[PeterParker]

I think we can effectively say that LU can probably collectively kiss the chance of ever getting the unaminous vote to get in the likes of the CAA with this latest development.

(As a side note, it would be nice if the names of the school and the counsel weren't so closely related; in the media & to many in the general public it is coming off as Liberty U. suing William & Mary...must be awkward for that LU alum who is a professor over there at present.)


This may lead to a "Reasons you love/you hate your alma mater" list:

Hate:

1. If my alma mater doesn't like what your alma mater does, it will sue you.
2...

Love: (To balance so I am not accused of being a hater, just a realist/rationalist)

1. The great students & profs who inhabit the university on the "ground level" one met while there (you know the real constituents of the school.)
2...

Legal group threatens federal suit over William & Mary cross removal

12/10/2006

Associated Press


A legal advocacy group with ties to Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is jumping into the dispute over whether the College of William and Mary should have removed a cross from its chapel.

A letter sent to college president Gene Nichol this month could be a precursor to a federal lawsuit, said Mathew Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel.

Staver said last week that Nichol's decision to remove the 2-foot-high century-old bronze cross violated the Constitution's freedom-of-religion guarantees.

"I think his decision to remove the cross is politically unwise and constitutionally incorrect," Staver said.

In October, Nichol ordered the cross to be kept in the chapel's sacristy so the sanctuary would be more welcoming to all faiths, not just Christians. It can be returned to the chapel upon request.

Nichols said then that displaying the Christian cross "sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others."

The chapel is in the Wren Building, which is used for secular meetings, including annual school-wide events for freshmen and seniors. The building was finished in 1699. The college became a state institution in 1906.

Since the removal, some students and alumni have campaigned to have the cross brought back — even establishing a Web site: http://www.savethewrencross.org. A petition on the site has received close to 7,000 signatures.

Because the cross hung in the chapel for 75 years without complaint, the removal demonstrates hostility toward Christianity rather than the neutral stance required by the First Amendment, Staver said Wednesday.

Staver is the dean of the law school at Liberty University — the Lynchburg school founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. He began Liberty Counsel in 1989 to advance religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.

His Dec. 1 letter asked Nichol to respond in writing that he will allow the cross to remain on display permanently in the chapel.

"This is a friendly attempt to bring about a resolution without having to resort to litigation," Staver said in an interview Wednesday. "Liberty Counsel is always ready to litigate if education doesn't resolve the matter."

College spokesman Brian Whitson said this week that the change in policy was not a political or legal matter.

"This is a real issue that has an impact on people," he said. "The message we are sending is that we want all people — Christians, Jews, Muslims or members of any faith — to be welcome in our chapel."

[Purple Haize]

You know it is funny. The Liberty Counsel clowns want to stick their nose in other people's business but get all bent out of shape when other do the same to them. What does W/M have to do with us? If they wanna have Christmas stuff let em. If they don't, so what?? Would Liberty Counsel want someone suing us b/c we did not observe Ramadan? Or the festival of Wicca?
It goes back to the great book: All I Needed to know about life I learned from Kindergarten. MYOB _ Mind Your Own Business

[SuperJon]

Great, we embarass ourselves yet again.

[PAmedic]

(shaking head)

[SuperJon]

This is just ridiculously stupid. I'm embarassed to even be associated with that.

[PeterParker]

They should have just waited for Sekulow's crew over at Regent to roll "up in it," since W&M is right in the backyard. (Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting equal access for faith in the public square, etc...this just seems a stretch and not a savvy PR move for LU when there are several other organizations that would have taken up this case for the plaintiffs.)

On a side point, ever notice the striking similarities between the two operations: LU & related elements with Regent & related elements. Here's a basic graphic that got cutoff slightly when saving it:

Add to the list, sons who went onto obtain Law Degrees, work for a bit and then join the "family business"

[El Scorcho]

I'm going to go against the grain here and point out that this is being challenged on a legal level. If it were just a matter of not liking what someone else did, that would be one thing. To the contrary, if there truly has been a violation of the law, then representing those 7,000 people who signed the petition in court is exactly what LC has been established to do, and should do. Already in this thread it's being spun as LU vs. W&M, but Liberty Council is a law firm established to work on legal religious freedom issues. This has nothing to do with LU. Before LC had even formally tied themselves with LU they would have taken this case. It may not be popular, but courts don't always side with what's popular either.

Those 7,000 people may not be right, but in the U.S. everyone gets their day in court. I don't think I have the legal mind to know whether this is actually illegal or not, no matter what I think it sounds like. Leave it up to the lawyers and judges.

[PeterParker]

Having a contrarian voice is necessary, advantageous and a vital part to include in general discourse (hint, hint LU); I would counter, however, that the problem with this development is that the line is blurred for several reasons. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as saying the Liberty Counsel was set up prior to it's affiliation with Liberty University and, consequently, the two are separate organizations. At present, both organizations are bedfellows and are actually entertwined since the founder and participant in one is also the head of the LU law school, not to mention that they share the same moniker. Even though each entity was named independently prior to their affiliation with one another, it's not too difficult to see where the confusion will set in for the public at large. (People are not going to read the littany of history about the two--to the public at large, Liberty Counsel = Liberty University and vice versa. Ask around your office, for those of you who work in one, you'll find that those who actually keep abreast of current events will largely hold this view.)

