Former Chaplain Takes on VA's Christian Symbolism Ban

Fayetteville, N.C. — The former chaplain of the Veterans Affairs hospital in Fayetteville is taking a fight for Christian symbolism to the City Council.

“It's nothing more than a big, bare room – an empty room with a museum-type effect,” former Chaplin Archie Barringer said in describing how the hospital chapel looks today.

In September, hospital staff removed images of Jesus from the altar. A cross was replaced with plastic flowers, and paper shades were used to cover stained glass windows that have Christian symbols.

"Later on, someone came in and sawed the crosses off the back of the pulpit chair,” Barringer said.

Two months later, Barringer resigned as the hospital's chief chaplain.

"I would say this has gone beyond the point of neutralization to desecration,” he said.

The VA says it is is honoring a longstanding policy that requires chapels to remain religiously neutral.

Keith Ethridge, the national director of VA chaplains, said chapels must make all faiths feel welcome.

Barringer doesn't agree. He wants City Council members to write letters to the state's congressional delegation about allowing VA chapels to reflect what he called the nation's Judeo-Christian heritage.

He is "requesting that the regulation be rescinded, revamped and rewritten in order that our Judeo-Christian symbols of faith be restored to our chapel,” he said.

The chapel is not devoid of all Christian symbols. Bibles are on tables. A video that plays depicts Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount.

"I don't believe in discriminating against anyone, and I believe that we should certainly provide for all faith groups,” Barringer said.

Barringer supports having a separate room devoted to multiple faiths, he said.

The Department of Veterans Affairs said the Christian symbols were removed after complaints during a Sept. 11 anniversary service.

Barringer's proposal was heard during Monday night's City Council meeting

275 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 275 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

Freakazoid: You should take care to check multiple sources. Wikipedia is a good place to start but that particular section you posted was also flagged for neutrality. Though I will agree that the verbage was likely included to calm the waters with the Muslims. If you research the article in question and our founding fathers, you'll find a different story in regards to this being a christian nation.

sparshall
March 20, 2008 7:50 p.m.

"We're talking about an institution funded with taxpayer money. Taxpayers are made up of people of all religions, as well as people who aren't a member of any religion at all. I don't want my money spent in a fashion that promotes one religion above others, whether I'm a member of that religion or not."

Rev, while I agree with you, I doubt that government money paid for these items to begin with. Typically these Chapels are sponsored by a non-profit group and/or the symbols are donated. I think the government would be hard pushed to produce a receipt for the items removed, covered and damaged.

I find that Christians in general are not outspoken and demanding about other religions because we don't assume that their symbols or very presence is an effort of trying to cram their religion down our throats.

Do we really believe that when someone walks into a chapel which is by definition a place of worship that they are offended to find that there are articles of worship there?

atozca
March 20, 2008 5:18 p.m.

Or one could always assume that the verbage was included to calm the Muslims of Tripoli so that therefore they need not fear a religious war from the U.S.

Freakazoid
March 20, 2008 3:53 p.m.

Cathcart commissioned the Italian translation of the treaty, which also does not contain the Article XI as Barlow had it.

Freakazoid
March 20, 2008 3:44 p.m.

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point[19]. From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..."[19]

Freakazoid
March 20, 2008 3:38 p.m.