The volume is very low, we have enhanced the audio track only here:
You heard correctly. Among other things, Lafferty, alongside Matt Barber, is actually trying to claim that ENDA will allow hypothetical VA employees with acrotomophilia to freely molest returning amputee veterans.
This clip is from an event called “The Awakening” sponsored by the Freedom Federation and held at Liberty University this past weekend. Matt Barber, listed as Associate Dean for Career and Professional Development at Liberty, is seated next to Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition. This particular breakout session, labeled “LGBT Agenda” was held at Liberty University School of Law and it’s dean, Matt Staver, is heavily involved.
In what appears to be the same “ends justifies the means” free-for-all that took place prior to the recent passing of the long debated hate crimes bill, no lie is too absurd to be told in an effort to prevent passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). All the better if it is told in the most egregious way as to elicit an emotional response of disgust.
There is no reason to yet again go into the explanation of how ENDA does not cover paraphilias. The question I would like to ask of all current and future Liberty University students is, how much more of this will you tolerate? Do you really want your education to be forever tainted by Liberty’s sponsorship of such awful things? Their employment of malcontented opportunists like Matt Barber? Are there no legitimate apologists left for your views?
If someone has a genuine argument against the bill, one grounded in facts that can be debated in a civil way, go for it. That’s the process. But resorting to deception under the banner of faith, how much lower can they go? How low will you let them go?
Well, what did you expect from a movement who’s under the delusion that they’re exempt from the commandment about bearing false witness against a neighbor?
“The opposite of heterosexuality is asexuality.” The lengths that some people will go to in order to make their prejudice make sense is astonishing to me. Before I embraced my sexuality I was a student and graduated from Liberty with an undergrad. I am calling them tomorrow and telling them to take me off their mailing lists and phone lists. I do not want my name associated with such bigotry and ignorance. They ought to have their accreditation revoked.
Hi Marlene…
And apparently they want to be exempt from treating another as they want to be treated.
I’ve had exchanges with Brian Brown of NOM on that very thing. I told him that it’s nearly universal to most influential cultures and a commandment of the very Christ he claims to follow.
Why?
Because empathy is the most basic guide for the most ethical and morally correct decisions and actions we will take in our lives.
And understanding of this duty, requires to think, think, think…without ulterior motives but the comforts of the other. To think about the consequences not of that other’s actions, but if your own prompted something devastating to THEM and if theirs is a REACTION.
I remarked about the legacy of equality and justice, these are moral values that have stood the test of time, and engaged us all in our better selves.
Brian Brown, nor the likes of ANY of these folks would have that much of a conversation.
Indeed, they acted insulted that I, a supporter of gay people, would dare to say anything about Christianity.
As if I was unworthy to mention anything about it to them.
Wow.
I kid you not.
I wasn’t trying to talk about religion, per se. But those things that comfort and make us brave, like equality.
And, in these universities and institutions, gay people are not knowingly welcome to share, refute or give evidence of their lives. Gay people, for Matt Barber and so on, should remain separate from the very people and laws that directly affect them..
After all, integration and close contact would lay waste to these claims. Would be evidence that gay people are not what they Barber and Lafferty say they are.
The difference between us allies, is that we listen and learned from gay people, NOT the TVC and so on.
We give courtesy to whose life it is as one should to anyone.
Matt Barber might as well be talking about giving birth, he is no more expert about gay people than he is on having a child.
He’d be insulted if non Christian, anti Christians were influencing how people felt about Christians, and even with a bloody history and considerable devastation to all manner of lives, Christianity is given a place of protection in our nation’s laws.
And even THAT doesn’t satisfy.
So why to the people of Liberty U, listen to non gay, anti gay people for ALL their information about gay people?
This deserves challenge and dismissal, if not ridicule.
These are people who are not hard to argue down, if they included the appropriate people in the forums.
Mind boggling actually just how narrow and willfully stupid these people can be.
