home

Number of Evangelical Law Schools Growing

This is about the scariest article I have read in a while.

It begins with Jerry Falwell and his Liberty University dream of "training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Christian worldview."

Then it lists the other law schools in the mold. The number is growing. Check out the quotes from the students.

Matthew Krause, among Liberty's first law graduates, is one of them. "I think we've complained too long about the destruction of our culture without taking any affirmative steps to remedy it," said the lanky, 26-year-old Texan. "We don't want abortion, but what are we doing about it? Let's get into the courts and find a way to combat that. Same-sex marriage we don't feel is right or a good thing for the culture. How are we going to stop that? You have to do that through the legal processes. Then, at the same time, vote in politicians who share those ideas and beliefs."

These schools exist to teach the students how to circumvent the constitution, eliminate the separation of church and state and deprive all of us of constitutional rights.

Another student says:

"I didn't want to just be a Christian attorney, but an attorney who dedicates my gifts and talents to Christ," said Chicago-born Daniel White, 25, an African-American. One of Liberty's first graduates, he is joining the Gibbs Law Firm in Florida, which argued for continued life support for Terri Schiavo.

A sample of teaching methods:

Liberty integrates the moral and religious roots of the rule of law into every class discussion, an approach Staver calls "law plus." That came through during a recent "Lawyering Skills" class when professor Rodney Chrisman presented a case and then asked his students whether they would compromise their integrity on behalf of a good client. "The Bible says a good name is a greater treasure than silver and gold." Chrisman told them.

As to jobs for graduates:

.... four Liberty graduates will clerk for judges, one at the appellate level. Such jobs pave the way to a clerkship with the U.S. Supreme Court and beyond, said Staver, a fact of which Falwell was well aware.

"We'd be pleased if we trained up a John Roberts and a Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and an Antonin Scalia," Falwell told the Tribune, with a wide smile. "We'd feel like we hit a home run."

How did these schools get accredited by the ABA? They are subversive.

< Given A Choice, The Nation Would End The Iraq Debacle | The Battle of the Iraq Supplemental Is Over: Bush Won >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Reminds me of.... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:05:26 AM EST
    "Devil's Advocate" with Al Pacino....but instead of Satan calling the shots, we have guys like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell calling the shots.  I think I'd prefer Satan:)

    Pat, Jerry and the Devil (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mike Mid City on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    We get them all, lucky us.

    Parent
    SC Swing (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    What this is all about is getting ready for another Republican Administration and a stacked court that will erase the seperation between Church and State.

    It is not just that the the Evangelicals are opening up law schools, that on the face of it is just fine.  It is that their intent is subversive: the elimination of the seperation between church and state.

    I know which one is scarier: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    the one which will settle for nothing less than working to set the stage for Armageddon and "Rapture" in M.E; especially when they're insinuating themselves into higher govt.

    They're a symptom (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by fairleft on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    These schools exist to teach the students how to circumvent the constitution . . .

    Well, that means they teach students how to be stooopid lawyers. I've heard these folks attempt to argue like 'real lawyers'; they laugh-out-loud embarrass themselves against anyone with common sense and knowledgeable of the Constitution and U.S. law generally.

    The circumventers have had success destroying our Constitution because they've been enabled by the political power of the Christian far right. That political power is the problem, not its stupid lawyer symptom. Those lawyers -- trained in anti-Constitutional Law apparently -- will crawl back under their rocks in our nation's backwaters as soon as this powerful anti-Constitutional political movement is destroyed.

    a story (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    I thought that I would share one story about a religious law school here in Minneapolis.  The school, St. Thomas Law School, is a catholic place that is only about 4 or 5 years old.

    A student there told us a story about how, during a family law course, the professor described anyone who was born out-of-wedlock as a "deviant".  This is the type of thing that would have got you kicked out of my law school.  I cringe to think about what else goes on there.

    These people are a very big threat to the practice.

    you'd get KICKED OUT (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:29:41 AM EST
     of your law school for having moral or religious beliefs different than the school administration's?

      Now, THAT would be scary if true.

     

    Parent

    I'd like to hope that if a law prof (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    said in class that people born out of wedlock are "deviant" in my law school that the prof would be kicked out.  And it's got nothing to do with me thinking that people with different religious beliefs shouldn't teach in a state-run law school. The issue is whether professors ought to be making statements in class that are (a) blatantly bigoted and (b) of no conceivable merit or relevance in a discussion of mainstream legal principles.  

    Parent
    And the repression continues (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    nolo, you disaprove of professors making bigoted or irrelevant statements in the classroom. The answer to my next question is crucial:

    Should we use legal processes to silence professors who make bigoted or irrelevant statements in the classroom?

    There is a right answer to that question, and I'm sure you know what it is.

    Parent

    Gabriel (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    There is a right answer to that question, and I'm sure you know what it is.

    Parent
    If by legal process (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    You mean firing or disciplining people, then sure.  Why shouldn't school administrators be free to fire or discipline professors who waste class time on bigoted and irrelevant material? If by legal process you mean "ship to Gitmo," well of course not.

    Parent
    Legal Processes (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    nolo, by "legal processes" I meant things like outlawing bigoted speech. The administrative remedies you suggest seem entirely appropriate to me.

    Also, upthread I disapproved of using quasi-legal processes to shut down schools which have "subversive" ideas. By "quasi-legal process" I meant things like the ABA accreditation process, which isn't strictly a legal one, but amounts to one because of the position of the ABA in this country.

    Parent

    nolo (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:15:44 PM EST
    So, you believe that Ward Churchill should have been fired for his "Little Eichmans" comments??

    Parent
    see my response to Peaches (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:35:51 PM EST
    below

    Parent
    for ease of reference (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    This whole (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    it's good when my side does it to the other but bad when the other side does it to us phenomenon is simply an obstacle to reasoned consideration of the issues.

      If a professor who called a gay man deviant (and assuming he meant it with the moral connotation commonly ascribed the word) should be fired then because he expressed an unpopular opinion. Would you likewise call for the firing of a professor:

     who advocated state control of the means of production?

    who told his students a war was wrong and immoral? Who stated that Christianity is based upon the delusional visions  of  a mentally ill man?

    told his students that Islam is based upon the delusional visions  of  a mentally ill man?

     who professed that religion has caused many wars?

     who argued churches should be taxed?

    who stated Jesus condemned homosexuality?

    who stated Christ's teaching support socialism?

      Once we start oppressing people where do we draw the line other than against the other guy?

    Parent

    Give up on the (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:20:42 PM EST
    conflation theory, decoy. It's not working. You'll end up with the same level of credibilty as Gabe, a self-admitted liar.

    Parent
    In the classroom, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:21:21 PM EST
    most, if not all, of the statements could be appropriate or inappropriate depending on the context, but not because people who believe these things should or shouldn't be allowed to teach in law school.  It would be because the particular issue either is or isn't appropriate in the context of the classroom.  So let's take a look. I'm going to put on my fictional state-run law school administrator hat and get going:

    1.  If a professor in my fictional state-run law school, while acting in his or her capacity as a professor, called a gay man deviant I'd expect to see disciplinary consequences.  

    2.  If a professor in my fictional state-run law school is abusing class time proselytizing for a political movement, I'd expect to see serious consequences.  If, instead, the same professor simply points out potential arguments for the constitutionality of state control of the means of production while discussing, for instance, the commerce clause, then no.  And why would I?

    3.  If a professor in my fictional state-run law school shared legal theories and arguments as to whether a particular war is or was illegal, that's one thing.  If the professor was going on about the morality or immorality of a particular war, I'd have to know more about how on earth that might have relevance to the curriculum.  If, for instance, it was in the context of a course in international law cross-listed as an ethics course through the philosophy department I could see relevance.  But in a core class in the average law school curriculum?  Probably not, in which case I'd want to see some justification for the course content.  If the statement had no pedagogical relevance, I'd want the professor to keep it out of the classroom.

    4.  If a law professor in my fictitious state-run law school spent class time going on about religious subjects, either disparagingly or in an effort to proselytize, I'd expect there'd be consequences.  Other than from a historical perspective, I also would want to know why a law professor in a state-run school would spend class time talking about whether or how any particular religion condemned or supported anything that would be of relevance in a law curriculum.

    5.  If there's a legal or policy argument for taxing churches, I don't see why it couldn't be made in a law school.  The tax code's a purely legal structure, after all, and it's often used to support particular social and economic policies.  I don't see why one couldn't discuss the reasons for taxing churches in this context.

    I'd love to see you put on your own fictional administrator hat and tell me if you disagree with any of my assessments.

    Parent
    I completely disagree (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    with each and every assertion you make and wonder if you ever attended school.

      You want to straitjacket teachers to the point they would serve no purposes in terms of truly educating people. It's this type of anti-itellectual, anti-freedom intolerance that we need to eliminate from universities and law schools.

      Essentially, teachers would be unable to do anything that challenged the prevailing orthodoxy.

      I'm glad your thinking was less accepted back in the days of the civil rights movement when universities and law schools were known for championing minority rights and teachers advocated more than the existence of legal theories that might be used but actually led movements to do what was right.

    Parent

    not only have I attended school (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    but I managed to earn the high A in my constitutional law class, and I earned it from a professor whose ideological bent couldn't have been more different than mine.  If you explain your difference in opinion rather than insulting me personally, I might even get it.

    Parent
    What part needs (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    explaining.

      People here are advocating denying people with religious views thay oppose the rights to:

    assemble in schools they establish, petition for redress, access to the courts, obtain admission to the bar, advocate for causes in court using arguments based on religious perspectives...

      My position is quite simple. Those things are anathema to everything which we should hold dear and do not represent defending the constitution but rather would make a mockery of the Constitution.

       If Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or wiccans wish to establish law schools they should have that right. they should be free to run those schools as they see fit. If the way they see fit meets ABA standards they should not be denied accreditation because others dislike their philosophies or teaching methods,

      If their graduates can demonstrate the minimal proficiency and other requirements for admission to the bar they should be admitted without ANY consideration of their religious beliefs.

      If these lawyers then choose to advocate for religious viewpoints they should be allowed to do so in the same manner using the same procedures on behalf of their clients as other lawyers are allowed to do for their clients.

      No lawyer should be forbidden to make any moral, religious, ethical, spiritual, or other argument he chooses before a Court and no lawyer should be forbidden from arguing for different, even radically different, interpretations of the law.

      That you cannot see that stifling dissent in that manner  because you oppose the views is exactly what you claim to oppose when the religious right does it shows that good grades don't necessarily mean much when it comes to enlightenment.

     

    Parent

    That's all very nice, and (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    I do not disagree generally with the principles you espouse.  But you haven't told me what you think is wrong with the specific points I made.  Also, you know and I know that the following statement is overbroad:

    No lawyer should be forbidden to make any moral, religious, ethical, spiritual, or other argument he chooses before a Court and no lawyer should be forbidden from arguing for different, even radically different, interpretations of the law.

    I don't know about how things work where you practice, but I try to maintain a healthy respect for whatever version of Rule 11 is in effect in the various courts where I appear.

    Anyway, have a great day.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:10:50 PM EST
    I don't know about how things work where you practice, but I try to maintain a healthy respect for whatever version of Rule 11 is in effect in the various courts where I appear.

    Good snark.  Also, good practice. ;)

    Parent

    Rule 11 (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    is used to prevent lawyers from making  any  moral, religious, ethical, spiritual, or other arguments in pleadings or argument or from making arguments for radically different interpretations of laws?

      Since when? as long as I make my arguments in good faith it is not against the rules to make them. It may often be a very bad tactic to make good faith  arguments in certain ways but it most certainly is not a violation of Rule 11 or the RPC.

      As for not understanding where i disagree with you. I can't help you anymore than i already have. I completely disagree with your endorsemt of restraints on academic freedom in universities and law schools and your support for denying religious people their constitutional rights in and out of the courtroom.


    Parent

    I don't think you get (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:45:38 PM EST
    my point, or that you get Rule 11 either (the feds dumped the "good faith" language in the federal rule for an objective standard way back in 1983), but that's ok.  I have to ask, though, do you really think it would be an appropriate exercise of academic or religious freedom for a law professor at state-run school to call a gay person a deviant to their face in the classroom?

    Parent
    Violation of the Unruh Act in CA. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    Are St. Thomas Law School (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    Liberty or Regent state-run?

    Parent
    St. Thomas University (none / 0) (#53)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    is Catholic-run.

    Parent
    Tought question, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:36:23 PM EST
    Kicking Professors Out of UST (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    This is kind of funny. UST Law School is one-step removed from an on-line university. It keeps its costs as low as possible by having a very small faculty and employing mostly adjunct professors to teach its courses - mostly lawyers from the mpls/st paul area.

    If the "story" one student told about about one comment a "professor" made in class is true and was made public, I am sure the University of St Thomas would make a public statement about how such language is not tolerated at their school and the issue would be addressed with the faculty - the result of which would mean that the course would be taught be a new adjunct the next semester.

    Parent

    I've always been curious (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:30:50 PM EST
    about St. Thomas University and the other new Catholic law school, Ave Maria, which was founded by Dominos' Pizza mogul Thomas S. Monaghan and is about to move to Florida as well.  I mean it's not like there aren't already a number of well-respected Catholic law schools in the U.S.  The founders of schools like St. Thomas, however, apparently don't think these schools are Catholic enough.

    Parent
    Political or Financial (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:45:57 PM EST
    The UST law school exists more for financial reasons than political reasons,imo. UST has been rapidly expanding its extension graduate studies to meet the needs of the professional communities in the Twin Cities area. There probably is a political agenda underlying both the founding and curriculum of the law school and I am sure that the University's desire to remain Catholic is genuine. However, if the school was not a money-maker or if it did not bring in revenue to the university, the law school would not be in existence (or its existence will be short.)