So, to say the two are unrelated is an exercise in semantics at best, and in the reality of public perception it is a moot point, since from a PR standpoint, it looks exactly like it was pointed out in the first post. Further, I am pointing out the PR standpoint for LU, not the validity or non-validity of the arguments underlying the case. For LU, this seems like an unwise PR move since there are several other non-profit religious freedom litigation organizations out there that would have taken the case and in the end probably would have ended up with the same outcome as LC, among them are the following: the Regent affiliated American Center for Liberty & Justice, the Midwestern-based Thomas More Law Center, and the Pacific Justice Institute to name a few. Just my humble rational $.02, but what do I know, I'm just an LU grad trying to make a living outside of the bubble.

[El Scorcho]

I guess we have a different understanding of how Liberty Counsel operates.

LC is affiliated with LU, yes. Staver is the Dean of the School of Law, yes. However, I do not believe that LU directs LC on which cases to take. They are not the legal branch of LU. LU has it's own Legal Affairs department.

[Hold My Own]

but Liberty Council is a law firm established to work on legal religious freedom issues. This has nothing to do with LU.

I was just waiting for someone to speak who actually had a clue on the matter...but a few of the above responses dont surprise me at all

[LUconn]

uhhh, what are we complaining about? LC is not LU, but thanks AP for trying your best to make it look that way and having the patience to wait until the first line of the article to do so.



I'm not sure if you guys realize it, but this is how america works. Suing someone isn't a bad thing. It does have a perception of being negative, but it's one of the only legal powers your average citizen has. What does W&M have to worry? If they lose, a judge has found that they were wrong in the eyes of the law. If they win, the opposite is true. It's not really the big deal you guys are making it out to be.

[Hold My Own]

Thank you LUconn

[whmatthews]

If it were some sort of Islamic symbol instead of the cross it wouldn't have been taken down.

[Libertine]

LUConn is dead on. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with LU or Jerry Falwell but the AP is working really hard in this article to make it look that way.

It looks to me like 7,000 people hired a lawyer as is their right. I'm guessing those 7,000 people lean toward the conservative side so they hired a conservative legal team known for taking on controversial cases. Enter Liberty Counsel.

It actually bothers me a little bit that our first reaction on this is not about principle but rather about conference affiliation.

[SuperJon]

The thing that bothers me is the fact that one of their guys is the dean of our law school. That's where the connection comes in.

[LUconn]

well since this is one of the underlying purposes of training Christians to be lawyers, I'd say we've chosen our Dean wisely.

[LUconn]

also, I don't know if the CAA thing was in jest, but I wonder if this would hurt our chances if it were to ever happen. I wouldn't be surprised if we lost a vote, but obviously, that's not the priority here.

[SuperJon]

I see your point, and I think I agree with you. I just reacted without thinking too much and looking into it. I think that's what a lot of people are going to do though.

[whmatthews]

well since this is one of the underlying purposes of training Christians to be lawyers, I'd say we've chosen our Dean wisely.

I agree. I'm glad he's taking the case. The state school is taking down the cross because it doesn't welcome other faiths. Why don't they build a Buddhist chapel or an Islamic chapel then and leave that one alone.

[LUconn]

I see your point, and I think I agree with you. I just reacted without thinking too much and looking into it. I think that's what a lot of people are going to do though.

that's exactly what the article was meant to do. This is why we always think everybody's out to get us. It's because a lot of the time they are. We just take that notion too far sometimes.

[Libertine]

I see your point, and I think I agree with you. I just reacted without thinking too much and looking into it. I think that's what a lot of people are going to do though.

that's exactly what the article was meant to do. This is why we always think everybody's out to get us. It's because a lot of the time they are. We just take that notion too far sometimes.

The old Golda Meir quote: "Even paranoids have enemies."

[PAmedic]

yep- no matter how technically correct we are in the argument that the two are separate institutions- those that hate will:

• A. not want to hear that answer
  
  B. not believe it after having it explained to them
  
  C. use it as yet another reason to hate Christians for "butting-in"

Is the fallout worth the potential gain here? Don't know. Just MHO.

[Libertine]

yep- no matter how technically correct we are in the argument that the two are separate institutions- those that hate will:

Is the fallout worth the potential gain here? Don't know. Just MHO.

That's just it right there. LU and Liberty Counsel are two separate organizations. There are some connections, particularly with the law school and that the Liberty Counsel are more or less the lawyers that LU brings to bear wherever they need baring, but LU does not call the shots for Liberty Counsel nor should it. As far as LC is concerned, they are representing clients in Williamsburg and what it may mean for LU is completely irrelevant, not only in practical terms but legal ethics as well.

[jmdickens]

Yeah, it sucks the Liberty Council is doing this bs......ask every lawyer, suing someone should be the last option, not the oppurtunity to get your name into something

[01LUGrad]

Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The danger to our liberties lies not in evil men, for they are few." Rather, it lies "with normally decent men" who are silent when they ought to say, "the things which are being done are wrong, and I will stand against them."

I am not saying that the people at W&M are evil or that the LC should have sued right off the bat, but at times, it is necessary to stand up for what is right- even if it isn't PC.