I argued with a fellow from Liberty U who was going on a tear about HIV/AIDS and quoting some pretty outrageous statistics that didn’t even seem humanly possible, but in front of a panel similar to this (he was part of several people from different organizations), I said that mankind has ALWAYS had a fatal STD.
Before it was syphilis. People suffered with it for centuries, but thankfully, courageous and committed medical pros found a cure in our lifetime.
Why didn’t he pray that the same happens with HIV/AIDS?
Did he help fund the research and medical involvement that is trying to? Or did he protest that public funding went towards that means?
Then he started to go on about how gay sex (mainly between men) cause (gay bowel syndrome) blah, blah, blah…
I countered with how childbearing has maimed, deformed and killed women since mankind began. It’s normal to bear children, but for some WOMEN, we could argue that until the most recent century in industrialized countries, it’s still a serious health issue. And in Third World countries, still a mortal problem. The difference only being between adequate education, contraception, medical facilities and someone who cared enough about women’s health that this was widely available.
That’s true for EVERYONE, gay or not. Had someone cared about gay and lesbian health and welfare, perhaps the HIV/AIDS plague wouldn’t have reached the proportions that it did.
Oh he HATED me for saying stuff like that. His face got red and he got hostile and dismissive of me.
Either disqualified from the discussion, or when in it, not welcome to speak such unadulterated and irrefutable truth.
It’s so dumb to even have to say it, really. Why do hetero folks want to be THIS deceived?
And then go around accusing gay folks of being deceptive.
There are’nt enough shovels to get to the bottom of this crap heap, that’s for sure.
Hello, American Bar Association?
Is there anything you can do to hold accountable attorneys and or law schools that deliberately mislead about the law (and proposed legislation)?
This is the second conference in within a period of a few months held by the same Law School (and affiliated attorneys).
Excellent Christine!
Tom said, “They ought to have their accreditation revoked.”
Actually, according to their website, Liberty only has provisional approval, which means that they aren’t quite accredited. They’re in the process of accreditation. Provisional approval is applied to schools who have a three year plan for bringing their programs up to at least minimal standards to qualify for full accreditation. If they fail to meet the minimal standards, accreditation can be refused.
Liberty received provisional approval in 2006, so barring any extensions, they should be either fully accredited very soon, or be refused altogether. I would hope that activities such as the above would work against them, but you never can tell. It’ll be interesting to watch and see what happens.
I wouldn’t trust a graduate from Liberty’s Law “School” as equally as I wouldn’t trust someone from Ave Maria, Regent or any of the other diploma mills claiming to to be a “law school”.
Unfortunately, I think even secular schools are kowtowing to homophobes. I teach at a large Northeastern University and recently proposed a course entitled “Queer Eye for the Jesus Guy”, which seeks to explore the experiences of oppression that LGBT and mentally ill people face within the evangelical movement, and to a lesser degree, Christianity as a whole. The course was passed over for a far worse proposal of mine, because it was deemed too controversial.
Liberty’s a joke, always has been. I think on campuses like Wheaton, Messiah, Calvin College, and Baylor, evangelical kids are starting to see through all this b.s. and coming to a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between faith and sexuality. The problem is, these kids get shut down whenever they try to speak. When I came out in favor of gay rights at my university, I was expelled. So much for the right’s much vaunted principles of academic freedom.
Bearance,
I could be wrong, but I think that the provisional accrediation only refers to their law school, not the school as a whole, which I believe is fully accredited. But correct me if I’m wrong.
John
Tom, now I’m worried about your credentials and degree from LU if it’s got limited provisions.
LU and those who share their beliefs and so on, are the first to protest what they call “San Franciso values” if any more liberal colleges have courses on pornography or what they consider questionable sex ed courses (which tend to simply incorporate homosexuality as a sexual norm).
It is to laugh at the double standards when looking at this panel. At least if a school like Berkeley IS learning about pornography and it’s impact on women, the sociological implications and political/legal ones such as in the case of the people vs. Larry Flynt then at least they are dealing with facts and the progression and changes in access to porn.