    Parent
    Specialization (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    Nov. 3, 2005

    Too Many Law Schools?

    There is no shortage of jokes about the United States having too many lawyers. If there are any corollaries about law schools, the punch lines are falling on deaf ears at a host of institutions that have plans to open law schools

    Since 2003, at least seven new law schools have opened, and several more are on the way, including three that were announced at Drexel and Elon Universities and Mills College. Officials at some of those institutions said the new law schools are not just adding more desks, but will fill particular niches. Student demand suggests that the new schools are welcomed.

    For perspective, the ABA accredits about 195 law schools in total.

    Parent
    The horror (none / 0) (#17)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    You know, professors say a lot of stupid things. Law students are adults and they can filter out these dumb and/or opinionated statements.

    The University of St. Thomas is a catholic University serving a much larger community in Minneeapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding area. There probably are some law students attending UST because it is a Catholic school and a few who want conservative teachings. However, I would bet the majority of Law students there chose UST out of convenience for both place and class schedule - since many of the students are part-time and work day-jobs and the law school offers evening and weekend classes.

    I doubt UST is very effective at brainwashing and converting law student to serve the Catholic agenda, though they might serve the interests of a few who come to UST with those views already held.


    Parent

    Re (none / 0) (#56)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    There probably are some law students attending UST because it is a Catholic school and a few who want conservative teachings. However, I would bet the majority of Law students there chose UST out of convenience for both place and class schedule - since many of the students are part-time and work day-jobs and the law school offers evening and weekend classes.

    Or, they couldn't get more than a 150 on the LSAT and Mitchell wouldn't take them.


    Parent

    Or, that too, of course, (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    IT goes without saying, as a new law school, their requirements will be lower.

    I am not defending UST law school as a credible institution for higher learning nor its law students as supreme graduates worthy of being highly paid lawyers (most of whom won't be) I'm nnly pointing out that your story of a student's story is neither credible nor illuminating on the subject of Jerry Falwell and Evangelical community's desire to tilt our countries laws toward a more right-wing fundamentalist Christian agenda.

    Parent

    are you calling me a liar? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:33:13 PM EST
    Not credible?  You don't even know me and yet you call me a liar?   That is low.  The story is absolutely true.  The student is a law clerk that works for my wife.  I am not going to name names, not in this public forum anyway.

    What's your deal?

    Parent

    I had a friend whose friend.... (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:52:06 PM EST
    Any story that begins with this is not credible. It adds very little.

    I don't know you or the student who relayed to you the story. That is what makes your story not credible.

    i don't know you presonally, so I have no idea if you are lying or not. But that is also irrelevant to the whether the story is credible or relevant to the thread.

    Parent

    Yet you persist in calling me a liar (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    I heard it first-hand from this student.  She is a student at St. Thomas.  She wasn't lying and neither am I.  You are really starting to piss me off.

    Maybe YOU should go to law school and figure out why this story is relevant.  Yes, it's anecdotal.  But I do also think that it is telling.  It shows that at least once, there was a professor that did something that is so far out of the norm for what one would expect in a normal law school that it makes one question the law school itself.

    Parent

    I never called you a liar (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    Relax Eric,

    Holy cripes! I said the story isn't credible and I don't care who you say the student was. I don't know you, okay. If JimAKAppj told me that his friend told him that there are terrorists in Denver, I would say his story is not credible. If Edger told me that his friend told him that Alberto Gonzalas read Mein Kemph every night before bed I would say that his story is not credible.

    You say a student told you that a professor called someone a deviant. You ever play the game grapevine in grade school. Things get lost in translation all the time. I don't know how many times I have had a friend relay to me a story and I have retold the story with one less step removed to make me sound more credible. This does not make me a liar, it makes me human. We all do it. I don't know if you have done that this time or not, but I know enough about human nature not to trust a story on a blog about something a student told a blogger.

    If that is nasty...

    Parent

    But Peaches!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    They are! They are!!

    BTW - How's the garden??

    Parent

    Right now (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    I'm praying for rain. Been pretty dry so far this spring.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#256)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:54:52 PM EST
    Ditto.... I have an irrigation system courtesy of a deep well that is used for nothing else.  

    The water temp is a constant 65, I'm thinking about a cooling/heating system modifcation that will draw the water up and through the system, and then back into the ground..

    I'm eating lettuce, onions, cabbage...my radishes tanked and the squirrels and rabbits got a large part of my strawberries..

    Parent

    Characterizing (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    (or, is it spinning?), any sharp intellectual critique into "secular intolerance and bigotry" is just how the Robertson, Falwell quarter would respond to this kind of criticism.

    Decon (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    When you say "you say" you're refering to me?

    Show me where I, or anyone else here advocated them being "oppressed" or "denied rights".

    What you've got is intellectual criticsm and expressions of concern, i.e., "secular bigotry" etc.

    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:06:22 PM EST
     if you in fact recognize the profoundly repressive and authoritarian nature of ideas such as law schools should be denied accreditation if they teach religious perspectives and that lawyers should be barred from advocating for religions that reject secular notions of justice, you did not make that clear.

     I assumed based on the fact you rabidly leaped into the fray with thoughless criticim of me that you were endorsing what i warned against.

      Perhaps you should write more carefully. Because those ideas are not "sharp intellectual criticism" but rather are calls for stifling dissent and depriving dissenters of their rights.

    Parent

    Why the hell (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by taylormattd on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:24:33 PM EST
    should the ABA accredit a school, the primary scholastic focus of which is not teaching law, but is instead churning out folks with a religious agenda?

    Parent
    They do just enough to get the accredidation (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:42:32 PM EST
    It's tough.  They jump through the hoops so the ABA has no choice.  

    Parent
    Because, (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    They meet the requirements for accreditation.

    Parent
    If that (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    specter-of-liberal-intolerance strawman were any bigger, it'd be rampaging through Tokyo.

    It's not a straw man (1.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:12:03 PM EST
     and denying the undeniable just makes you appear foolish. when people argue that religious people should be denied the right to have their own schools and be accredited based on the same standards as everyone else that is, by definition, intolerance.

      when someone states lawyers can have faith but that they must not allow it to inform their decisiona as to what to advocate in Court and in what manner, that is intolerance.

      The religious right does not have a monopoly on wishing to impose its view of morality on everyone else. When secular leftists (or secular rightists for that matter) seek to repress the expression of religiously motivated thought that is just as bad as when religious people seek to repress expression of secular ideals.

      Same coin-- two side, both opposed to freedom.

    Parent

    It is by definition (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by bnye on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    a straw-man.

    I argue that I want to prevent the subversion of the constitution which may require SOME institutions to lose there accreditation's and those FEW institutions are religious in nature. You argue that I am trying to prevent people with religious faith from becoming lawyers. Hmmm...I'm not sure how you define a straw man, but I think you nailed it.

    Parent

    Strawman or a shifting of ground? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    We all enter into arguments with a wish to win. Sometimes that means we have to frame the debate in terms that are set up in our favor. The Strawman argument is a frequent tactic, but even more frequent on blogs is throwing out an accussation of strawman when someone either doesn't understand an argument or refuses to accept the framework in which an argument is made. Strawman allegations have become so frequent on blogs, that most people just role their eyes and move on when they come across them. Like people who have econ 101 as freshmen in college and suddenly completely understand the global workings of the economy and advocate free market solutions as some form of Natural Law, the influence of Philosophy 101 has had similar detrimental effects on the reasoning capacity of many indivduals who pride themselves on their education.

    You say:

    I argue that I want to prevent the subversion of the constitution which may require SOME institutions to lose there accreditation's and those FEW institutions are religious in nature.

    However, if you wish to prevent the subversion of the constitution you cannot revoke the accreditation of a law school without sufficient cause - and sufficient cause would require that you demonstates that the law school no longer meets the requirements for accreditation. No one has made that case here. The only case that has been suggested is that these schools are religious  in nature and therefore should not be accredited by the ABA. That is a direct subversion of free speech and our constitution.

    You interpret Decon as saying:

    You argue that I am trying to prevent people with religious faith from becoming lawyers.

    That is one interpretation of what Decon is arguing. I will leave it to him to clarify. My interpretation of his argument is that you are trying to prevent an institution from getting accredited based on its religious affiliation.

    Parent

    THINK (none / 0) (#221)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:05:38 PM EST
      It's not the point that these people might be able to go other schools and become lawyers. It's that they should have the right to assemble in schools of their own choosing to do so. (Ignoring for the moment that some people here have argued that their willingness to suprress their religious inclinations should be a criterion for admission to the Bar which your attempt to buttress the "strawman" assertion ignores.)

      Telling people well other possible avenues for you to do something exist, does not change the fact that denying them the right to do it in the way they choose for the reasons they choose is suppression.

      Suppose, there were private schools with a feminist agenda or a Hispanic agenda, or an African-American agenda or an environmentalist agenda or a pacifist agenda or any other "agenda" and that those schools met the requirements  for accreditation. Would you attempt to make the ridiculous argument that denying those schools accreditation solely because of the "agenda"  is was not an overt effort to prevent those people from assembling with others of like mind to further their cause? would you for even a second say its OK to close "those few schools" because people could go to different schools that did not have those agenda?

     

    Parent

    turn it around (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:21:40 PM EST
    If he'd said
    "training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Muslim worldview"
    I can certainly imagine some folks howling.

    Here's another idea; ask on the bar exam if there was a conflict with the constitution and their underestanding of the bible, which would they go with? If they cite the bible then they don't pass the bar.

    Let 'em go to what ever wackdoodle school they want ... but don't let them practice.

    you ALMOST got it (2.33 / 3) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:33:22 PM EST
      yes, you would hear people howling, and THEY'D BE WRONG  for the same exact reason why the people howling about Christian schools and lawyers are wrong.

     Howlers are rarely adding much more than noise with their rabidly intolerant and repressive demands.

    Parent

    Howlers (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    like people who demand the power to subvert the constitution and make rabidly intolerant and repressive demands of people who try to protect it, you mean?

    Parent
    You mean (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    subverting the Constitution by denying people equal protection of the law based on their religiou beliefs as so many here are advocating?

      How is that any less subversive of the Constitution than seeking to erode the protections against establishment of a state religion?

     It seems that people think that because if THOSE PEOPLE get power they will subvert the Constitution and oppress me, I am justified in subvering the Constitution and oppressing them preemptively.

      That people cannot see the problem with that line of dogma is amazing.

     EVERYONE has the right to BELIEVE what they want and to advocate for the preminence of those beliefs, to assmbel for the purpose of advancing their causes and to use the government processes, legislative, executive/administrative and judicial to accomplish their goals.

      Believe it or not it is PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to advocate abolishing the Constitution and establishing a theocracy and to use all non-violent means of obtaining that goal. To suggest that one should be barred from using the Courts merely to argue for a "subversive" interpretation of the Constitution is just about as intolerant of dissent as it gets.

     

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    You go right ahead and advocate subverting the constitution and establishing a theocracy in the US all you like, decon.

    You're right again. You'll run into more intolerance than you've probably ever run into before.

    Justified, IMO, and  probably in the opinion of most.

    Good luck. Oh, and good luck with the strawman arguments too. you'll never get far attributing things not said or even implied to me or anyone else. There is a word for doing that. Ask Gabe - he knows it well, from experience. He's not very good at it, but you can learn the basics from him to help you improve your skills.

    Parent

    Holy (none / 0) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    Second amendment, batman!  Not that any libs want to take away constitutional rights.

    Parent
    The rest of us ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:01:20 PM EST
    ... were talking about the First amendment.

    The Second amendment is 2 doors down and on your right.

    Parent

    Sarcasm (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    becomes you.

    Parent
    Giving Christianity a bad name (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Al on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    If a lawyer were a true follower of Jesus, that would be a good thing, because Jesus preached a very simple message of love and compassion. But religious movements such as Falwell's are political organizations, and religious leaders like Falwell have a strong financial interest in their success. A young, mediocre but ambitious person can reach much higher and better remunerated positions by proving him/herself loyal to the organization than they ever could by themselves. When they attain any position of power, they make sure to open the door for their correligionaries, so that they too can have power and make lots of money.

    They spread exactly like cancer. They are literally a cancer on society.

    One of the many lies they rely on is to accuse anyone who stands in their way of religious intolerance. They are not acting on behalf of religion. I'm sure they do not have Buddhists or Hindus or Bahkti yogis, or real Christians for that matter, in mind. They are acting on behalf of a very specific political organization with goals of power and wealth, with a religious front.

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    Can you tell me how to recognize a Christian??

    Or wouldn't that be profiling??

    Parent

    Recognizing a true christian.... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    Mother Teresa was a recognizable christian...taking a vow of poverty, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, caring for orphans.

    That what you meant?  The Robertson/Falwell variety are unrecognizable despite their constant pleas of piety.

    Parent

    Hah (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    Right on kdog. The pleas of piety are second only to their pleas for cash.

    Parent
    Ha Ha... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    maybe thats what Jim meant...recognizable by their pleas for cash.

    Parent
    Well (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:05:37 PM EST
    out here anyway, you can recognize Christians by, say, going to the apartment complexes in Ventura County that rent mostly to illegal aliens.

    The folks bringing them food, diapers, etc., to keep them going until the local ag economy picks back up from the blow it was dealt in the recent freak freeze, are mostly Christians.

    Or you can head to some of the towns in Mexico - the Christians are the ones who are building their schools.

    You can also spot them as they bring food and clothing to LA's skid row.

    You get the idea.

    Parent

    The christians you mention.... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:27:07 PM EST
    seem to be following the teachings of Jesus, like Mother Teresa...I salute them.

