church since Vatican II, with "diversity seminars" and ecumenical celebrations at the major festivals (Eid, Easter, Passover, and the like). Does this really "Bridge the Gap Between Us"? No. What the community must do, if it must do anything, is commit itself to Free Expression of faith (or lack thereof), each according to the dictates of his own conscience. I think we do that pretty well already. So let's save the "dialogue" for Last Call.