Jerry Falwell's Law school

[Avatar4321]

I figured this is an appropriate first post from me on the legal forum. I don't know if anyone is aware of it, but Jerry Falwell has started a law school for Evangelical Christians. I bring it up because I hear that the school is up for Accreditation this week. Mainly because my Contracts Professor is on the board that is going to see if the school can be accredited. So does anyone have any comments on this? Im not exactly the biggest fan of Jerry so I am curious how this school will turn out.

 

[dilloduck]

I figured this is an appropriate first post from me on the legal forum. I don't know if anyone is aware of it, but Jerry Falwell has started a law school for Evangelical Christians. I bring it up because I hear that the school is up for Accreditation this week. Mainly because my Contracts Professor is on the board that is going to see if the school can be accredited. So does anyone have any comments on this? Im not exactly the biggest fan of Jerry so I am curious how this school will turn out.

I haven't heard of it but if we gotta have lawyers we may as well at least have some conservative ones out there.

 

[IControlThePast]

I don't think the legal opinion of "thou shalt not judge" will hold too much weight in court . Good luck to him if he can create some more lawyers. I won't have a problem unless they are trying to work for or sue me.

 

[Bonnie]

I figured this is an appropriate first post from me on the legal forum. I don't know if anyone is aware of it, but Jerry Falwell has started a law school for Evangelical Christians. I bring it up because I hear that the school is up for Accreditation this week. Mainly because my Contracts Professor is on the board that is going to see if the school can be accredited. So does anyone have any comments on this? Im not exactly the biggest fan of Jerry so I am curious how this school will turn out.

I think his school will join the ranks of ACLJ (Jay Sekulow's) organization as well as others. We could certainly use more Christians in the law field, hopefully to bring morality to their work. Besides the more lawyers we have to fight the ACLU the better to even the score.

 

[Merlin1047]

I figured this is an appropriate first post from me on the legal forum. I don't know if anyone is aware of it, but Jerry Falwell has started a law school for Evangelical Christians. I bring it up because I hear that the school is up for Accreditation this week. Mainly because my Contracts Professor is on the board that is going to see if the school can be accredited. So does anyone have any comments on this? Im not exactly the biggest fan of Jerry so I am curious how this school will turn out.

I'm rather curious as to how one reconciles the antithecal characteristics of the two. How can there be such a thing as a Christian law school? Simply contemplating the thought is enough to bring on a bout of schizophrenia in most folks.

How can a man who purports to respresent the teachings of Jesus Christ on the one hand, sponsor a school for legalized liars on the other?

 

[Bonnie]

I'm rather curious as to how one reconciles the antithecal characteristics of the two. How can there be such a thing as a Christian law school? Simply contemplating the thought is enough to bring on a bout of schizophrenia in most folks.



How can a man who purports to respresent the teachings of Jesus Christ on the one hand, sponsor a school for legalized liars on the other?

I suppose because Jesus was a just man who believed in having principals and ethics. You can apply that when defending someone simply because by law everyone is entitled to due process, it's not the lawyers who are supposed to judge one but only their job to present facts and let a person's peers decide. I would think having more ethical lawyers out there would alleviate some of the granstanding??

 

[Merlin1047]

I suppose because Jesus was a just man who believed in having principals and ethics. You can apply that when defending someone simply because by law everyone is entitled to due process, it's not the lawyers who are supposed to judge one but only their job to present facts and let a person's peers decide. I would think having more ethical lawyers out there would alleviate some of the granstanding??

Sorry, can't buy that line of reasoning. Any lawyer who defends a client who the lawyer KNOWS is guilty cannot do so with any semblance of ethics or morals. Johnny Cockroach is the posterchild for that.

And what we are calling "due process" these days is anything but. Due process, as practiced today, means lying, cheating, blocking the presentation of evidence, villifying the victim and generally attempting to fool a jury. We no longer have trials, we have sideshows where guilty organ grinders are defended by their pet monkeys.

 

[no1tovote4]

Sorry, can't buy that line of reasoning. Any lawyer who defends a client who the lawyer KNOWS is guilty cannot do so with any semblance of ethics or morals. Johnny Cockroach is the posterchild for that.

And what we are calling "due process" these days is anything but. Due process, as practiced today, means lying, cheating, blocking the presentation of evidence, villifying the victim and generally attempting to fool a jury. We no longer have trials, we have sideshows where guilty organ grinders are defended by their pet monkeys.

What if you were appointed to defend the person? Even knowing they were guilty doesn't change the fact you must do you best for the person, legal ethics are often different than personal ethics and sometimes they are directly opposite.

 

[NATO AIR]

The lawyers could pursue matters of social justice, i.e. pro bono work, along with potentially lucrative lawsuits against schools, businesses and others who violate the religious rights of Christians. There's that much discrimination going on.

 

[Mr. P]

Come on folks. If you think for one second a Lawyer from a "Christian" law school will
save the world, or be better than all the rest, you're very mistaken. Every lawyer is bound by the same restrictions, the Law, legal procedure and yes legal ethics. Makes no difference what school they go to.

 

[Merlin1047]

What if you were appointed to defend the person?

Perhaps that's one of the reasons for the fact that although I'm interested in the justice field, I have never been able to develop an interest in becoming a lawyer. If I were ever to enter the legal field, I'd damn sure be a prosecutor.

Even knowing they were guilty doesn't change the fact you must do your best for the person,. . .