    Jesus was one of my alltime favorite human beings.  We need more like him....and less of those who pervert his message.

    Parent

    I think, in life, (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:33:10 PM EST
    you mostly find what you choose to look for.

    Parent
    Or find.... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    what you least expect.  Depends if you take the blinkers off.

    Pat Robertson is the one with the big pulpit and media empire...can you really blame people with a negative view of christianity when Robertson is the spokesman on the tv every night asking for donations and calling for assasinations, instead of the fine folks out building schools and feeding the hungry?  Or even the pope, sitting on a vault of precious jewels that could feed thousands.  Both these men have millions of followers, if you ask me they are the ones that should be pissed off.

    Parent

    Faith (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    SUO - Nicely put.

    et al - I find it amusing that, by and large, the same ones who snark at Fallwell and Robertson are the same ones who are never involved with the Salvation Army, or any number of small evangelic groups that are doing the things that SUO notes.


    Parent

    Where on Earth (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Al on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:32:44 AM EST
    do you get that notion from?

    Parent
    I shop at Salvation Army.... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:16:17 PM EST
    I"m a sucker for a 50 cent pair of pants:)

    Parent
    The followers that is.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    should be pissed off.

    Parent
    How to recognize a Christian (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Al on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    By their actions.

    Parent
    Al (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:55:15 PM EST
    How do you recognize a Moslem??

    Wouldn't they be just as kind, just as nice as a Christian?

    Parent

    You lost me, PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Al on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:28:10 AM EST
    Is there a point to this?

    Parent
    Very strange (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by HK on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    "training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Christian worldview."

    I find it very strange that the Rev. Falwell would back such a scheme when so many things about his life and views were decidedly unChristian.

    Another story: I went to a Catholic university (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    law school shortly after Roe v. Wade decision.  Had to enter the building by means of a door topped by a cross and orb.  Con law class spent lots of time on Roe v. Wade, but the Catholic church's position on abortion was never mentioned. I never felt that the church had any influence on my law school eduction.  

    I had a somewhat similar experience (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    My constitutional law professor was counsel for Lawyers for Life, has assisted in the drafting of state legislation restricting abortion access, and also is a big poohbah in canon law circles.  You couldn't have discerned his personal feelings about Roe v. Wade from his class lectures on the subject, however.  He presented as objective an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the opinion as you could ever have wanted to hear.

    Parent
    I'm not that worried about this issue. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    Graduates of Liberty will have a hard time getting a job, as will grads. of the Pizza Mogul law school, as the premise of these law schools  is now well-known.    

    jobs (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    Let's hope.  Ironically though, the one place where these zealots do seem to get employment is in government in this republican administration.  There, they can do a lot more damage than if they were taking in $120K at Skadden Arps.

    Parent
    Speaking of academic freedom (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    And the Pizza Mogul School of Law, it looks like Ave Maria's melting down like a fine mozzarella over academic freedom issues.

    Parent
    Can't access this possibly subversive link (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:29:13 PM EST
    at present.

    Parent
    Nolo (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    do you really think it would be an appropriate exercise of academic or religious freedom for a law professor at state-run school to call a gay person a deviant to their face in the classroom?

    You asked this of Decon, but let me ask you this. Ward Churchill called those who died on 9/11 "Little Eichmans." He was a professor at a state run University. Should his speech be protected?

    I don't think that any university, state-run or not, would allow its professors to call one of his or her students derogatory names. However, the free speech of professors and students is generally protected and saying a lifestyle or practice is immoral generally falls under the heading of free speech, although as Ward Churchill found out, there are also limitations and sometimes remarks are so offensive that other criticisms from the surrounding become so incessant that even it the speech is protected, there will be fallout that is detrimental to the practicer of this offensive free speech.


    apples and peaches (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:19:59 PM EST
    Ward Churchill's statement was not a direct attack on a student in the classroom.  It's not particularly illuminating of the question I was trying to explore, which is whether any of the conduct Decon listed in his post might (or might not) be appropriate in a classroom setting.

    What an academician studies, opines on or advocates for outside the classroom is another matter, and I agree it's entitled to a whole lot more leeway.

    Parent

    fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    I don't think decon is capable (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    of seeing the distinction.

    Parent
    nolo (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:06:17 PM EST
    Somebody correct me, but I think Churchill's statement was in the classroom??

    Anybody??

    Parent

    I thought it was in a paper or essay (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    It was in an essay (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nolo on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    A useful recap of the whole thing can be found here.

    Parent
    bingo (none / 0) (#128)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:26:00 PM EST
    Right.  It wasn't a personal insult to students sitting there.

    And getting back to my "story" I just want to make it clear that it wasn't a case where the professor called someone a deviant.  Rather, it was a case where the professor was teaching, as part of the lecture, that out-of-wedlock births are deviant.

    It was a de facto attack, though, because the student that I know does happen to have a kid and isn't married to the father.

    Anyway, i know, i know, Objection relevence, credibility, etc.

    Parent

    Not for nothing eric (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:42:45 PM EST
    It was a de facto attack, though, because the student that I know does happen to have a kid and isn't married to the father.
    but now your friend's cred is completely shot.

    Now she has motive to misquote and/or mischaracterize, whether consciously or not, her prof's statement.

    Also, it looks to me like you contribute this "statement" to the Catholic-ness of the University.

    If you could show us something that even hints that the Catholic Church teaches the idea that children of unwed parents are "deviants" you might actually be onto something.

    Parent

    I did not mean (none / 0) (#141)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:39:04 PM EST
     that a teacher should not be subject to discipline for a direct verbal assault on a student. I can see where my saying  "calling a gay man deviant" could be misconstrued and I should have written "calling homosexuality deviant behavior."

      If a prof said " you're a deviant"  that is different than if a student (gay or not)  was offended by a teacher labeling homosexuality deviant behavior in a remark not directed against the student.

      I'm not advocating abuse of authority to make personal attacks on students.

     

    Parent

    Ironically, (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    It looks like one of these schools (Ave Maria) is having its own problems with academic freedom.  And so it goes.  Live by the ideological sword, and the ideological sword just might cut off your accreditation.

    Parent
    Asking how certain (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    schools get accredited isnt the same thing as advocating their active oppression, suppression etc. Period.

    This not-so-subtle distinction is apparently lost on those who live to rabidly "deconstruct" TL Stalinists in-our-midst. Uncle Jim would be proud.

    Or (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:40:55 PM EST
     pretending that the only conceivable implication isn't that such schools should not be accredited is such willful obtuseness as to be absurd.

     

    Parent

    Decon (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    Hey, you gotta understand. That's just Jondee being Jondee.

    Parent
    We'll (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    call it The War On Christian Schools. Could be another big wedge issue.

    You joke (1.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:45:47 PM EST
     but fail to see how this type of unalloyed bigotry and intolerance CAN BE EXPLOITED  on the Right by those who try to make it seem as if this type of thinking exemplifies liberal thought in this country when in fact, I hope, it is a position held only by a warped and disaffected fringe element that wants to "wage war" on religion.

     

    Parent

    Where have you been? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    You joke ... but fail to see how this type of unalloyed bigotry and intolerance CAN BE EXPLOITED  on the Right
    It doesn't matter what anyone who disagrees with the Wrong says, they'll just spin it their way. And the MSM will treat dobson, falwell, coulter, malkin like they are actual reps of Christians. And then actual Christians will see the MSM stories and believe it.

    Opps, sorry, I fell for the concern troll again.

    Jeez, my bad.

    BTW, can I see a show of hands of folks commenting about this who are ordained?

    Parent

    What type (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jondee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    of debate with and critique of the Fundamentalist Right -- in the interests of accuracy, the subjects of the original post, not "religion" -- would pass muster as non-oppressive and tolerant in your world, Decon?

    Very interesting discussion (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    What it turns on is the question of what these religious law schools are actually teaching. Are they training students in how to use the law to achieve their social goals or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    It seems that if it's the former, they have a right to do this. It's competition in the marketplace of ideas. But people who want to keep their society secular had better be aware of it and be fighting back, because the stealth aspects and organized nature of it are troubling.

    If it's the latter, it would seem the ABA might have noticed, or will notice soon, and stop accrediting them, and also that graduates will have trouble competing against those who have a more commonly acceptable understanding of the law.

    The danger is that they'll be advanced as a political army within Republican administrations, which is a problem of corruption and politicization of government, and also that if they are turned out in great enough numbers and placed in influential positions through purely political patronage while secularists don't operate that way, their views will eventually become dominant.

    In short, they present definite social and ethical challenges to a secular society and government, but I fail to see why they shouldn't have the right to try to advance their agenda this way in an open society.

    Q&A (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Al on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:49:59 AM EST
    Are they training students in how to use the law to achieve their social goals or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    It seems they're training students to learn the secret handshake that will open the door to well-remunerated government jobs.
    It seems that if it's the former, they have a right to do this. It's competition in the marketplace of ideas.

    Marketplace of ideas? This is not a debate competition. This is about money and power.
    I fail to see why they shouldn't have the right to try to advance their agenda this way in an open society.

    Because their agenda is to profit personally from prejudice and intolerance. Because they are a clear threat to that open society.

    Parent
    More A & Q (none / 0) (#214)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    It seems they're training students to learn the secret handshake that will open the door to well-remunerated government jobs.

    Doesn't every educational organization hope to train graduates to succeed in their chosen careers? If there's a crime in this, it's in the corruption of there being any kind of "secret handshake," and that's where the problem should be dealt with.

    Marketplace of ideas? This is not a debate competition. This is about money and power.

    No, this is not a debate competition. It's a discussion forum. Your point?

    Because their agenda is to profit personally from prejudice and intolerance. Because they are a clear threat to that open society.

    Well, yes, but that needs to be combatted by other means than not allowing them to educate their legions of minions as they see fit. Are you counselling that we need to destroy our open society to save it?


    Parent

    Alien (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 09:51:49 PM EST
    through purely political patronage while secularists don't operate that way,

    Say what???? Are you serious? I mean not to beat a dead horse, but do you understand that those AG's Clinton fired were replaced with DEMOS?? And yes, the Repubs do it..

    And it's not a bad thing. When we elect a Pres, or give the majority  of one, or both, chambers of Congress to a party we expect changes. If anything we have too many holdovers. Too many bureaucrats.

    Are they training students in how to use the law to achieve their social goals or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    Unless they are plotting to overthrow the government, or say attack Ft Dix, what's the problem? What is "subversive and incorrect"......
    As I sad to edger hours ago, who gets to decide??

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    Patronage, at least as I meant it here, isn't the same as choosing political appointees who hold a certain preferred political philosophy. Before Bush, only the top few positions in the bureaucracy were filled that way, with the bulk of positions filled by professional staff carrying out their duties through changing administrations. Patronage involves placing people in positions because they're political supporters of the party, not because they're qualified, without any regard for whether or not they can actually carry out their duties to serve the people. What we get under those circumstances is Brownie, and Rachel Paulose, and Tim Griffin, and Alberto Gonzales. They're not serving the people of the United States, just their political masters. Even the top positions have always been expected to drop their partisan leanings once they were placed and act for the good of the country as a whole, not simply to advance the interests of their party.

    As for the rest of your comment, I don't see how what you wrote is a good-faith response to what I said.

    Parent

    Alien (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    Before Bush, only the top few positions in the bureaucracy were filled that way, with the bulk of positions filled by professional staff carrying out their duties through changing administrations.

    Absolute nonsense and I challenge you to provide some facts.

    Again you wrote:

    Are they training students in how to use the law to achieve their social goals or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    And I ask again.

    Unless they are plotting to overthrow the government, or attack Ft Dix, what's the problem? What is "subversive and incorrect"......
    As I said to Edger hours ago, who gets to decide??

    And if they are teaching incorrect law, how will they pass the Bar exam??

    Alien you are  either very paranoid, or have limited experience.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    On your first point - there's a difference between top-level political appointees and the career civil service. You might want to consult this handbook (PDF) for the latter which lays out the principles of the merit system that govern it. Please note principles #1, #2, in particular #7:

    1. Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

    1. All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

    2. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.

    3. All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.

    4. The Federal workforce should be used efficiently and effectively.

    5. Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.

    6. Employees should be:
    ·  Protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and
    ·  Prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.

    8. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe evidences:
    ·  A violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
    ·  Mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

    On your second point - do you not understand the little mark at the end of the sentence? That means it was a question.

    Parent

    Alien (none / 0) (#253)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:00:38 PM EST
    Uh, that has nothing to do with your claim. I quote:

    Before Bush, only the top few positions in the bureaucracy were filled that way,

    Please provide some proof, or admit that it was just a rant.

    On your second point - do you not understand the little mark at the end of the sentence? That means it was a question.

    Uh, yes I do. And I note you didn't answer.

    Parent

    Uh... (none / 0) (#257)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:55:26 PM EST
    Uh, that has nothing to do with your claim.

    Of course it does. The top few positions are political appointments and the middle and lower echelons - the career civil service - are governed by the merit system for hiring and promotion.

    Uh, yes I do. And I note you didn't answer.

    Well maybe then you're just not aware of what a question is. Hint - it's not an assertion.

    Really, Jim, are you just trying to waste people's time here with silly comments like this? I can see why Edger et al have given up doing anything but insulting you.

    Parent

    Decon (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:57:41 AM EST
    instead of thinking like a p*tz running on intellectual inertia, please try again to grasp the fact that I havnt once "advocated for restrictions on their rights", or slow down, backtrack and show me where I did.

    Good on you for seeing the "mindless intolerance", bad on you for being mindlessly intolerant enough to see it when it isnt there.

     

    O.K (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by jondee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    this tirade and drawing of exact equivalence between the Rapturists and what Im guessing you suspect for closet Stalinists was set off by TL saying "how do they get accredited" or words to that effect.