This LU panel is dealing in deception and propaganda to inflame and influence political action AGAINST gay people exclusively. The behaviors discussed here, however are not exclusive to gay people.
They ARE paraphilias, NOT an orientation so they aren’t teaching anything factual here about the psychological issues around paraphilias, but are focused solely on anti gay teaching.
Does LU examine how other colleges teach about a religion like Christianity without the purpose being glorification, but the serious NEGATIVE impact it’s had on non Christian cultures. And if the class was on the context of how Christianity influenced slavery, the decimation of Native peoples and so on (however factual and accurate), would the people of LU launch a protest and call the school into question for teaching anti Christian courses?
Teaching such courses wouldn’t in any way change the Constitutional protections for religious freedom, and at the same time however, LU has engaged the political process to deny gay people equality, LYING and deceiving every step of the way to do it.
If any college courses were engaged in lying and deceiving around the lives of straight people or Christians, believe it that Matt Barber would say so. He says something even when it ISN’T going on, he just hates when Christianity isn’t glorified or allowed into each and every aspect of what people are doing no matter what beliefs THEY have.
I never went to full spectrum courses here in CA that had unusual courses or panels. I went into a crime analysis and forensics program.
So when I see things like this, and look at the tenor of the discussion and so on, it is interesting to note no one is annoyed or upset in THEIR environment.
But as I said, if this had been done at a liberal college, these same people would make something out of it.
Hi John, my degree was an undergrad degree in Religion which was fully accredited (it was only the last thirty credits of my degree and it was online so I didn’t have to deal with them in person). I’m almost done with my masters in psychology from another school, so then I won’t have to worry about the name thing as much. Liberty and the whole religious right are a bunch of winers. They scream discrimination when we tell them they can’t discriminate. It makes no sense. But really it comes from their attempt to “dialogue with the world.” Back several decades ago they figured out that if they were going to influence the world “for Christ” they were going to have to start meeting nonChristian people on their own terms which meant being educated and the like. Unfortunately they only engage the data that is part of true scholarship until it contradicts their theology and it is then that they fall back on the “The Bible tells me so” fundamentalist line. In other words, they’re not interested in scholarship to advance knowledge, no matter what the research turns up, they are committed to advancing their religious agenda and if they have to they will come up with the wierdest explanations for things and lie to themselves to make the data fit their worldview. I feel sorry for them as I used to be one of them.
There is a Christian club on the campus of Hastings Law university that will have it’s charter pulled. THEY are suing the university because they want to continue to exclude gays and atheists.
The UC system receives public funding, so the club, under the school’s brand, is ALSO supported by public funds.
And the college has a non discrimination policy when doing so.
I’m sure, however, that the ADF will report this as discrimination against Christians, rather than the club breaching established policy requirement for public funds.
This is played out over the other litigation that involves Christians and public access or money that’s made the news and is repeated by people like Matt Barber to Maggie Gallagher.
One might wonder if the ADF ever counsels their clients on what breach of policy and public access means.
That benefits come with responsibilities and therefore, claiming discrimination BECAUSE one can’t discriminate is one of those chronicling mind boggling complaints we’re seeing more often.
No one is saying that any of these Christians can’t express their religious belief, and that they can’t discriminate.
They just can’t do it with money everyone puts in to have access to the same service or association.
Let them pay on their own, use their own brand and put up a sign that warns that a Christian owns the business and that business better BE CONSISTENT in all the OTHER forms of discrimination dictated by their religion.
It’s this lack of consistency, inability to stick to a contract, or understanding what free speech and association’s responsibilities are that make trouble.
It’s not the gay folks that do, but hey, gay folks are SO much easier to blame.
When I was growing up, my family occasionally attended synagogue.
My best friend was a Jewish girl my age and eventually I went more often with her family. I enjoyed temple, LOVED the cantors and consider my dual religious education a blessing.
I would think that WELCOMING atheists and non Christians and so on, would be and important opportunity for alliance, if not all the members adhering to the SAME beliefs.
