Jonathan Falwell earned JD from William Howard Taft

I finally got around to reading the June/July National Liberty Journal. Jonathan's William Howard Taft JD caught my eye. Jonathan Falwell seems to be Jerry's heir apparent both as senior pastor at Thomas Road Baptist Church and as Chancellor of Liberty University.

http://www.ctlibrary.com/572

 

Interesting! Well, no one ever said they were DUMB, just hate filled.

The Taft J.D., until recently, was ALWAYS a Bar qualifying degree. I wonder if Falwell the Younger attempted the California Bar? He certainly must have passed the Baby Bar.

 

Nosborne,

I'm curious. Why do say they are hate filled?

 

Wasn't Jerry Falwell one of those Christian luminaries that claimed the 9/11 atttacks expressed God's displeasure with the immorality of the U.S.? Gay rights, mostly?

 

I think that it was Pat Robertson

I seem to remember the Rev. Pat Robertson being at the center of that controversy. I'm not sure of Rev. Jerry Falwell's role in or view of that unfortunate (and quite distasteful) commentary by a senior Evangelical Christian leader.

 

If my memory is wrong, I will be glad to withdraw my statement.

I searched the CalBar site for Jonathan Falwell; he has never been assigned a California Bar number. That means either he:

-graduated with Taft's brand new executive "J.D." (sorry Mr. Boyd, but I just CAN'T accept this concept);

-graduated with Taft's Bar qualifying J.D. but decided not to take the Bar (yet); or

-failed (which doesn't preclude a retake)

Failing the California Bar Exam is not a mark of shame. It's one of the two hardest in the country.

 

The article Charles posted looks very old. For example, it mentions that Thomas Road Baptist Church has been around for 40 years. But the church was established in 1956. So this would suggest that the article is from around 1996.

 

I don't know what his bar status is, but he only graduated in May. Would results even be available yet, if he did attempt the bar exam? When do law students get their first crack at the bar exam? Before or after they graduate?

This is the link I meant to post with my first post.

http://www.nljonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=52

I think it's pretty neat that the possible future chancellor of a pretty large university has a DL JD.

 

Oxpecker,

You are correct. I did not even intend to cite that article. The correct article is the one from the June/July National Liberty Journal, which is cited in the post above. I neglected to post the proper link on my first post.

 

If he graduated in May 2005, he'd take the July exam, maybe this week or next? assuming that he took a Bar qualifying degree.

Since LU is establishing a law school, I'd hazard a guess that he went the Bar route since a non ABA degree without Bar membership carries no weight in the legal academy but Bar membership itself DOES.

If that's the case, I wish him well!

 

Because in Nosborne's mind (and in the minds of liberals in general) a conservative expressing his or her views on something is considered to be "hate speach." Now, when a liberal does the same it is considered "free speach." Same ol' liberal double-standard...nothing new here.

 

Here's the lowdown from snopes.com.

During
a September 13 appearance by Jerry Falwell on the Christian Broadcasting Network's TV program "700 Club," hosted by Pat Robertson, the following exchange occurred:


"ERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system. "

The story was covered in the next day's Washington Post, and a partial transcript of the broadcast was published on the web site of People for the American Way.

In a disingenuous attempt to put a good face on this one, Pat Robertson and CBN subsequently issued a press release in which they maintained that the whole thing was Jerry Falwell's fault, claimed that they didn't understand what he was saying, and blamed People for the American Way for "taking statements out of context and spinning them to the press for their own political ends." (If Mr. Robertson truly didn't understand Mr. Falwell's remarks, one has to wonder why he responded to them by saying "I concur totally" and then elaborating on the remarks he supposedly hadn't understood.)

Falwell attempted to quell the furor he caused by issuing a series of increasingly insincere "I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm really sorry people are mad at me" apologies. <<

Gee, he got the pagans in there but not the heatherns. I feel so negelected.

 

Av8R,

I am by no means a liberal or a conservative, but when someone blames something on someone/a group of individuals that has nothing to do the referenced incident, it is generally considered "slander." I'm sure Dr. Douglas could reference the correct logical fallacy, but I don't have the latin term on the tip of my tongue right now.

Fallwell is well known for his off-color comments, and despite what you think of him, and what your religious/political/ orientation may be, you have to recognize the fallacy in his statements.

 

I see no reason to defend my original statement. Many of the things that liberals portray as hate speach by conservatives are defended as free speach by liberals. Case in point is that looney professor (whatever his name is) that compared the victims of 9/11 to "Little Eichmans." Personally, I find his statements to be down right repugnant; however, there are many liberals who are trying to defend this moron in the name of "free speach." Please, spare me.

 

I think (not sure) that the latin phrase you're searching for is

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

(After, therefore because of)

 

Consider, please, what this kind of thinking implies:

God is punishing (killing) Americans at random in large batches because He is displeased with the activities and beliefs of some identifiable subset of the population.

How then is God to be placated? One of two ways:

-get the target subset to change their ways, or if they refuse to reform,

-remove them from our midst.

If God is willing to kill Americans to show His displeasure with us for tolerating these people, it follows as does the night the day that these people have themselves forfeited their right to live. Indeed, the population is actually COMPELLED to rid society of these God hated individuals as a matter of self preservation!

There is nothing to choose between this hate speech and Nazism. This is the EXACT reasoning employed by that terrifying regime.

Now, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT calling Falwell a Nazi!! I do suggest, though, that he hadn't considered the actual MEANING of the words he used.

I ALSO seem to recall that Falwell retracted all or part of these statements.

 

But I'll bet he still says them inside his living room.

 

I don't know. Something about the man makes me think that there's a "public" persona and a "private" persona and that the private Falwell is more thoughtful and reflective than the public face he wears.

Don't know why I think so, though.

 

defending Nosborne

As a Christian sufficently conservative to consider the Falwells, Robertson, et ceteri et ad nauseam, a bunch of liberal, sacrament-denying, politics-addicted, law-and-gospel confusing heretics, I absolutely protest the slam against my esteemed colleague Nosborne. He has never considered or called anything I've said "hate speech." While I absolutely agree with the characterisation of the loathsome Dr Churchill and his ideological kindred, the statement about our Nosborne is simply wrong.

 

Uncle,

So I'm a fool to think Falwell might have an inner life?