    My point is "supposed to be" that there are degrees and species of "intolerance", some more mindful or mindless than others and mine happens to come into play when alleged seats of higher learning are promulgating Armageddon as a good and necessary thing. It's a weakness I have.

    Awaiting your whine in responce.

    My point is (none / 0) (#209)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:34:42 PM EST
      it should NOT be considered a defense of your tolerance that you require someone to hold views very divergent from your own in order to support their repression.

      It is precisely those with views most divergent who need protection from repression. It's easy to say well don't repress the moderates but it's OK to repress the people I really don't like.

      That's why the ACLU will defend KKKers even though their members and lawyers likely abhor the views of the Klan. when you start justifying repression based on degrees, you endanger everyone's rights because once you have repressed the really reaaly bad then you move on to the really bad and then prett bad and then a little bad...
     

    Parent

    Contentious Subject (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:10:16 PM EST
    I'm not sure what it is about this post or this subject that made it so ripe for one our more clamorous arguments, but as we draw near to the 200th post, I thought I would attempt another humorous summation like the one I made for the "Florida Bans the Term 'Illegal Alien'" thread here.

    Unfortunately, after a few minutes it became clear that "teh funnay" was not coming to me on this particular subject. So instead of a humorous summation, all I've got is this (my apologies if I have inaccurately understood a commenter's position; I have done my best to pull statements right from the comments):

    There are three main arguments occurring here (and numerous sidebars and digressions). I will try and present them fairly and without any editorial comment. I'll leave the criticism of particular arguments to later comments.

    I've been thinking of the first argument as Jeralyn's Argument. Unfortunately, Jeralyn didn't say very much, so responses to her have been based on inference. This is Jeralyn's Argument:

    (1) The number of evangelical law schools is growing.
    (2) These schools exist to teach the students how to circumvent the constitution, eliminate the separation of church and state and deprive all of us of constitutional rights.
    (3) How did these schools get accredited by the ABA? They are subversive.

    Responses to Jeralyn's Argument have included discussing whether (2) is in fact true. But the most interesting responses have been to (3); because of the way she wrote it, those responses have required commenters to infer Jeralyn's conclusion. Those inferences have spawned the other two main arguments.

    The first of these is what I have been thinking of as Decon's Argument. He originally relied on this inferential reading of JA (3):

    (3) Subversive schools should not receive accreditation.

    He then made his argument so:

    (1) The answer to religious intolerance and bigotry is not secular intolerance and bigotry.
    (2) Law schools with different perspectives should not be denied accreditation based on their perspectives.

    Though I think of it as Decon's Argument, Peaches has what I think is the best construction of it:

    (1) If you wish to prevent the subversion of the constitution you cannot revoke the accreditation of a law school without sufficient cause - and sufficient cause would require that you demonstrate that the law school no longer meets the requirements for accreditation.
    (2) No one has made that case here. The only case that has been suggested is that these schools are religious  in nature and therefore should not be accredited by the ABA. That is a direct subversion of free speech and our constitution.

    Both Decon and Peaches note the First Amendment implications of denying schools accreditation based on their religious and political beliefs.

    The third argument is a little harder to track, because it pops up mostly in response to Decon's Argument. However, I think the earliest formulation of it came from Sailor in #24 when he wrote:

    Ask on the bar exam if there was a conflict with the constitution and their underestanding of the bible, which would they go with? If they cite the bible then they don't pass the bar.

    Let 'em go to what ever wackdoodle school they want ... but don't let them practice.

    This argument has been repeated by squeaky and maybe eric, too, but I've been thinking of it as Salor's Argument. It goes something like this:

    (Inference from JA (2 & 3)) Subversive schools are trying to topple our constitution and way of life.
    (1) This political attack should not be allowed.
    (2) We are justified in placing restrictions on subversive activity.
    (3) Therefore, schools which engage in subversive activity should be prevented from receiving accreditation so as to keep their dangerous students from destroying America.

    Squeaky used Sailor's Argument to attempted to rebut Decon's Argument in this way:

    (1) This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with politics.
    (2) Turning the radio off because you don't like the music doesn't mean you are against free speech. It means that you don't like the music and have the power to turn it off.
    (3) Politics includes fighting your political opponents and marginalizing them in order to defeat them. Some political opponents are not worthy of any respect.

    The most contentious comments arise when a person involved in discussion of Decon's Argument gets accused of straw man attacks for not discussing Sailor's Argument. Similarly, jondee seems to think that every comment is directed at him and only him. But Peaches accurately noted:

    We all enter into arguments with a wish to win. Sometimes that means we have to frame the debate in terms that are set up in our favor.

    Whatever argument you are addressing, be it JA, DA, or SA, please recognize that other commenters here may be talking to or about someone else's comment.

    Seems Like (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    It should not be lost that the commenters here who are screaming constitutional foul, free speech,  are all to the right. Most if not all  would be thrilled to see more religious wackos on the SC.

    So Gabe, SUO, Wylie, Decon and ppj, what do you think of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito? More like that?

    Though so.


    Parent

    No constitutional foul? (none / 0) (#229)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    squeaky, can you clear something up for me? Are you saying that it is not a constitutional violation to yank a school's accreditation for no reason other than the politics and religion that it teaches? Or are you saying that this is a constitutional violation, but you can can live with it?

    As far as what I think of the Justices...I am not a fan of Thomas or Scalia. I haven't watched Alito enough to feel one way or the other about him. But I must confess to liking Roberts very much. Eight more of him would do nicely, thanks.

    Parent

    No one (none / 0) (#243)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:57:18 PM EST
    Here is calling for yanking accreditation because the school is religious. Although I would be in favor of making sure that all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.

    Most see this as stealth. The biggest failure of the Powell memo, or plan, is that the right wing machine was unable to infiltrate the Universities. No doubt that Universities are currently a big target of the right.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#246)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:17:31 PM EST
    you rated both of these comments a "5."
    I argue that I want to prevent the subversion of the constitution which may require SOME institutions to lose there accreditation's and those FEW institutions are religious in nature.
    And again, it goes without saying that the ABA should not be accrediting schools, the primary scholastic focus of which is not teaching law, but is instead churning out religious fanatics who will ignore the law if it interferes with their biblical worldview.


    Parent
    Links? (none / 0) (#247)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    Just for context, please.

    Parent
    sure (none / 0) (#248)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:45:32 PM EST
    38 & 185.

    Please don't try to equivocate their comments away, it's just a waste of time.

    They did say it, despite your contention that "no one" did.

    That you rated both their comments a "5" is just a bit of irony.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#249)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    The ABA will no doubt come to this conclusion at some point; it is actually a pretty progressive organization, and it is definitely concerned about the rule of law, unlike the "law schools" described above.

    Not calling for yanking accredtiation because of political ideology but calling for yanking their accreditation if the ABA discovers that they are not up to snuff.

    You argue that I am trying to prevent people with religious faith from becoming lawyers. Hmmm...I'm not sure how you define a straw man, but I think you nailed it.

    Again if the point of the institutions is to subvert the constitution and they are below standard because they do not teach law but ideology the ABA will yank their accreditation.

    The ABA is the only arbiter here. Who else do you think can shut down sub-standard law schools?

    Also I agree that "trying to prevent people with religious faith from becoming lawyers" is the strawman of the post.

    It is incompetant drones who act as lawyers but are only political operatives that most here are worried about. People like Monica Goodling for example.
     

    Parent

    The problem with Goodling (none / 0) (#258)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 07:26:42 AM EST
      Is NOT that she is religious.

      It's not the religion colors her world view, including her view of the basis and purpose of law.

      It's not that she was able to become a lawyer by attending a school which which shares and advances her view.

       It's not that as a lawyer she would be free to use her admission to the courts to represent causes and clients with a fundamentalist religious orientation.

      The problem is that an ELECTED official established an adminisstation in which a person such as he was given a very important job, despite her evident lack of objective quualifications and experience, lack of judgment and perspective and inability to serve the gerneral good in her role as a government employee rather than using the power of her office to advance a narrow cause.

      I have no problem with her being a lawyer or having been trained the way she was and holding the views she holds. The problem is limited to her having been a high-ranking DOJ official.

      to suggest that to prevent people such as her from being high-ranking DOJ officials we should repress everyone who shares her world-view at levels far removed from the high ranks of DOJ is bizarre.

      If we had a case where a black man adherent to the Nation of Islam  was caught using his high position in DOJ to advance the cause NOI and black separatism would we then reach the conclusion would be to deny any law school affilliated with NOI  or  that advocated that cause accreditation because of that regardless of whether it otherwise met the standards?

      No. We need to demand that elected officials appoint better suited people and that people once appointed are capable of putting aside narrow personal interests when entrusted with important duties of government.

      If the guy from NOI or the lady from Liberty can do the job properly, the religion should not be a disqualifying factor in holding a government job. If the religion prevents doing the government job properly then the person should not have THAT job. That does not mean they should not be able to attend schools that teach their philosophies just because some label them subversive or that thay should not be able to practice that "subversive" law for private clients in the courts.

      This isn't hard if you THINK.

    Parent

    Think? Like you do? (none / 0) (#259)
    by squeaky on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    No. We need to demand that elected officials appoint better suited people and that people once appointed are capable of putting aside narrow personal interests when entrusted with important duties of government.

    Sure thing. But that is not going to happen with this admin.

    Less than 40% of Regent's law grads passed the bar. These schools are set up as funnels for the GOP. The fact that they are religious is not the point, although it is no coincidence that religious groups are targeted by this admin and the meat and potatoes of their base. Opiate of the masses?

    I do not believe that Bush is religious. Rove certainly is not. Cheney is about as godless as you can get. Don't you think it odd that the Goodlings who are both religious and unqualified are a huge workforce in this admnin. It is not by chance but design.

    And it does fit into their war plan set forth in the 70's by In 1971, Lewis F. Powell. The Powell Manifesto or memo as it is called.

    Though Powell's memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration's "hands-off business" philosophy.

    Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting values, and movement-building...

    One thing that the GOP realized was that Powell's empahsis on high quality right wing candidates was not going to work. Having smart qualified people filling the ranks proved too risky and counterproductive. Channeling the religious right was much easier and ultimately far more effective.

    And get off your high horse, you do not corner the market on thinking. Demanding that others think sounds more like demanding that others think like you. It does not help your arguments at all, but harms them.

    Parent

    I don't say I corner the market on thinking (none / 0) (#260)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed May 23, 2007 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    I say yo and your few buddies are incapable of it. Huge diiference==plenty of people think a lo, but you are not among them.

      I also believe, FWIW, that Regent graduates now pass at a rate of 67% on the first attempt-- still not great by any stretch, but citing 8 year old stats is hardly fair, even though my point has never been that I consider Regent to be a good school.  you also don't have to worry about the people who DON'T pass the bar from sullying the courts with their presence.

      I'd also ask if you want to expand that line of thinking to criticize minority lawyers because as a group they have lower bar passage rates  than do whites as a group. Are the minorities who do pass less qualified because other people who share their skin color or ancestry don't do as well as the norm.

      If you would THINK you would understand the very dangerous nature of what you espouse and how it is antithetical to any ideas of freedom, equality and the things most people on the Left favor. It's your tiny group of mindless twits who simply by shrieking so shrilly and incessantly the most abhorrent brand of ideologicalyl driven hatred who divert attention away from all the positive things which we should be trumpeting. You are a disgrace.

      The point remains ---and I only keep repeating because the irredeemably slow here still can't seem to understand it-- is that it is only intolerance and a desire to repress people that is exhibited in theis thread is as bad as what the right-wing types want.

      Religious people have the right to have their own schools. you make yourself sound even ore foolish than you normally do when after all you have written you try to claim the "fact they are religious is not the point." It was and is the only point anyone here attacking these schools have made.

     

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#261)
    by squeaky on Wed May 23, 2007 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    Your sense of self is clearly distorted by your ego. If you call thinking repeating lawyerly drivel that focuses on your own agenda and misses the point of this thread you are confusing thinking with defecating.

    This is not about restrictions but about countering a right wing assault on american institutions. No one is calling, and certainly not me, for shutting down law schools because they are religious.
    If the schools are not up to snuff that is another question.

    The call is how to maneuver in a dirty war waged by the GOP.

    And just asking again, are you happy with Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Brown, Owens and Pryor?  Do you hope to see more like them, not just in the SC.

    Parent

    Thanks for the summation (none / 0) (#204)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    but, I prefer parodies where I am holding a guitar singing Kum-ba-ya. ;)

    Parent
    I do too. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    Sorry, Peaches. I just didn't have it in me today.

    Would it help if I said you're always my favorite barefoot darn dirty hippy? (In my head, anyways. ;)

    Parent

    Excuse me! (none / 0) (#205)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    Whatever argument you are addressing, be it JA, DA, or SA, please recognize that other commenters here may be talking to or about someone else's comment.
    Where did I say I didn't recognize this?!

    :-)

    Parent

    liberal arts (5.00 / 4) (#218)
    by Sumner on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    How is it that the Founding Fathers were so brilliant as to be able to craft the Constitution?

    Most were wealthy.

    The noble object of wealth is to be able to afford to have sufficient leisure time in order to study the liberal arts.

    Beyond that, I seem to recall riches and something about the eye-of-a-needle.

    The understanding of the notion of wisdom recognizes that wisdom is distinct from information and knowledge.