After all, a friendly and integrated social gathering is better than staying apart and sniping at each other.
A thing that poses RISKS, for obvious reasons.
But I think the sole purpose of excluding gays and atheists lies in seeing the panel in this video.
Because spreading fear, misinformation and distrust is easier when your target isn’t around to dispute you.
What I find highly disturbing is what I think I mentioned before.
Is NO ONE CURIOUS about how gay people REALLY live?
How atheists REALLY feel?
That a moral center is derived from how you TREAT people, rather than how badly you TALK about them?
Isn’t experience superior to gossip? Which is essentially what Barber and Lafferty are engaging in. Vicious gossip.
My parents taught me and the sibs to use our brains by expanding our curiosity and indulging it in a healthy way.
Such as attending ALL KINDS of religious ceremonies so that little was strange to us.
And so we wouldn’t point and giggle.
Nothing would have mortified the adult units than to have their children embarrass them the way Barber and Lafferty should be embarrassed, or perhaps WILL ultimately embarrass their children.
Dad…you said WHAT about gay men doin’ it?! At CHURCH?!
Yep, got it on tape kid, some people are over confident in their lack of curiosity so much that recordings are out there.
Think what just happened to Mike Huckabee and his upbraiding of the college newsreporter, who had Huckabee dead to rights.
If I’d attended college I might have driven people like Barber nuts with my questions.
He’s not the type that can handle questions. He certainly isn’t ASKING gay people anything.
Such a lack of curiosity in a college setting…now that’s truly messed up.
Ooops, I mean if I’d attended college as a young adult. I went much, MUCH later in life.
And I had a BLAST!
Regan, re Hastings Christian Law Club suit:
I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR when they talked about the suit, the the group was an official group which held true to the school’s charter. But when they affiliated themselves with the *national* organization did they veer off the tracks and onto the bigotry spur.
Their mealy-mouthed lawyer from Stanford gave the usual banalities of “freedom of association” and claimed because it’s a religious group it’s exempt from all laws regarding discrimination.
As is usual from the reicht, *they’re* the ones demanding the *special* right to be able to discriminate against everyone Not Like Them!
As a reader, you may not agree with the Christian’s viewpoints and interpretations, but by being so inflamatory and personal, you make them look like the persecuted ones. Don’t you have anything better to do that to slam others you don’t agree with?
Are you serious? Listen to the audio above and tell me who is being inflammatory and personal. Matt Barber, Matt Staver, et al, are paid to slam those they disagree with. You will have to excuse a few of us for pointing out the absurdity of their arguments. And please, tell me what is Christian about any of what they are saying? One can believe in the interpretation of homosexual conduct as sin and still not devolve into such depths of hate. Don’t dump that crap in God’s lap.
lawyer,
First, as a lawyer I’m sure you know that there are “viewpoints and interpretations” and there are flat lies. It may be a viewpoint that the opposing party is selfish or cruel, but we can’t just make false statements of fact about them.
Wouldn’t you agree?
And, sadly, the things said in this seminar are not viewpoints or interpretations. They are lies. And worse, they are lies told in the name of Christ.
Perhaps I’m old-fashioned. But I was raise to believe that God doesn’t call us to lie on his behalf. In fact, I think that is an oxymoron. To lie, one follows the Father of Lies.
Don’t you agree that arguments should stand on their own merits? That Christ doesn’t need liars?
As for “making them look like the persecuted ones”… I don’t think so. Perhaps at first, but once people know that their words are not true then Staver and Barber and Lafferty no longer look mistreated.
I pray that they put their love for God above their love for culture war or political activism and stop the campaign of lies and deception and dominionism.
Hi lawyer,
I think it would be wise to look at the responses to your post.
We’ve got enough RECENT history just in this country to understand to what extent those Christian “viewpoints and interpretations” have been committed to support systemic bigotry and discrimination.
What is being asserted on this panel has nothing to do with the Bible. It certainly isn’t a purist version of what the Bible says.
