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.

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.

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

"training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Muslim worldview"

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.

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

"training a new generation of lawyers, judges, educators, policymakers and world leaders in law from the perspective of an explicitly Christian worldview."

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

  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.

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

 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.

  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?

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!

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.

  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.

  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.

 I could go on and on.......

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.

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

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..."