    As to democratization of knowledge:

    NO ONE will doubt that the legislator should direct his attention above all to the education of youth; for the neglect of education does harm to the constitution. The citizen should be molded to suit the form of government under which he lives. For each government has a peculiar character which originally formed and which continues to preserve it. The character of democracy creates democracy, and the character of oligarchy creates oligarchy; and always the better the character, the better the government. -- Aristotle, POLITICS, BOOK EIGHT

    "Liberal" is generally mocked and discredited by the religious fundamentalists. If asked, many otherwise ostensibly bright people would say that a "liberal" is the opposite of a conservative, i.e., most argue that a liberal is always a Democrat and not a Republican.

    The liberal arts embrace wide knowledge. Certain right-wing religious-based law schools seem narrowly focused and appear to have agendas. A recent program by Bill Moyers on PBS included some remarks by a recent graduate from Regent University. She claimed that she didn't want to proselytize or inculcate anybody, but rather she wished to inspire them by her example of devotion and faith to her Savior. And yet she failed to grasp her disconnect when she later spoke of her goal to enter into a government job where she would be in a better position to help enact laws consistent with her religion.

    I remember a Mormon leader citing the famous Pastor Martin Niemöller poem, "First they came for the...", out of one side of his mouth, and then out of the other side, he clamored for locking up those "caught up in pornography", apparently without ever realizing his own disconnect.

    Once the religious has entered into the sphere of the political in order to compel itself upon the unwilling, is it not fair game, or even necessary to debunk it?

    The Jerry Falwell First Amendment canard: "all that means is that the government cannot set up an official state religion." Yes, it does mean that. But it means much more. In the First Amendment, the "e" in establishment is lowercase, not a proper noun, such as a pub is an establishment. The clause uses "an", the indefinite article of speech, as opposed the "the", the definite article of speech. A law such as "no strip clubs within 1500 feet of a church" would be a law "respecting" establishment[s] of religion.

    How significant is "the"?

    Today, most members of congress, even when reading from the Constitution, will inject "the" into the document, changing its meaning: "Congress shall have power", is almost always misread as "Congress shall have 'the' power".

    Reynolds v. United States (1878) attempted to divide thought from practice.

    Few remember or even realize that some of those in high places in the extreme religious right-wing, were actively writing about the Biblical punishment-of-death for homosexuals immediately prior to SCOTUS decision Lawrence v. Texas. Pat Robertson seemed to go ballistic at the US Supreme Court when Lawrence spoiled his plans for the Gay community.

    Where are the Margaret Singers of today?

    Are there any actual bona fide liberal judges?

    "Regarding Law as a subject of study, ... respect is entirely deserved; but Law as practiced becomes a mere trade."

    Few seem able to get worked up about government's total surveillance society. Fewer still, will even grasp the other side of the coin from Intelligence - Operations. Operations: psyops; hidden hands that make bad things happen; discreditation; marginalization; disruption of finances. Do you really want those terrors primarily servicing religion against the secular? Va. ex-Gov. Gilmore once promised that this Administration would operate by stealth and people wouldn't see it coming until it was too late.

    It is not simply the theft of privacy but the total theft of information, by the total surveillance society. That is far more sinister than a mere commercial copyright infringement that the Attorney General now clamors for punishing with life imprisonment. The founding fathers knew of the democratization of knowledge. They set very limited copyrights, then. Not like what has burgeoned today. They would have decried information-haves and information-have-nots that this Administration conspires to.

    The word "Religion" comes from the Latin, religio, to tie up, to bind. History is replete with the harshest examples of punishments for heresy and violations of censorship.

    We will never know what works of great art and humanities have been lost to religion masquerading as law, already. Not to mention the actual lives already lost.

    I check one fact (none / 0) (#222)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:07:35 PM EST
    The word "Religion" comes from the Latin, religio, to tie up, to bind.
    and already your cred is questionable.
    religion [...] from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," [...]

    religio : fear of God, way of life, esp of monks/nuns.


    Parent
    religion (none / 0) (#223)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:19:39 PM EST
      Actually, he did not make that up.

      In Latin "ligare" means connect and Augustine hypothesized that the root of "religion" is "ligare" making religion a word coined to describe a "reconnection." Then building on that hypothesis people opposed to religion hypothesized it was not the "root" meaning of ligare --connect-- but the secondarily derived sense  of "bind" (as seen in a ligature used to bind a wound) from which "religion" was coined.

      As the people who coined the word "religion" were not opposed to it, that seems a remarkably dubious stretch.

    Parent

    OED (none / 0) (#224)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    From the OED:

    Religion-em, of doubtful etymology, by Cicero connected with relegere to read over again, but by later authors with religare to bind, RELIGATE (see Lewis and Short, s.v._; the later view has usually been favoured by modern writers in explaining the force of the word by its supposed etymoligical meaning.

    Parent

    It's not that clear (none / 0) (#225)
    by nolo on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    Though disputed, there is an argument that the root of "religio" is re-ligare, meaning to bind.  A summary can be found here.

    Parent
    Thanks guys (none / 0) (#227)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    Carry on.

    Parent
    You are all guys (none / 0) (#228)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    aren't you?

    Parent
    Well, now that (none / 0) (#230)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:47:24 PM EST
    Sumner's credibility has been restored, anyone have an answer to his or her argument that religion binds our constitutional freedoms and must be consistently fought against and kept at bey away from our government and/or influencing government policy?

    Parent
    More, please. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    I think it's going to take a lot more to explain just how religion limits our constitutionally-assured freedoms. In fact, I'm not even sure what that means. Hence, my response is limited.

    Part of the problem is that we're talking about abstracts now: Religion binds Freedoms. Well, okay, to the extent that a particular religion places restrictions on the activities of its members, that could be considered to be a constraint on their freedoms. But that doesn't seem to be what is meant by "Religion binds Freedoms."

    Rather, the argument is that somehow Religion places a constraint on the freedoms of everyone, not just its own adherents. And that's where I'm going to have to ask for more.

    So, at this point, my answer is: Really? How does the fact that Jews celebrate Shabat, and Muslims practice Salat, and Catholics give up meat on Fridays in Lent (etc. etc.) bind my freedoms?

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#233)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:03:14 PM EST
      We have SEVERAL rights enunciated in the 1st amendment which  must inform any reasonable discussion of the issue.

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

       The argument here appears to be that because we conclude that the "religious right"  wants to undermine the establishment clause that it is justifiable to undermine the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to petition government for redress of grievances.

      That argument doesn't fly. The way to prevent establishment of a  "state religion" is to use our freedoms of speech, assembly and petition not to deny them theirs.

      The bottom line is that people are free to advocate for a state religion. Everyone is entitled to have their own views as to what does and does not constitute laws "respecting an establishment of religion" and to have lawyers argue their positions in court-- including lawyers who went to schools pushing a different idea about that than our own.

      Moreover, it is perfectly constitutinal for people to ardently  advocate repealing the establishment clause and to have it done if they can get the super-majority of Congress and 3/4 ratification by the States needed to do it. there is nothing "subversive" of the Constitution about that-- that's what the Constitution says.

    Parent

    Yes, I think that is right (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    There is an irony in this, in that democracy and freedom require a faith that is equal to or beyond what most religions require. There are no guarantees. The fears expressed first by Jeralyn and  echoed by Edger, Squeaky, Eric and others that the Religious Right may be able to grab hold of the reigns of power in our country and subvert the powers of the constitution are very real and nobody can ever assuage these fears making them go away.

    However, Decon, I think you and I and others here have faith in this system that is not based on reason. There is no compelling reason to believe our little experiment with democratic government will survive the possibility of the repealing the establishment clause and to have it done if they can get the super-majority of Congress and 3/4 ratification by the States needed to do it and then further repeals to follow as our country slowly moves toward the religious right. However, I have a belief in the common sense of Americans who by exercising our free rights will speak loudly against this eventuality and not allow it to happen. This belief is backed by nothing, but a faith in us as a people and in rational voices who will always speak up against injustices and violations and intolerances of the beliefs of others. This is what defines us as Americans and something only faith can hold together.

    Parent

    excellent comment (none / 0) (#239)
    by nolo on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    I have just one bone to pick -- it's "reins" of power, not "reigns" of power.  The idiom is equestrian, not monarchical.  

    Parent
    Thanks Nolo (none / 0) (#242)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    Spelling is my Achilles heel as well as my vocabulary. Tonight my homework assignment is going to pull out my dictionary and decipher The idiom is equestrian, not monarchical.

    Parent
    I like that. A lot. (none / 0) (#244)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    The idiom is equestrian, not monarchical.

    I will be stealing that and using it. It's so pithy and blunt, I love it. (No doubt I will have to scrawl it all over the next few chapters or articles I edit.)

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#240)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:39:16 PM EST
      the problem with rabid ideologues -- of any variety-- is that they trust no one but themselves and those who never challenge them. thus, they always belive it is necessary to IMPOSE their views on everyone to prevent catastrophe.

      I always am amused, for instance, how both the far Left and the Far Right are simulataneously convinced of an MSM conspiracy against them. Even on the same issues both groups are convinced that the the media elites are in league with their ideological adversaries to destroy all that they hold dear.

      The rest of us would merely see flawed human beings doing an often poor job and a wide divergence of biases among different members of the media on different issues. But, that's what happens when people don't THINK and take their cues from people who know better but understand how to manipulate emotions.

      Appeals positing the existence of monolithic enemeies out to destroy are more readily received by the emotional and unsophisticated than attempts to describe the complexity of the real world.

      I happen to mostly agree with you in seeing the primary  division as being between the wealthy and powerful and "others"  and that these elites are motivated not by abstract ideologies but by the deisre for power and its use for their benefit, but even that is an over-simplification.

       I will note that keeping people who want social and economic justice preoccupied fighting off the imagined establishment of a state religion probably does not well serve the cause of social and economis justice-- and that may be what some intend.

     

    Parent

    Decon (none / 0) (#236)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    I give you credit, you are tireless.

    I had come in all energetic this AM and had planned to write a comment much along the same lines - ie., that our constitution can, has and will be changed if enough people want it to be changed, and that there is nothing subversive nor unconstitutional about it - but then I read the 100 or so comments that were written since I went home yesterday and I figured that my saying it wouldn't help anyone get it who couldn't already get it from your previous comments...

    Kudos to your patience and fortitude.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#238)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    Something about Sumner's treatment of the Establishment Clause rang false for me. He wrote:

    The Jerry Falwell First Amendment canard: "all that means is that the government cannot set up an official state religion." Yes, it does mean that. But it means much more. In the First Amendment, the "e" in establishment is lowercase, not a proper noun, such as a pub is an establishment. The clause uses "an", the indefinite article of speech, as opposed the "the", the definite article of speech. A law such as "no strip clubs within 1500 feet of a church" would be a law "respecting" establishment[s] of religion.

    Fortunately, I have a copy of the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposal to amend the constitution of 21 June 1788. In it, they wrote that they would ratify but that they expected these amendments to be the first order of business at the new Congress:

    That there be a declaration or bill of rights asserting, and securing from encroachment, the essential and unalienable rights of the people, in some such manner as the following:-
    ...
    20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.

    Note that the word "establishment" was used only in relation to the creation of a state religion. Let's see how this text changed over the next few years...

    I also have a copy of James Madison's argument for a Bill of Rights of 8 June 1789. He wrote:

    Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

    Again, "establishment" was used only in relation to the creation of a state religion. It did not encompass anything more...

    Next, we'll jump to the Congressional History. There, the House Select Committe, 28 July 1789, wrote:

    ART. I, SEC. 9--Between PAR. 2 and 3 [refering to the same sections as Madison, quoted above] insert, "No religion shall be established by law, now (sic) [likely "nor"] shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

    It seems they've dropped a lot from the earlier draft. Note again that "establishment" is dropped in favor of the verb "established." Clearly, they did not mean "an establishment" like a pub.

    Next we move to the seventeen Amendments approved by the House on 24 August 1789 (my birthday, btw):

    ARTICLE THE THIRD
    Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.

    Again, "establish" refered to the creation of a state religion, not a place.

    And finally, we all know how it was finally phrased upon adoption of the Bill of Rights on 15 December 1791:


    ARTICLE 1
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

    It appears that Falwell's "canard" isn't so farfetched after all.

    [Also, shame, shame, shame, on you for making me defend Falwell. I feel dirty all over.]

    Parent

    Kudos to your patience as well (none / 0) (#241)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:43:51 PM EST
    GM, that little "'establishment' means a place" canard was too ridiculous to even respond to for me.

    Parent
    I just happen (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by jondee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    be on terms (sometimes good sometimes bad) with my Jungian anima. My first names John and the initial of my last name is D and my son was born on the same day as Queen Elizabeth's notorious court astrologer John Dee, so there you go. Seemed like a good idea at the time.

    But, enough about me. Tell me about yourself: your hopes, your dreams, your fantasies..

    Well, if you're asking me, (none / 0) (#226)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    and I'm not sure that you are, I kinda hope you choose to use the "Reply to this" button when you respond to a comment...not something I have a lot invested in, however.

    Parent
    The point is (3.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:13:53 AM EST
    EVERYONE should have the right to compete and no one should be shut out of the competition.

      There is a huge difference between saying OUR ideas are superior and you should reject THEIR ideas in favor of OUR  ideas and saying their ideas should be be suppressed because they are so bad.

      If people truly believe the "other side's" ideas are so bad why the fear of them and the need to restrict the ability to express them? If you have the better ideas then why can't you "win" a fair competition?  

      The notion that law schools which train people to advocate for anti-abortion positions, anti-gay rights positions, pro-school prayer positions or what have you should be be restricted because of the the ideas they espouse is the truly dangerous idea here.

      Can people not grasp the problem with arguing: it's OK if they are religious but not if their religion causes them to view the role of law schools and the law in a fundamentally different differently way than do I,  and if they don't accept my view  and seek to challenge it then they must be suppressed.

      In a FREE country people have the right to challenge even the most cherished fundamental values of the establishment including the basis and purpose of law.