And this IS lying. Outright deception and distortion of the law protecting the civil rights of gay people.
And regardless of what interpretation an INDIVIDUAL has for their Christianity, it cannot and should not compromise the ability for gay people to be SELF RELIANT, independent and enabled in full potential to do what’s expected of every citizen. Our civil laws should not be restricting any citizen FROM doing the RIGHT things. Which IS competence in work, commitment to children and responsibility to community.
In fact, this LU panel is using deception and most of all CONJECTURE precisely to attack the civil rights and protection of gay people, EXCLUSIVELY.
In their interpretation of civil laws, NOT the Bible, they are saying that the expansion ‘will’ or ‘might’ or ‘could happen’, with no evidence whatsoever that it has.
In fact, NOWHERE in parts of this country where gays and lesbians have equal opportunity, protection and parity, NONE of the conjectures or predictions that this compromises anyone else’s ability TO DO THE SAME, have been true.
A lawyer should be able to know that.
Let’s go back even *further*!
Every time a minority in this country stood up and demanded their rights under our *secular* Constitution, it was Christian fundamentalists and conservatives who railed against them, waving their precious little bible and claiming that gave them the right to oppress minorities!
This “lawyer” must not be very good if all he’s doing is claiming that religious bigots are being oppressed because the courts are finally waking up and saying you don’t get to oppress anymore! It reminds me of spoiled little brat children who’re finally told they can’t have everything they see.
Hey guys,
While I agree that fundamentalists, and to a lesser extent evangelicals, have been behind many of the repressive movements in our country’s history, I think it’s a little too simplistic to assume that this occurs in a vacuum. Fundamentalists tended to come from socioeconomically disenfranchised Midwestern and Southern working class whites, and I think that factor played a large part in the feelings of resentment they had towards the rest of the country. Not saying it’s right, just that it’s unfortunately understandable. The capitalist masterclass manipulates the working class to hate enemies that are on their side (working class blacks, LGBT people, socialists) and love people that aren’t on their side (the capitalists themselves). Just my opinion.
John, you’re quite correct. And actually, we’re seeing some of that manifest right before our eyes in the tenor of what’s happening now.
The ‘tea party’ thing is mostly made up of white males, and essentially white males who ARE middle class to affluent.
But the people who directly commit acts of vandalism, violence and intimidation are exactly who you’re talking about.
In fact, a few days ago, neo Nazis had a demonstration downtown in my home city of Los Angeles. I can’t remember the last time that EVER happened.
April 19-20 are days commemorated by chain events all centered around anti government, supremacist paranoia.
It’s Hitler’s birthday. The booby trap deaths of the Branch Davidians prompted the Murrah building bombing, and these days prompted the Columbine massacre.
And all of these incidents were led by angry young white males.
Even though their black equivalent suffers double the unemployment, incarceration and poverty rates.
Militias are becoming more evident, if not virulent, but the simmering anger is heated by the brutal economic situation, but the scapegoating and usual victims, are most at risk.
NOM is exploiting all this to the max, even in attacking pro equality politicians in CA, let alone, gay people in particular. Even though Prop. 8 was a victory for them. They just keep aiming at CA.
In spite of the fact that marriage was good for our state, they don’t care.
We in fact, lost a lot of needed revenue just by trying to protect the rights already allowed.
It’s ugly, dangerous ugly what’s happening. And the results are still so abstract as to be a non reality to them.
The way NOM complains, the way these same Christians, or non gays and so on complain as if gay people are taking something AWAY from them, you’d think it wasn’t THEIR boots on someone’s neck, but the other way around.
Barber and Lafferty think themselves well insulated from the consequences of what they do. They have no real fear, while pretending as if there IS something to fear.
Which is actually a symptom of the way cowards operate.
And cowards can be very dangerous people.
So what about sexually being turned on by fecal matter is a good thing? And how is it wrong of them to say that is wrong?
LDuke, I think you lack reading comprehension. I’m not sure if that is by accident or design.
LDuke, I bet you’d NEVER ask a straight person a question like that.
