jmdickens wrote:lets hear your defense?? ive given plenty for mine
There's two parts to this request: my defense, and yours (or lack thereof).
First, I defend the decision of Liberty's administration to demote (rather than terminate) Dr. Caner on the basis that while his documented offences do preclude him from leading other faculty members, they do not infringe upon his ability to teach students. He was wrong to allow the false presumptions of his past to continue uncorrected, and to in some cases aid in their propogation. Therefore, he should - and has - been demoted. But his offences do not limit his knowledge of and expertise within the subjects upon which he will continue to teach. You've yet to prove that his depth of knowledge was based on his presumed heritage - now known to be false at least in part. You also suggest that he was retained due at least in part to his popularity among the students. I counter that, if his popularity is due at least in part to his abilities as an orator and/or as a teacher, and if said popularity leads students to pay more attention to his teaching (which can be presumed to have at least some validity, considering he wouldn't be teaching at all otherwise), then does it not make sense to retain his services, since he still possesses academic value?
Secondly, your defense has yet to prove that Caner is no longer valuable to the University, and the students it serves (as I have shown otherwise above). It also included the ludicrous likening of Dr. Caner's proven offences to those sexually predatory ones committed by Moon. You also have failed to yet substantiate the claim that one or more of his doctorates was not legitimately earned, and have insinuated that his doctoral status is moot - all this despite requests to do so. One is left ponder why you've ignored these requests...
Academic crimes are far different than legal ones (such as those perpetrated by Moon). And you have yet to even prove academic ones occurred. (Untruths about his past are personal, not academic.) If you are assuming he reached his place in seminary academia on the basis of his past, the only crime here would be that the leaders of an academic institution only focused on his presumed heritage in his hiring process. This didn't happen, and you can't prove that it did. Yet again, you arr promoting a "good ol' boy" conspiracy theory, for which you have stated no proof. Opinions and feelings are not proof, and lack of substantiation renders them obsolete.
Lastly - and I repeat this as carefully as I can: I would not presume to question beyond reason the men whom God has entrusted to handle this delicate situation, who surely asked numerous times for God's wisdom in its handling (see James 1 for further explanation for how God "liberally" responds to such requests for understanding), and who have seen fit to handle it in the way they have.
- By LU Armchair coach
- By thecomeback