      The irony that people here are advocating the suppression of competing ideas and values because  they need to prevent the suppression of other ideas and values seems to elude most.

      You don't successfully fight a bad thing by doing the same bad thing.

       If the only way to prevent a tyrannical regime of  far right-wing fudamentalist Christians is to establish a tyrannical regime of far left-wing secular leftists then we are doomed. I don't happen to believe the choice is quite that stark and we can have a free and open society with a voice for both and everyone in between.

     

    People with a different view (2.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:02:23 AM EST
     of the 1st Amendment should not be lawyers? Law schools with different perspectives should be denied accreditation? It's SCARY to allow people to advocate different views in court?

      Perhaps we need a law requiring all lawyers to affirm fealty to your views and all law schools to teach only as you believe?

     Maybe it is scary, but I'm not sure which is scarier- their intolerance or your intolerance.

    Re (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    There is nothing to stop a lawyer from practicing whatever faith he or she chooses.  However, and this is a very big however, the law of this country is secular.  If there was one profession in which religion has absolutely no place, it would be the practice of law.

    The law must treat all of us, without regard to religion, exactly the same.

    Parent

    Would that not include (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:27:32 AM EST
     allowing people to be trained in and  practice law and advocate for interpretation and application of law as their religion or lack thereof compels them to seek to advance?

      The answer to religious intolerance and bigotry is not secular intolerance and bigotry.

    Parent

    "We hold these truths..." (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    "...to be self-evident."

    The moment you declare that, actually, it's not the application of reason, but rather, the will of Jesus or Mohammed or Zoroaster or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that interprets the law be such and such and to hell (literally!) with anyone who says otherwise... well, then you're a little ways off the beaten path.

    Parent

    FSM (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dead dancer on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    Your'e right. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    The answer to religious intolerance and bigotry is not secular intolerance and bigotry.

    The answer to religious intolerance and bigotry is not secular intolerance and bigotry.

    The answer, and the only reasonable response, lies in simply utter and complete intolerance of religious intolerance and bigotry, and in marginalization of people who practice religious intolerance and bigotry.

    And marginalization of people who try to conflate secular intolerance of religious intolerance and bigotry with religious intolerance and bigotry.

    IOW, marginalization of people who are full of sh*t.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    The problem is, who gets to decide who is full of sh*t, to use your vulgarism.

    Is it Edger, or is it the law? And if it is the law, what law has been broken? The fact of the matter is that you have defined your philsophy time and again.


    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them
    .

    You know edger, at least Fallwell claimed to love the sinner and hate the sin.

    You don't even do that.

    Parent

    Who was talking to you? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    edger (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    Can't answer it, eh??

    Parent
    jim (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    If at your age you still can't tell when someone is full of sh*t, there isn't anything anyone can help you with here.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:54:16 AM EST
    Decon's got it right, but he was much too polite to give this idea the mockery it truly deserves. So:

    Evangelical Christians working together to turn out lawyers who share their often mistaken beliefs? Oooooh, scary! What ever will we do?

    Entire law schools full of Christians? Oooooh, they must be "subversive," comrade; we must prevent the Christian mind-virus from spreading.

    More seriously, if the ABA has accurately accredited these programs, then all you've got to argue against is the ideas being learned at the schools. Justice Powell said it best:

    However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend on its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.

    If you have a problem with someone's ideas or arguments, the right thing to do is challenge them with ideas and arguments of your own. The absolutely wrong thing to do is do away with the person. The same applies to organizations.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    If you have a problem with someone's ideas or arguments, the right thing to do is challenge them with ideas and arguments of your own. The absolutely wrong thing to do is do away with the person.

    Jose Padillas' treatment, and the whole WOT concept for that matter, are good analogies.

    Glad you agree.

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    Dating from Dec 1979 there is a whole string of actual attacks.

    Do you deny those??

    And is it your view that actual attacks are covered??

    And Padilla is getting a full up USA CJS trial, up to and including a judge who is precluding important governmengt evidennce from being shown.

    Parent

    Um, actually (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by taylormattd on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    The purpose of law school most definitely is not be to indoctrinate students with a specific religious perspective.

    Rather, it is to teach students law.

    And it's more than a little ridiculous that you would call someone who points this out "intolerant." Kind of like how liberals are "intolerant" when they denounce anti-gay bigotry.

    Parent

    Not responsive. (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:31:17 PM EST
    The ABA apparently belives that these schools are teaching students law. They are the generally recognized authority on that matter. So  it's not the legal education that some people are opposing, it's the "subversive" ideas that they would like to silence. That is intolerance.

    You write:

    Kind of like how liberals are "intolerant" when they denounce anti-gay bigotry.

    But your analogy doesn't reach this situation. Jeralyn didn't just denounce what these lawyers believe, she said that the schools shouldn't be allowed to turn out lawyers at all. That's the intolerance.

    Parent

    Provide a quote (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    for this ridiculous assertion: "she said that the schools shouldn't be allowed to turn out lawyers at all"

    Or quit lying. Doing either will help improve your nearly nonexistent credibility.

    Parent

    Excuse me (1.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    I'm sorry Edger, I should have said "she implied that the schools shouldn't be allowed to turn out lawyers at all."

    My point still stands. Contrary to taylormattd's assertion, Jeralyn did not just "denounce" Christian law schools, which I agree would have been a fine exercise of speech and not intolerant at all. Rather, she implied that the schools should never be accredited and that their "subversive" message must be stopped.

    Parent

    Where? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    Provide a QUOTE. You're supposed to be a lawyer for christ's sake, you should know how this works.

    Parent
    You're right, btw. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    You should have said implied.

    But you didn't. You chose instead to blatantly lie.

    Why now should anything else you say here be given any credence?

    Parent

    edger shows his stuff (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Yessir, that's real tolerance. A real thirst for ideas. A real desire to debate the issues.

    A man for all seasons. A true renaissance man...

    Edger.... remember that thingee in the Constitution... you know, freedom of speech and all that... You seem to be all for it for your buds... but not for the otherside... or at least that is what you wrote.

    Parent

    Free Speech (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    Twisting words again? This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with politics.
    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Turning the radio off because you don't like the music doesn't mean you are against free speech. It means that you don't like the music and have the power to turn it off.

    Parent

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    Squeaky, I don't mind you joining in, in fact, I love it. But the question was directed to edger, because he is the one who wrote it.

    I trust you understand the difference between another persob's opinion versus he who wrote it.

    But as a general nature, do you consider turning off a radio program disrespecting "them?" Doing your best to marginalizing them?

    And how do you explain this?

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    That is hardly turning off a radio.

    Parent

    Apples and Oranges (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    Yes I agree with Edger. When people are advocating death and killing they have no right to ask others to shut up about it. Dissent is as American as Apple Pie.

    Those that are do not want to hear anti war protests can turn off the radio, change the station or just plug their ears with wax. In fact that is what they do.

    Had they been listening we wouldn't still be in a scam war.

    Parent

    Thanks Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    But you'd do much better at explaining it if you understood it, and if you were at all interested in being honest you wouldn't take my comments out of context and try in vain to make them mean something other than what I said. No matter though, the one above is clear enough for others even though you don't comprehend it. And no one expects you to get it anyway.

    I'm not quite sure why you do this to yourself, but thanks for the help. ;-)

    Parent

    squeaky (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:32:03 PM EST
    Twisting words again? This has nothing to do with free speech, it has to do with politics.

    Gosh, I'm slow today.

    Squeaky. Political free speech is exactly what the First Amendment is all about.

    Parent

    sqeaky (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:57:18 PM EST
    BTW - Political free speech is what that amendment thingeee is all about

    Parent
    You are Kidding (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    Or you are being purposefully obtuse. Free speech is a right.

    Politics includes fighting your political opponents and marganalizing them in order to defeat them. Some political opponents are not worthy of any respect.

    Nothing to do with the right of free speech.

    Parent

    You are Kidding (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:11:24 PM EST
    Or you are being purposefully obtuse. Free speech is a right.

    Politics includes fighting your political opponents and marganalizing them in order to defeat them. Some political opponents are not worthy of any respect.

    Nothing to do with the right of free speech.

    Parent

    You finally got lucky (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    and got something right here, jim. And you don't even know what it was.

    Maybe someday you'll have an idea what it was. But I doubt it.

    Parent

    AskPeaches (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    He can explain it to you. No one else expects you to get it.

    Parent
    Edger (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    You wrote what you wrote.

    And now you condemn an ABA accredited lawschool..

    At least you are consistent.

    Parent

    Hey!!! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    You're on a roll. You got lucky and got something right twice today. Maybe you'll hit number three and understand how you were right the first two times?

    Parent
    Maybe. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:33:43 PM EST
    I have faith in you - but that would be pushing it.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    Look, Gabe (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    If this gets too hairy for you, there is an easy out.

    You can always use the incompetency defense.

    Why not? For christ's sake, Gonzales does. And he's the AG.

    Parent

    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by taylormattd on Mon May 21, 2007 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    My comment was entirely responsive to yours. Your labeling of Jeralyn as "intolerant" is just another example of the right wing whining that happens every time one of you is called on extremist ideology.

    And again, it goes without saying that the ABA should not be accrediting schools, the primary scholastic focus of which is not teaching law, but is instead churning out religious fanatics who will ignore the law if it interferes with their biblical worldview. The ABA will no doubt come to this conclusion at some point; it is actually a pretty progressive organization, and it is definitely concerned about the rule of law, unlike the "law schools" described above.

    If the Jerry Falwells of this country want to establish Christian madrassa-like schools, they can have at it. But that doesn't mean the ABA has to continue accreditting them.

    Parent

    It is very simple (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:04:02 PM EST
    I am not comfortable with a bunch of law graduates from religious conservative law schools getting political appointments. But the ABA is definitely concerned about the rule of law.

    There are requirements for accreditations by the ABA that are publicly available. Jerry Falwell and other religious organizations inquire into these requirements and then put together an initiative to have a law school that meets these requirements while still being affiliated with a right-wing conservative agenda. Once they have done this they put financial resources behind this effort and come up with a law school.

    If they meet the requirements for accreditation, and the ABA doesn't accredit them for religious reasons (or any other reasons that don't fall under there publicly stated requirements), then the ABA is going to have defend its position in court and will probably lose. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems obvious to me.

    Parent

    Do you see the difference? (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:06:07 PM EST
    taylormattd, please try and understand the difference between the following:

    (1) "This idea is bad."
    (2) "This idea is bad and we must use legal or quasi-legal processes to stop people from teaching it, or learning it, or sharing it with others. (And it's scary!)"

    The first is fine. The second is intolerant (and hysterical). Maybe a harsher example?

    (1) Bigotry is bad.
    (2) Bigotry is bad and we should make it illegal to engage in bigoted speech and prevent bigoted people from entering the workforce.

    Do you see the difference?

    Parent

    in that one instance then (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:50:07 AM EST
     they'd be absolutely,  unequivocally correct.

     They say you should be oppressed because of your beliefs and you say they should be oppressed because their beliefs.

      I say no one should be oppressed because of their beliefs.

      I do not see how one can fail to grasp the concept that denying people whose views of the Constitution are different the right to have schools that teach what they believe, lawyers who advocate their causes and the right to use the legislative, executive and judicial branches to advance their causes is EXACTLY the same thing they want to do.

     

    Atheist College of Law (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:47:05 PM EST

      If when I die, I bequeath my fortune to establish a law school based on atheist principles and dedicated to producing lawyers who will seek to promote atheism by using their skills and licenses to practice law by representing atheist causes would anyone here support the ABA if it denied the school accreditation because it was for atheists? Would you argue that it's OK for people to be atheists but that it would be wrong for any lawyer to allow his atheism to color his approach to the law or his choice of causes?

      Would you term it "scary" that the school existed and express fear if a student said, I don't want just to be an atheist lawyer but to dedicate my talents to growing atheism to a dminant position in our society?"

      Would you object if another student, said she would "seek to overturn the restrictions on abortion put in place by Roe and its progeny because because her atheist values cause her to find them unacceptable?"

      Would you ask how my school got accredited when it was avowdly atheist and openly seeking change in government and society?

      Would you cite examples of "bad atheists" as reasons why the school is dangerous?

      Would you argue only "good atheists" should be allowed to have schools and produce lawyers?

      If one of the professors declared his ultimate goal was the eradication of religion and that he believed the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment should be repealed by Constitutional amendment would you argue the school should get rid of him and if it refused, its graduates denied access to the bar because of the effort to subvert the Constitution?

       I could go on and on, but I'm beginning to think it's simply not possible to get some of you to think about the logical consequences of what you advocate.

    its the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    The promotion of atheism is just as unwelcome.  The law is secular.  It was meant to operate outside of religious influence.  It would be just as wrong to use religion as atheism if the goal was to subvert the law.

    Parent
    Holy cripes! (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:57:10 PM EST
      At least you're an equal opportunity oppressor.

      So I guess only agnostics who don't care one way or the other about religion should be allowed to grace our Courts with their presence and no one should be allowed to advocate for or against anything with any possible religious ramifications.

      It is simply beyond the pale that we are producing people so inacaple of understanding the most fundamental of principles.

      This thread is rapidly becoming far more frightening than anything Liberty or Bob Jones could hope to accomplish. At least their graduates understand what they are doing and why they are doing it. People here are just terrifyingly incapable of understanding.

    Parent

    I hear ya Decon.... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by kdog on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    and I'm not advocating anybody shut these christian law schools down, or banning christians from practicing law.  You are correct in calling that tyranny.  If the school is accredited, party on.

    But when our elected officials nearly exclusively appoint graduates from radical christian law schools to govt. positions, I'm gonna b*tch and moan, because these people make decisions that affect my life. I can't stop 'em, so I denounce 'em.