That you target gay people for it, and the people at Liberty University discuss it as if exclusive to a certain group of people: shows ignorance that has too much depth of stupidity to do anything normal with.
It’s a sign, and a symptom of the very prejudice and assumptions that sexual attractions that are towards anything else but another human being, also mutually attracted, is the domain of homosexuals.
It’s as stupid and rude a question as asking someone black why they don’t have tails.
First off, I pray that the site administrator stays true to their word that my email will not be shared because our administration watches discussions like these all over the web. I am a student at LU Law, and this “conference” or “forum” infuriated me. Let me assure you that the nonsense spouted by these few is their personal beliefs and in no way is shared by a majority of the students who unfortunately have this imputed upon them.
I do need to defend a few things, though. LU law is provisionally accredited and expects full accreditation this fall after the final ABA site visit in the fall of 09. There were concerns with the Dean’s involvement with liberty counsel – concerns which I share – but this will doubtfully negate the positives which should usher in full accreditation. The program is rigorous, focusing on practical training to combat the many complaints that law schools fail to train students how to do actual legal work and firms have to spend a great deal of time training junior associates. With a 94% bar passage rate, LU Law in second only to UVA among Virginia law schools. The faculty is experienced and more than capable, and 95% don’t buy into the crap spewed at this forum. However, homosexuals are not yet a protected class, and this is the stance that most at LU law take, but you don’t have to be an asshole when arguing this side.
Now, my problems with this forum – which, by the way, offered no counter position speakers, making it not a forum by definition. This was sponsored by the law review, who in their preparations for the conference, presented the administration with three topics that they would like to present at the symposium and asked the administration to approve one of the three. However, the administration responded by dismissing all three – timely and relevant topics – and said the symposium will be this anti-gay BS. With much fanfare, publication, promotion in the community, and strong encouragement for student attendance, there were roughly 50 people there. The only students being those on law review who begrudgingly went. Matt Barber has made a career out of anti-gay rhetoric, authors weekly garbage articles, and is certainly living comfortable after a wrongful termination settlement against his former insurance company employer. He is at liberty law solely because of his connection to liberty counsel, which is another problem in and of itself.
Another conference recently hosted at liberty was “the awakening,” another epic failure designed to serve the egos of a few administration members. Touted as expecting anywhere from 1,000-10,000, they were lucky if 100 showed up.
My point is that, although difficult to overcome, the students do not drink the staver and Barber kool-aid. I will never apologize for choosing a Christian law school. I just hate having to explain this type of BS to employers.
Added: Thank you for your great post! I will still have my reservations about *anyone graduating from these indoctrination camps — Liberty and Regent — but if what you claim is true, then here’s hoping in a few decades from now, the religious reicht fascists making up this “Council” will be replaced with people like you!
The email address is only used internally and only in the extreme case that we might need to contact you privately rather than in public. I’ve only done that a handful of times, don’t worry about it.
That you have to be so concerned that the administration might see what you wrote does disturb me, however. If one can not express a contrary point of view in an institute of higher learning, then were can one? That expression of concern alone should give the accrediting bodies pause.
If I did not believe a large percentage of LU students disagreed with this perverse tripe, I wouldn’t have written the post. But as I said, what confuses me is the lack of input from those students. If I had paid good money to attend LU, expecting an eduction that would serve my career and life’s work, I would be demanding some sort of accountability from them for allowing — and let’s be honest about it — a narcissistic basket case like Matt Barber to come anywhere near the students, much less hold an official position.
Like it or not, you will enter your career with a bold, dark shadow over your head because of this stuff. And by his actions, it seems Barber and those who hired him couldn’t care less. This is a man whose main qualification is his being fired from his job. To me, there is obviously nothing wrong with running a university which adheres to the tenants of a particular faith — it’s pretty much how such institutions began. But others seem to do it with some dignity, and without compromising the quality and character of their students and their education.
I truly hope you do well in life, but if you do it will be in spite of the handicap Liberty has saddled you with. It really is sad.
