Jonathan Falwell earned JD from William Howard Taft

Re: defending Nosborne

While I'm sure Nosborne is a great guy in person, I just don't agree with his position. 'Nuff said, let's move on.

 

Two other interesting things to note:

-The article mentions Jonathan Falwell's Taft J.D. to explain why it was referring to him as "Doctor".

-Jonathan Falwell chose NOT to go with Oak Brook. I wonder why? Is Virginia really strict on using unaccredited degrees?

 

He said he was misquoted and the video of the statements disappeared off the 700 Club's website.

He never apologized or offered to explain his statements.

 

Not trying to broaden this too much, but Mr. Falwell's other son, Jerry Jr., is a member of the VA bar, and represents the university and local developers (a story for another time) in court.

Any idea where he earned the degree?

 

Jerry Falwell Jr. attended the University of Virginia School of Law

 

I confess to a certain fascination with LU's law school. I glanced at their mission statement and was interested to see that the school claims the existence of a universal and transcendent law from, apparently, God. They claim to somehow teach American law in the context of this universal, and universally binding, natural law.

Their first year classes and textbooks appear to be absolutely standard (as they would have to be for accreditation) with the exception of what I would call a course in Jurisprudence under the Natural Law theory.

Now, natural law is only one of the two great jurisprudential theories, the other being positivism which is nowhere mentioned in the course description. I wonder how they propose to do this? And WHY?

Positivism does not mean Godless, nor does Natural Law necessarily derive from a Creator.

I'd LOVE to teach that course.

No word on accreditation yet but I can't imagine that the ABA would withhold provisional approval. The LU effort is well funded and being run by experts in the field of legal education. I still think LU will be a minor bargain amongst private law schools.

 

Fallwell has made numerous anti-gay statements - not just statements which are biblically based, but placing blame on gay people for natural disasters and 9/11. If that's not hate speech, what is? Do you see any liberals placing blame on Fallwell's statements as cause of atrocities?

Daniel

 

I'm finished debating this (as made clear in my previous post).

 

Too bad. I'm not.

You know, AV8R, if you're gonna' come in here like a reckless right-winged bull in a china shop and accuse liberals of not understanding the difference between hate speech and free speech (or, worse, not recognizing when they're one-in-the-same); and,

when you wrongly accuse liberals of the egregious double-standard of calling otherwise identical speech one despicable thing when uttered by a conservative, and something else somehow more noble by its merely having been uttered by a liberal; and,

when you cite as evidence thereof the ill-conceived remarks of Professor Ward Churchill and his regrettable "little Eichman" comparison with which most liberals don't even agree, by the way, but which any good citizen -- liberal or conservative -- should agree it is, nevertheless, his First Amendment (and, therefore, his so-called "free speech") right to be so stupid; and,

when you intentionally confuse a liberal's belief in a man's First Amendment (free speech) right to utter something no matter how wrong-headed, and whether or not that same (or any other) liberal happens to agree therewith (two decidedly different issues, by the way... which simpletons like you just can't seem to stop trying to make into one); and,

when you stand by your words over and over again, even when the fallacy of them has been reasonably pointed-out to you many times; and,

when you drive-home your point with flip, shot-from-the-hip, arrogant, dismissive remarks like "ame ol' liberal double-standard...nothing new here," and "[p]lease, spare me," and you punctuate with the rolled-eyes smiley...

...then I'm not sure you're the one who gets to declare "'nuff said" and/or "let's move on."

Someone as reckless and intentionally misleading as that should expect to have to stay put and be summarily pasted by a liberal like me who doesn't happen to appreciate your intentional, irresponsible, ignorant and pig-headed characterization of me and those of like mind who actually bother to understand every last one of the subtleties of speech and rhetoric about which you complain (and who don't intentionally misrepresent them, as you're doing); and, moreover, who see for what they are your attempts to call it something it's clearly not as you dismiss all liberals in a few Reaganesque "there you go again"-like syllables tossed about with abandon.

You can disagree with Nosborne -- or me... or anyone else here, for that matter -- all you want. And you can say so here to your heart's content (which would be, by the way, your right to free speech... something I only point out to you because it's obvious that you can't easily recognize it even when walks up and bites you on your smug nose). But don't come in here and lie like the disingenuous, ultra-right-winged, sanctimonious "conservative" (of the type that I believe even Ronald Reagan would no longer recognize were he here to see it) that you clearly are, and not expect to be taken to task for it; or to have your wongly-perceived "right" to thwart same by being dismissive with a wink and a nod and a suggestion -- now that you've gotten your last licks in -- that it's finally time to "move on."

What, as Janko calls them, the "sacrament-denying, politics-addicted, law-and-gospel confusing heretics" Falwell and Robertson thoughtlessly spewed from their mean-spirited mouths was bona fide hate speech -- which, again, I point out to you only because you clearly can't easily recognize it... that is, of course, unless it's almost anything uttered by a liberal, apparently.

As it turns out, hate-mongering though it was, it was also Falwell and Robertson's free speech right to say it, howsoever evil and ignorant it revealed them to be; and howsoever those same things it also reveals you to be for characterizing such godawful rhetoric as, merely, "a conservative expressing his or her views on something."

I am offended -- almost beyond my ability to adequately articulate it -- by your recklessness, intentional misrepresentation, and arrogant dismissiveness of anyone who dares to take issue therewith, AV8R. Shame on you!

Hate speech is what it is. Res ipsa loquitur. As it happens, such is nearly always also free speech, no matter how repugnant those listening may find it. Our having to tolerate it, even as we grit our collective teeth and shake our heads in disbelief while it's uttered, goes to the very heart of our particular form of democracy, flawed though it may or may not be. Wrong-headed, right-winged fascists like you love to confuse the issue and to accuse liberals of the very things that go to the very heart of being a member of today's misguided, intolerant, judgemental, behavior-prescribing, liberty-depriving political Right.

Liberals, believe me, know the differences... all of them! Stop trying to make it sound like we don't in a classic right-winged attempt to mislead as many who aren't paying sufficiently close attention as you possibly can by just plain lying.

 

playing nice

Nosborne, AV8R, um, yeah, I'm happy if you're happy.
SPLAT!
Hey, copii, quit throwing the mamaliga! This ain't bomb practice.



Kids' parties are worse than wedding receptions. Nobody tells you about this in seminary. La dracu.

 

Re: playing nice

Look at the bright side: At least there's no clown.

Or piñata.

 

AV8R -

"Speach" is spelled S-P-E-E-C-H.

 

Gosh! What's the difference between a pagan and a heathen? I used to know the difference, I think. But I'm getting forgetful in my old age.

 

If true that would simply make him a hypocrite, wouldn't it? Seems (as I remember my fundamentalist upbringing) Jesus and Paul had a lot to say about hypocrites.

Regards,

GE

 

Gregg, I hope you're right. That big thing on wheels over there? It's a Trojan zebra.

 

Uh, oh. Wait for it!

(Sorry, readers, for the inside joking. Just ignore us.)

 

Indeed! My thought, exactly. If true (that there are two faces), I hardly see how that mitigates anything. Plus, what does it say when the nice one is the private one? Ugh.

 

Gosh, Unc! Who or what is a Trojan zebra? How does one tell a Trojan zebra from a Greek zebra or any other kind of zebra?

 

Or was the intended distinction as between a Trojan zebra and a Rough Rider zebra?

 

Or a Trojan zebra and a Bruin zebra?