    Maybe I'm crazy...I expect people who work for the state to leave their religous beliefs at the door when they go to work for "we the people", just as I leave my radical beliefs at the door when I go to work for somebody else.  It's not that hard.  I've had the thought of creatively tagging my beliefs on an order shipping to a govt. agency, but that would not be fair to the people I work for.  

    As for all the people who don't like these christian-law based appointments, we need to elect people who won't make them, its that simple.  Christian-law based apppointments who fail to abide by the seperation of church and state, or fail to adequately perform their duties...hopefully they will be held accountable.

    If not, we can at least denounce.


    Parent

    exactly (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:47:57 AM EST
    But
    when our elected officials nearly exclusively appoint graduates from radical christian law schools to govt. positions, I'm gonna b*tch and moan, because these people make decisions that affect my life. I can't stop 'em, so I denounce 'em.

    As for all the people who don't like these christian-law based appointments, we need to elect people who won't make them, its that simple

      Yes denounce them and their ideas  and vote for people with different views-- but not for people who would suppress them for having those ideas.

       It's not a "war" unless we make it one. It should be an orderly political competition where even the "losers" have their fundamental rights guaranteed.

      I don't want right-wing  fundamentalist zealots controlling government, but having their mirror image in charge would lead to the same result in the end and I don't want that either.

      I don't want anyone whose focus is on marginalizing and destroying the political opposition. I want rational, tolerant  people who seek to solve problems and work for the common good. I want people morally and intellectually   strong enough to tolerate if not embrace the opposition.  i want people who  find it unnecessary to resort to repressive measures to prevail because they have enough  confidence in the strength and appeal  of their ideas that they they believe they can prevail in a fair competition between competing ideals and don't need to muzzle others to win.

     

    Parent

    tired of building strawmen yet? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:28:43 PM EST
    atheism is not a religion, at worst they want to see a separation of church and state ... ya know, like in the Constitution.

    People who seek the law to impose their personal RELIGIOUS beliefs on others are whole different category from folks who seek to support the Constitution by not having personal religious beliefs imposed on law..

    IRT the rest of your fantasies, they are only that. You might just as well be arguing torture is OK because Jack Bauer needs to do it. It's fiction ... from and for substandard minds.

    Parent

    it does touch a nerve with me (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:13:36 PM EST
      Seeking to relegate people to second_class citizenship and dimunition of their constitutional rights simpply because their religious beliefs  should touch a nerve with anyone who favors freedom and equality>

      I find people who would repress religious people whose doctrines they oppose every bit as dangerous to a free society as the religious people who would reprress others> it"s all repression and it"s all bad>

    I don't want to repress anyone (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:30:06 PM EST
    It's not about second-class citizenship.  It is about a genuine concern for the law and keeping it secular.  Religious schools are fine.  The problem it that there is an effort by some to subvert the secular law with law that reflects certain religous values.

    Parent
    Should the the law (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    not reflect values?

    Parent
    Values (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    Yes, of course it does.  The law is, at least in part, a direct reflection of our society and our moral code.  And the law is different in different parts of the country because people are different.

    For example, you can't buy liquor at all in some parts of the country while in other places, you can buy it in grocery stores.  Some places won't sell you a beer on Sunday.  Why?  Mostly because of widely divergent religious views about liquor.  But still, the law remains secular.  All are treated equally under the law.

    However, some in the evengelical movement would like to see their religion codified.  They would like to see, for example, religious teachings in public schools.  They would like to see state endorsement of their religion.  This is the part that makes us nervous.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    the law should and does reflect our values, our society and our moral code.

    You are nervous about "pro-religious" law, yet others are equally nervous about "anti-religious" law.

    I'm glad to hear there's nervous on both "sides", I think if there wasn't I'd be nervous that that'd mean the system wasn't working.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    If a new Republican Admin wins in 08, we will have at least two new supremes like Janice Brown, Pricilla Owens, Gonzo etc.

    Six or more right wing religious wackos in the SC, count 'em.

    That would make for a very different America than I have grown up with.  

    Parent

    Not sure any of Janice Brown's (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    faults are attributable to her religious beliefs.  She is definitely a member of the Federalist Society, however.

    Parent
    PoMo v True Faith (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    Brown said those who attack the religious right "essentially argue (that) the true American religion demands acceptance of, indeed submission to, a common political vision -- their vision."

    In the 20th century, secular humanism crept into American and Western governments, promising openness and tolerance for diverse groups, religions and philosophies, she said.

    "What we got was narrow positivism, moral relativism and the totalitarian reign of the radical multiculturalist," Brown said. "It promised peace. What we got was a process of permanent revolution, tumult, strife and a ceaseless assault upon the foundations of faith, family and civil society. It promised if not the pursuit of truth, at least rationality and acknowledgment of objective reality. What we got was postmodernism." The battle, in her view, is not political but theological: "Contrary to the prevailing secularist dogma ... a society cannot exist without a fighting faith. Where society has nothing to die for, it has nothing to live for and cannot long survive."

    link

    Parent

    She's campaigning for "elevation." (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:27:35 PM EST
    Elevation (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    Something like this:

    Pearce: Is the only hope a return to religion?

    Solzhenitsyn: Not a return to religion but an elevation toward religion. The thing is that religion itself cannot but be dynamic which is why "return" is an incorrect term. A return to the forms of religion which perhaps existed a couple of centuries ago is absolutely impossible. On the contrary, in order to combat modern materialistic mores, as religion must, to fight nihilism and egotism, religion must also develop, must be flexible in its forms, and it must have a correlation with the cultural forms of the epoch. Religion always remains higher than everyday life. In order to make the elevation towards religion easier for people, religion must be able to alter its forms in relation to the consciousness of modern man.

    link

    Parent

    Very interesting. I didn't realize he (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:57:03 PM EST
    was a religious person.  

    Parent
    that wasn't the point (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    the point is teaching law from a religious viewpoint that contradicts the constitution.

    We are a nation of laws, not a religion, and it a school teaches the students that in their job as a lawyer the bible trumps the constitution then there is a problem with that school.

    Parent

    Either You Miss the Point (none / 0) (#94)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    Or you are supportive of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

    This is about a religious war that is happening in the US. Most here at TL do not want a theocracy, you on the other hand seem fine with the prospect.

    Parent

    Chicken Little (none / 0) (#95)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    This is about a religious war

    Now who do you sound like? I'll give you a hint. He backs it up with stories about cab drivers in Mpls.

    Parent

    Peaches (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:27:50 PM EST
    With all due respect, you have not been paying attention to the doings of politics and the religious right for the last 20 years.

    They see it as a religious war. And they see it as political gravy. For both theys it's a win/win. Not so good for us as  we have been the losers.

    Parent

    I don't see us (our side-liberals) (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peaches on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    as losing a war. There is a battle that is constantly waged between many sides. Sometimes religion goes hand in hand with the wealth interests and it appears that religion is winning some epic battle to some people on the left. I don't see this battle being played out and if it is, I think secularism and tolerance is winning.

    However, I will always argue that religion is a small part and what is really at stake is always wealth and power. If religion helps keep people complacent, then the power interests will use it. If secularism serves the interests of wealth and power, they will use secularism to keep wealth in as few of hands as possible.

    I don't fear those on the religious right or evangelicals as long as they are people and Americans. I fear the consolidation of wealth and power. What I have noticed since 2006 is an split in the evangelical community as the congregations of people begin to question the leaders. This is a good trend and will likely mean  a shift in the political spectrum - how far, I am not sure.

    I do worry about the consolidation of power, I don't worry about other people's beliefs.  

    Parent

    Peaches (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Sailor on Mon May 21, 2007 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    I do worry about the consolidation of power, I don't worry about other people's beliefs.  
    I also worry about the consolidation of power, and I generally don't care about other people's beliefs, whatever they are.

    But when folks say this nation was founded on christianity, when generals (and president) say the iraq war is a crusade, when religion triumphs over law in a law school ... yeah, that worries me a lot.

    Parent

    Folks say a lot of things, (none / 0) (#181)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    it takes some effort to weed out what we should take seriously. I definitely don't take seriously anyone who justifies a war with religious rhetoric. I know some soldiers go to war with faith in their God and this gives them comfort. I have no quarrel with that. My quarrel is with the war itself.

    Christians, and Evangelical Christians especially, are beginning to question the morality of this war and this administration. Christians may first come to their faith because of emotional and social needs, but if they look deeper in their faith and begin reading the new testament looking for deeper spiritual and personal meaning, they will eventual question the leaders of the church as Jesus did. That is my faith - the faith in human searching for meaning that goes beyond the platitudes of politicians, religious leaders, media figures and other cultural icons.

    Eventually most humans get there and we are seeing that in the evangelical community today where there is a split among the congregations and the people or flock has begun to reflect on the teachings and question the interpretations that many leaders such as Falwell and Robertson have given them.  

    Parent

    Almost anything (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:03:28 PM EST
     other than these neo-fascist attacks on their rights to hold and advocate for their positions.

      That you cannot grasp the distinction between countering their ideas in the "marketplace of ideas" (and the narrower fora of the courts) and advocating for restrictions on their rights to express themselves in the same "marketplace of ideas" and courts does not speak well of you.

    I shall keep this thread (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    I guess this thread is winding down, but I shall keep it. It demonstrates more than anything I have seen in years the fact that too many on the Left do not believe in free speech.

    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by eric on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    It is plainly ridiculous to assert that the "Left" does not believe in free speech.  As I and others have attempted to articulate above, ad nauseum, this isn't about squelching free speech.  It is about a genuine concern about concerted efforts to subvert the law with a particular religious view.

    No one is questioning free speech, the First Amendment, or the free exercise of religion.  We are concerned that some evangelical Christians do not have the same respect for the secular law of this country.  One of the most important parts of that secular law is embodied in the First Amendment.  How our concern about evangelicals and our defense of the secular law can be interpretted as a threat to free speech is beyond me.

    Parent

    Strawman Galore (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:08:43 PM EST
    How our concern about evangelicals and our defense of the secular law can be interpreted as a threat to free speech is beyond me.
    Let me explain, eric.

    Both Decon and ppj are happy to see the courts stacked with right wing religious zealots. It is as simple as that. Natural selection accomplished by unnatural means (cheating), it has been going on for sometime now. Funny how the same folks are adamantly against affirmative action.

    How else could some so blindly argue the same obviously irrelevant strawman ad nauseam. There is simply no other explanation.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#194)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:16:48 PM EST
      I don't want courts or government agencies stacked with right-wingers, let alone narrow-minded and intolerant ones.

      However, in pursuit of preventing that I do not find efforts to suggest that the freedoms of those with which I disagree should be attacked and diminished in the name of --irony of ironies- promotng freedom an liberty.

      That I repeatedly have to point out that the cause of liberty is not advanced by denying others of their liberties  and that there are people so unbelievably dense and foolish to consider that a "strawman" argument is the problem.

    Parent

    Stacked Courts (none / 0) (#196)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    I would love to see a more liberal makeup of the SC. I also want more liberal minded federal judges. There is definitely a political process and wealth in this country has determined th emakeup of the courts, imo. However, we still have a rule of law and certain laws must be applied.

    Strawmen? Squeaky, with all due respect, do you even have any idea what you are talking about? I know you read and have a lot of information at your fingertips. I also clearly see how you have divided up the contributers at TL as friend or foe. But, all Decon has ever asked you to do was think. That said, it is not an easy accomplishment for anyone. There is little doubt that emotions have a strong influence on our thought process.

    I, like you, want more liberal courts. But, there is a process and law that we have to abide. Tell me a story. Do some research. Get the links. I have no doubt that the following scenario is not only possible but, perhaps probable.

    There was a concerted effort to open law schools with that were affiliated with evangelical churches - such as Falwell and Robertson. We know that is true and they have opened these law schools. So, how was it done. Perhaps, they had to get some members on the board of the ABA to get favorable recommendations for approval of accreditation. Perhaps, they relied on political resources to subvert this process. Perhaps they bribed members of the board of ABA. Maybe they were evern successful in changing the requirements  for the accreditation by the ABA.

    So far, none of the above has been even mildly suggested. Instead, we are just supposed to be insulted that there are law schools operating under evangelical schools and within this environment. It is easy to follow the logic that the basis for this disapproval of accreditation can just as easily be applied to any other organization of religious affiliation, because there is no evidence of misconduct in the accreditation process other than religiou affiliation. That is not a strawman argument or is a very liberal application of strawman at the very least.


    Parent

    Strawman (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    The point of this thread is not about closing down the camps of our enemies by sidestepping the constitution. No one here on the left has advocated that.

    What this thread is addressing is a malicious tactic by the right to use religion and the masses to usurp the constitution. The end game is stacking the courts and mobilizing godsmacked voters to keep fascists in power.

    Clearly the right wingers play a dirty game. We can see from the business at the DOJ, countless indictments, secret prisons and general flaunting of law that these creeps do to rig the game.

    What I would like to see is a leveling of the gaming table. If examining the accreditation of these fast track GOP schools comes up with problems, close them down. If there is a case to be made for filling the government with incompetant christianists that kiss the chimp's ring lets make it.

    No one here is advocating weakening the constitutional rights of others, in fact it is quite the opposite.

    Parent

    Well that is interesting... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    This is OT and I understand if you don't want to discuss it, but you write:

    Both Decon and ppj are happy to see the courts stacked with right wing religious zealots. It is as simple as that. Natural selection accomplished by unnatural means (cheating), it has been going on for sometime now. Funny how the same folks are adamantly against affirmative action.