Thank you for your comments.
@David Roberts
Mr. Roberts:
Thank you for your comments and I repsect your point of view. It is unfortunate that a few of LU law’s administration (not the faculty) create such a misconceived perception of the student body. The concern of privacy in my comments is not from fear of reprimand or being kicked out of school, and certainly not from Mr. Barber. Rather, the concern lies with the Dean, who is completely in line with Barber’s view and went as far as creating a position for him at the school for which he has a blatant lack of qualifications to effectively serve. Anonymity is important because, as a student, I certainly want to remain in the Dean’s good graces as his recommendation may be needed upon graduation – just as an employee should be weary of publicly criticizing his boss. Believe me, just because students aren’t posting on this or other websites does not mean they are not expressing concerns. We even expressed these very concerns to the ABA site visit team fully knowing it may affect the school’s accreditation. If I was reprimanded or asked to leave school for voicing concerns – in which I was given in-depth instruction of my right to do so during Constitutional Law courses by those whom you claim have no diginity – I would file the biggest, loudest lawsuit I could.
Simply because you see no responses on internet sites from the students does not mean that there is a “lack of input from the students,” which you admit is what confuses you. From your perspective, I understand how this does seem confusing. I can only offer 2 simple reasons: First, the program is rigorous and actually requires 2 mandatory practical law credit hours above the core classes – the same ones at all law schools and not classes in how to persecute non-Christians – and, I can only truly speak for myself, but I don’t have time to waste an afternoon listening to and attempting to refute these bogus arguments. Secondly, the majority of students see right through these arguments to begin with and would find it laughable to give the first thought at attending. Like I said, the truth of the matter is that about 100 people, if that, showed up. There are law schools who host conferences and are deeply associated with, and employ, zealots for the causes you fight for – which is your right and in which I respect – yet they are not seen as “narcissistic backet case(s).” But, I agree, Barber is a little much. I would like to note that he has never taught a class at the law school and students use the services of his office – notably one excellent employee under his supervision that does most of the actual work – only if they choose.
Again, I responded to this article because I do want it to be known that the students do not necessarily tow this radical party line. However, I respectfully disagree that there is any compromise of the quality and characther of the students and education. Barber has absolutely nothing to do with instruction, this conference saw severly low attendance, and I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve seen him at school. When attacking the quality of education, I can only recommend that you read the bios of the faculty – those charged with educating. The bar passage rates are high, and if LU law recieves accreditation this fall it will be the fastest law school in history to recieve full accreditation. Take from it what you will, and I understand that your reading of it will be through the lens of your point of view. That is only natural, just as I have a slightly different point of view. This does not mean, however, that people cannot argue the merits of each side, unlike the BS spouted by Mr. Barber.
Lastly, I disagree that I will enter my career with a “bold, dark shadow over my head” and that LU Law has saddled me with a handicap. I do, however, share this concern – although not the career fatality version you beleive it to be – and this is the very reason why students are raising their voices and beginning to demand accountability for this. How far this will go is, honestly, not promising. I agree that you would probably not retain me as legal counsel because of my degree from LU Law, that my resume would not be at the top of the stack at left-leaning organizations, and that any attempt to apply at the ACLU would be futile. I believe, however, that the “handicap” does not reach much further than there. You must remember that for every one of these organizations, there is the other side – which is healthy as long as both sides respectfully argue merits. And, frankly, there are those in the middle who could care less and are looking for a capable attorney. It all comes down to passing the bar, and so far LU Law is accomplishing this.
My point to all of this – and this will probably be my last post, although I appreciate the discussion – is that I don’t want those unfamiliar with the school but rather with an individual with flawed logic and arguments to believe that he speaks for the students and graduates. He certainly does not, and this is my simple, but probably futile, attempt to express this. You ask how Liberty University students can tolerate this, and I’m here to tell you that the majority of us are trying. I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint, as I’m sure you do mine (and mine is way more center than Barber’s), but this is America (f-yeah!), and honest debate on the merits of each side is the appropriate way to move forward.