Doing one's best doesn't mean that you have a license to intentionally obscure the truth through chicanery, trickery, half-truths, gross exaggerations. Yes, I know that flies in the face of legal cannon. But in my mind, that condemns shysters all the more.

legal ethics are often different than personal ethics and sometimes they are directly opposite.

LOL - well, you sure said a mouthful there! ! ! Sending someone out to find legal ethics is the equivalent of a snipe hunt in a courthouse.

 

[Mr. P]

...
Doing one's best doesn't mean that you have a license to intentionally obscure the truth through chicanery, trickery, half-truths, gross exaggerations.

Yes it does Merlin..these are all methods used to force the Prosecutor to prove their case. That's what it's all about..The prosecution MUST prove guilt.

*I do understand what you're saying, it is frustrating*

 

[Merlin1047]

Yes it does Merlin..these are all methods used to force the Prosecutor to prove their case. That's what it's all about..The prosecution MUST prove guilt.

*I do understand what you're saying, it is frustrating*

Ahem - you only going to use the part of my statement that you like? I admitted that this kind of action was in fact flatly authorized by the code of conduct (ha) that governs shyster activities.

As far as I'm concerned, that's what makes the profession reprehensible - when its own governing body freely admits that defense attornies are expected to be liars, cheats and whores if that's what it takes to protect a guilty client, while the prosecution is bound by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. How damn ridiculous is that? Seems to me that society should at least be on a level playing field with accused criminals. How can you justify unbridled defense shyster trickery on the one hand while demanding that policies like the "fruits of the poisonous tree" be adhered to on the other? How can anyone claim that defense lawyers can do any underhanded thing they want while prosecutors are bound by strict laws and procedures? Here's all I want - even the scales. If defense attornies can resort to lies and dirty tricks, then that should be fair game for the prosecution too.

I view prosecuting attornies as representing me and the rest of society. I see them handicapped by strict and often ridiculous rules which hamper the prosecution of obviously guilty scumbags. All I want is that the same set of rules apply to both sides. I don't want my guy going in with one arm tied behind his back.

 

[dilloduck]

Come on folks. If you think for one second a Lawyer from a "Christian" law school will
save the world, or be better than all the rest, you're very mistaken. Every lawyer is bound by the same restrictions, the Law, legal procedure and yes legal ethics. Makes no difference what school they go to.

So are judges---so what's the problem with the Senate being allowed to vote on them ?

 

[Mr. P]

Ahem - you only going to use the part of my statement that you like? I admitted that this kind of action was in fact flatly authorized by the code of conduct (ha) that governs shyster activities.

As far as I'm concerned, that's what makes the profession reprehensible - when its own governing body freely admits that defense attornies are expected to be liars, cheats and whores if that's what it takes to protect a guilty client, while the prosecution is bound by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. How damn ridiculous is that? Seems to me that society should at least be on a level playing field with accused criminals. How can you justify unbridled defense shyster trickery on the one hand while demanding that policies like the "fruits of the poisonous tree" be adhered to on the other? How can anyone claim that defense lawyers can do any underhanded thing they want while prosecutors are bound by strict laws and procedures? Here's all I want - even the scales. If defense attornies can resort to lies and dirty tricks, then that should be fair game for the prosecution too.

I view prosecuting attornies as representing me and the rest of society. I see them handicapped by strict and often ridiculous rules which hamper the prosecution of obviously guilty scumbags. All I want is that the same set of rules apply to both sides. I don't want my guy going in with one arm tied behind his back.

No Merlin, I addressed the part of your post I meant to address, nothing more.
It had nothing to do with liking it.
No one has their arm tied behind their back..both Prosecution and defense are held to the same procedure and both are accountable to the court for misconduct...What you are calling lies etc are defense tactics.The BURDEN of proof however does fall on the prosecution, I know this is a hard pill for many to swallow.
That's the way it is. Would you rather see the defense walk in and say, "this guy is guilty as hell!" Pray you never do, cuz if that happens there will never be a fair trial. Innocent until PROVEN guilty...ring any bell?

 

[Merlin1047]

What you are calling lies etc are defense tactics.

Lordy, I could have fun with that statement! ! ! But no point in kicking this horse any more. Obviously I can't get you away from the dark side, Lord Vader.

Besides, I have to go to the bathroom and make a lawyer. But don't get excited. I'm gonna flush this bastard before he has the chance to climb out of the bowl.

:teeth: :teeth:

 

[Mr. P]

Lordy, I could have fun with that statement! ! ! But no point in kicking this horse any more. Obviously I can't get you away from the dark side, Lord Vader.

Besides, I have to go to the bathroom and make a lawyer. But don't get excited. I'm gonna flush this bastard before he has the chance to climb out of the bowl.

:teeth: :teeth:

I bet that bugger will really stink too.
Just be sure an get his number before ya flush, cuz if yer ever
a defendant in a criminal case, you'll want the stinkyest one on your side you can get.

 

[dilloduck]

So are judges---so what's the problem with the Senate being allowed to vote on them ?

bump

 

[William Joyce]

We could certainly use more Christians in the law field, hopefully to bring morality to their work.

Bonnie, I have a lot of faith in the Lord. But I personally don't think even He has that much power!

 

[007]

So one must ask... "are there more GODLESS lawyers and than CHRISTIAN"? I think that's a fair question.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with a Christian lawyer. As a matter of fact, if I ever needed the help of an attorney, I'd surely prefer one that WAS a Christian.

In this day and age of present course, where the new direction seems to be "anything Christian is bad", I like the idea of ANYTHING new that is affiliated with Christianity, even a lawyer.

The devil is diligently at work, and has been for quite some time. A measure against him is welcome, in any form.