    This seems to imply that you think of affirmative action as "cheating." Presumably you are in favor of that kind of "natural selection by unnatural means." And yet, you take Decon and jim to task for (as you claim) supporting the same thing in a different context.

    Parent

    Stacking the Deck (none / 0) (#245)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    With ones predisposed to cultural advantage seems wrong to me. Balancing out an unfair and predujiced system seems a good thing to me.

    Many have gotten a break and added to society that would have been left out without affirmative action.  We have all beneifted from inclusion of others who for many reasons would not be able to participate without it.

    In the end it is the individual who has to stand up at the plate and show what they have to offer.

    I think that the religious swarm in government serves only the ones in power. Its only function is to maintain that power for generations to come. The Powell Memo spells it out. Do you see that as analogous to affirmative action.  Apples and oranges from my point of view.

    Parent

    Agree. (none / 0) (#250)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:11:33 PM EST
    Do you see that as analogous to affirmative action.  Apples and oranges from my point of view.

    Oh, I agree, I don't think it's the same thing. I only brought it up because you appeared to.

    Parent

    Nice (none / 0) (#251)
    by squeaky on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:14:02 PM EST
    To share some common ground Gabe.

    Parent
    Gabriel (none / 0) (#255)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:18:07 PM EST
    squeaky and jondee think that anyone who disagrees with as "enemies."

    That covers it all.

    Parent

    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 08:25:35 AM EST
      I suppose even 1 is too many, but it is a gross distortion of the Left to to claim that this thread with its tiny handful of shallow thinkers and reflexive intolerance is representative of the Left in general.

      All groups have followers who fail either  to grasp the true significance of ideas or, perhaps worse, advocate dangerous ideas they do understand.

      In broad terms despite the presence of these few people, the Left is generally more tolerant and more in favor of freedom and diversity of opinion than is the Right.

      You have to go way to the extreme fringe and single out the least capable members of that extreme fringe  on  the Left to find this type of thinking but it's fairly mainstream on the Right.

    Parent

    Decon (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    I would note the qualifier phrase "too many on the Left" was inserted so as to not paint with too broad a brush.

    As to who is generally more tolerant, since I disconnect the "Left" from "Liberal," I must disagree with you.

    If you want to use Liberal to mean what it meant at one time, I would agree with you.

    Unfortunately, "Liberal" is covered with such things as we see in this thread, and the Repub Right is happy to yell the word over and over again to prove how ureasonable the Demo Left is.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    Hmmm, nice non-analysis complaint.

    From "Alien:"

    Are they training students in how to use the law to achieve their social goals or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    That is not an objection. It clearly shows a state of mind that says, unless they are teaching what I think is correct.... "the law to achieve their social goals...."

    Now, who is "I?" Does the writer claim to have special talent that first of all, claims to know what their "social goals" are?

    And who are "they?" Does he lump all such schools together? If so, why?? If the intent is religious based results, the leaders of a Protestant based school would not want he same results as any of the Catholic schools.

    And then he asks the dark and seething question:

    Or are they promoting subversive and incorrect interpretations of the law?

    What is that? Subversive? Shades of Joe McCarthy!

    Do you believe the Bible? Professor Faithful, have you now, or have you ever been a member of the Baptist Church?

    Incorrect interpretations of the law??

    What is that? Who decides?

    Well, I'm not a law critic. But I know what I like when I see it!

    Have a nice day, DA. And thanks for the grins.

    This just in (1.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    Speaking of religious leaders wanting to change the world through laws....

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging        President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

    In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

    The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism

    I am sure you will all join me in condemning this obvious attempt of these so-called religious leaders attempting to turn this country into a theocracy.

    Link

    "religion" (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 11:45:11 AM EST
      can be employed to support or oppose almost anything.

      If the news was about a "liberal Christian" denomination establishing a law school to train lawyers to use their skills to promote "social and economic justice" through advocacy in courts of government by promoting civil rights, job training programs, a higher minimum wage, affordable child care, universal health coverage, immigration reform,  more need-based financial aid, laws protecting minorities including homosexuals from discrimination, and so on, I seriously doubt rabid denunciations of the schools and students would spout here condemning them for bringing a religious perspective to the law and advocating for change in accordance with their religious beliefs.

      This thread is dominated by utterly mindless intolerance simply because of oppostion to the the goals of these particular religious people without any understanding of the broader ramifications of such "thought."

    Where did i single you out, jondee? (1.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:04:23 PM EST
      As I said above if you meant to acknowledge the extemely intolerant and repressive nature of the condemnations of "Christian law schools" in this thread you were guilty of nothing more than poor and very misleading writing when you responded to me.

      If you wish to clarify what in the world your point is supposed to be, go right ahead. I will then if necessary assess it for what it is worth.

     Until then stop whining.

    Maybe flat unthreaded? (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Gabriel Malor on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    Decon, I get the feeling (from the way he always comments to the main post and never replies to comments) that jondee has chosen the "flat unthreaded" page view. That may make it more difficult for him to tell when people are responding to him or replying to others.

    That said, I may be wrong and jondee may just think everything revolves around himself.

    Parent

    everything revolves around himself. (1.00 / 0) (#212)
    by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:47:08 PM EST
    No, Gabe. He's not you.

    Parent
    He's not peaches, either. ;-) (1.00 / 0) (#217)
    by Edger on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    re: Where did i single you out, jondee? (none / 0) (#197)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    You probably didn't.

    jondee apparently hasn't learned how to use that new-fangled "Reply to this" button that exists under every comment when (s)he wants to reply to a comment, and also probably doesn't view the comments in one of the many modes available at the top of every thread that link the comments and their responses together.

    Therefor (s)he often has little idea as to who's talking to whom about what and his/her comments often make little sense to anyone but him/her as they reflect that lack of understanding.

    At least, that's what it looks like to me...

    Parent

    But he is witty (none / 0) (#198)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    And wit counts for a lot.

    Parent
    Sure is.... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by kdog on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    I've had many a laugh thanks to jondee's comments.

    Parent
    Well, because of your comments (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    I searched jondee's commnents.

    You're right, (s)he is funny!

    Thanks for the heads up!

    Parent

    I think he's very funny. (none / 0) (#207)
    by Peaches on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    My favorite and most entertaining thread feature exchanges between Jim and Jondee or Jim and DA. I think Jim is at his wittiest as he attmepts to keep up with these two witmasters.

    My least favorite exchanges are between Squeaky and Jim and Edger and Jim. Jim is way off of his game as he dumbs down to the level of his opponents who rely on snark rather than wit, I suppose because they lack the capacity to be humorous or funny. Oh well, as one of my professors once said, "If I was meant to entertain you, I would have been a comedian. However, comedy is not my strongpoint." He was right, because that was the funny thing he said all semester.

    Parent

    Well, I'll take your word for it (none / 0) (#210)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    You've accurately identified the things I like least about TL.

    I'm adding jondee's comments to my "read" list, but that's it.

    Parent

    and so pretty. (none / 0) (#199)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    btw, I've always gotten a "she" vibe from jondee. Probably something deeply sexist within me...

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#215)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    jondee is male and I don't notice anything overtly feminine in jondee's writing. I think maybe just the name ending in "ee" triggered an assumption. Yes, it would be EXTREMELY sexist to suggest that hyper-sensitive irrationality and allowing emotions to cloud any sense of judgement is a feminine trait. It seems to me that men are more often more guilty of that here, but then men so outnumber women here and --tellingly-- at most blogs it's perhaps just a numbers game.

      Maybe men just have more of a need to fight.

    Parent

    Self appointed (none / 0) (#231)
    by jondee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    and self-romancing bringers-of-light tilting at gulag building windmills, dont necessarily have to male either.

    Parent
    be male (none / 0) (#234)
    by jondee on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    and yes, I meant romancing, not romanticizing.

    Parent
    I don't need appointment (none / 0) (#235)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 22, 2007 at 04:17:25 PM EST
      that's another aspect of freedom.  

    I'm still waiting for you to even try to address my points here.

     Mealy-mouthed. weaselly evasions can come from either sex too.

     Put your cards on the table and state in clear language what your position is on denying accreditation solely because of religious orientation and defend your position. All the rest is whining and playing the pitiful victim-- and neither witty nor funny in my book. Just sad.

    Parent

    I see the danger, but . . . (none / 0) (#75)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:46:46 PM EST
    I don't understand the argument that they shouldn't be accredited.  I definitely think one should examine the motives of the Bush Administration in hiring so many graduates from these lowly-rated law schools, especially for career positions, as opposed to political appointments.  But honestly, there doesn't seem to be anything here to question their accreditation.  So, they teach everything from a Christian perspective?  Big deal.  The undergrad I went to did that, too, and we were accredited.  I studied psychology, history, literature, science, and mathematics; I even got in a little business and computers.  And I minored in theology.  It was common for professors to talk about how whatever we were studying interacted with religious beliefs, where it made sense to do so, but that doesn't mean I didn't learn the structure of organic compounds or the causes of the French Revolution or the influences on Shakespeare or what Freud believed about the id, ego, and superego.  As for the claim that they're "subversive," well, I found that most disturbing.  That is a pretty perjorative term often used to demonize the efforts of those who used the courts to fight for peace, freedom, and the truth from our government.  

    They have a point of view.  They have a prism through which they interpret the Constitution and the laws.  And it would greatly concern me if more and more judges started hiring these kids as clerks or if Presidents started appointing these people to the bench, or citizens started electing them to the bench.  So, I think it's important to keep an eye on them.  But it doesn't seem fair to question their accreditation or label them subversive.

    txpublicdefender (none / 0) (#254)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 22, 2007 at 07:05:26 PM EST
     
    I definitely think one should examine the motives of the Bush Administration in hiring so many graduates from these lowly-rated law schools

    Do you have a link showing the numbers, espcially one that compares the results vs a historical average?

    So, I think it's important to keep an eye on them.
     

    Let me guess. No listening to terrorists conversations, but we'll keep an eye on graduates from "religious" law school.

    WOW!!!!

    Parent

    Stalemate (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon May 21, 2007 at 02:50:47 PM EST
     I could go on and on.......
    Yes we know.

    Geez (none / 0) (#84)
    by eric on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    This is one nasty thread.

    I guess it touched a nerve (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    with some folks.

    Parent
    Do the school teach god > law or law > god? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jerry on Mon May 21, 2007 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    If the schools are teaching that to be a good Christian the students must be the best damned lawyer for their clients they can be, that is one thing.

    If the schools are teaching that to be a good Christian, the students must place god before the law or their clients, that's subversive.

    And with all due respect to the commenters here that came from a Christian law school, I find it ironic and weird that lawyers in an adversary system that believes that justice/truth best come out when there are two different advocates can say with a straight face that their professors DID give an objective account of the issues.

    There are only two kinds of (living) people that are objective today.  Journalists through the magic of J-School have learned to shed all biases and become objective seekers and reporters of the truth.  And Judges, after a career as a partisan advocate have also learned to shed all biases and become objective determinants of the truth.

    The rest of us are involved in earthly sins and have a multitude of biases, hidden or not, and agendas, hidden or not.

    But I am glad your professors were also objective reporters of the truth.

    I didn't attend a religious school (none / 0) (#116)
    by nolo on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    fwiw.

    Parent
    okay, actually I think my statement (none / 0) (#158)
    by jerry on Mon May 21, 2007 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    holds true for anyone anywhere that ever says, "my teacher was objective" (about some controversial issue.)

    I really don't think there are too many people that can really be objective.  I don't mind that, I just wish folks would be more transparent about where they are coming from.

    The concern I have is that a lot of hidden biases and agendas get translated into bad judgments or bad actions or bad teaching and then rationalized as a product of the underlying case examined in some objective manner.

    Man is the rationalizing creature.

    Parent

    The professor wasn't a monk! (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon May 21, 2007 at 04:24:22 PM EST
    You are pretty trusting to assume judges shed their biases when they put on those black robes.  

    Parent
    Scary Stuff Indeed (none / 0) (#201)
    by Batocchio on Tue May 22, 2007 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    There's a world of difference between being, for example, a Christian working in the world of law who upholds the rule of law and being a theocrat who tries to substitute authoritarian religious doctrine (often at odds with the Bible, actually) for the rule of law.  There's nothing wrong with being religious.  But legal matters need to be decided according to the law.  Authoritarian conservatives aren't just trying to get their way on a specific issue, they're trying to destroy the entire system.

    fwiw (none / 0) (#216)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 22, 2007 at 02:20:40 PM EST
    Directly from the subversive horse's mouth:

    About the (Liberty University School of Law) Law School

    Liberty University School of Law is a law school committed to academic and professional excellence in the context of the Christian intellectual tradition.

    We are a law school where what is taught comports with history, objective reality, morality, and common sense.

    We seek to produce highly skilled practitioners of law who are capable of making positive contributions to their respective legal bars and communities.

    But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully. Timothy 1:8



    …CLAIRCISSEMENT (none / 0) (#252)
    by Sumner on Tue May 22, 2007 at 06:36:28 PM EST
    Note that the word "establishment" was used only in relation to the creation of a state religion.

    That is still an epexegesis. I do not dispute that the First Amendment proscribes an official state religion. Christopher Hitchens is loud and clear that he objected with all his might to paying support for an official state religion as a subject of Great Britain.

    But it means more than what Falwell claimed. And the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", part, makes clear as light that it means more than an official state religion, taxed or not.

    I contend that "establishment" goes far beyond simply a place, yes, such as a "pub" is thought of generally as a kind of an establishment, and that even Blue Laws are establishments of religion.

    Jeralyn's original characterization was "about the scariest article I have read..."

    These many laws that have been enacted for religion, in league with this Department of Justice's lies and crimes, would, already in some states, without benefit of my station or immunities, literally already subject me to tens-of-millions-of-years imprisonment.