That’s better, though I still think it reasonable to question an administration that would tolerate what you describe in the first sentence there. And I’m glad to hear that you have done so yourself.
Honest, civil debate is not a problem. And don’t assume that I agree with all things in the other extreme, I don’t. But in light of his history, there is no way I can describe Barber simply as “a bit much.” That is just inaccurate. Perhaps you have not had the time or interest to keep up with his ravings. I wish my obligations didn’t bring me so much exposure to them.
As for the shadow, I guess time will tell. I’ve had two occasions in my life to retain counsel for more than just paperwork. In one instance the attorney went to a Christian college, but they had no one there equivalent to Barber, or even Staver. I always try to keep personal character front and center, but being human presents it’s flaws. Ultimately, the marketplace decides on things like that. Again, I hope you do well.
Maybe one day Staver and Barber will learn how to be reasonable and civil as well.
@added_insight
The court of law, will hopefully always be more of a standard bearer of reason than the court of public opinion that the anti gay are controlling at this time.
The Prop. 8 trial, for example, was a serious forum in which those who supported the ban were required to present evidence that their commercials, forums, and other media suggested.
They didn’t have such evidence, but instead…the witnesses who supported 8 tried to recuse themselves of testifying.
With the obvious subtext that supporters of marriage equality were threatening. No evidence of that either.
We were deprived of seeing the proceedings and will not be allowed the same on the ruling.
The attorneys who defended marriage equality will go to SCOTUS. A panel comprised mostly of Catholics and men.
Yet, a minority, whose freedoms and protections are in the hands of this panel, might not even have the protection of the Constitution.
Which does guarantee protection from TYRANNY of a majority.
And can anyone argue that up until very recent years, there hasn’t been tyranny and threat exacted on gays and lesbians?
The court of public opinion is where the demand for popular voting rights on gay lives has unfair advantage. Matt Barber, Brian Brown, James Dobson and Tony Perkins all count on it, foster it, and lying and deceit apparently are God given and appropriate tools to justify the ends.
But, as the Prop. 8 trial proves, there is nothing theoretical about the results of marriage equality, nor is there any evidence that all of this effort benefits society. That is to say, gay failure isn’t heterosexual gain.
Hopefully, you, as a budding lawyer, will look at this situation in a broader sense and give it the weight of ethical and equal consideration that it deserves.
For example: Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in accepting blood and organ donation. Nor do Catholics accept contraception or divorce.
However, neither of these groups consider the use of all these a compromise to their religious liberty if OTHER people not sharing their religious utilize such options. Right?
And none of them are pushing to ban others from the same.
So, in that context with regard to gay folks and their lives and ability to reach their full potential as well as respect to what responsibilities that gay citizens share with the general population, complaints that gay equality on ANY level is an affront to religious freedom or access is a lie.
It is also a lie that, gays and lesbians damage the ability for anyone else to function fully in their own choices.
After all, citizens who use birth control don’t damage the freedom of Catholics NOT to use it.
Mores the point: divorce, contraception and blood donations are vital to quality of life and health, even though risky. We as whole society have and do discern that the benefits have outweighed those risks.
This is also true of marriage, and all the other concerns of integrating gay people into all aspects of civil and secular life, if not religious life.
I’m not even a lawyer, and except for the willful disapproval and bigotry of someone against gay people (never a good reason to allow a popular vote because of that), there isn’t any defense for systemic discrimination against gays and lesbians.
We as a country have already recent history and civil rights precedent to inform us on the danger of doing so on unique minorities. I don’t know much about how the lawyers of LU would go about continuing such an endeavor. But I’m sure going to learn.
@added_insight
Added: It may be true that your degree from LU Law may be a barrier, but adding copies of this and other forums you’ve been on to denounce the LU administration would help… especially if I were screening applicants.
It’ll also help if you start volunteering discreetly for the state ACLU and other progressive groups in the area so you can establish your bona fides as a progressive.