










A Look at Regent University
Click on the image above to play video.
Video requires QuickTime Player 7. Download the free player here.
33.5 MB : 16:24
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.
2. Comment #46149 by thebigredmachine on May 30, 2007 at 11:38 am
As someone who has attended one of the US's top 20 law schools (if you consider US News and World Report a valid judge), I'm happy to say that in my experience, no one (outside of the white house, apparently) takes a degree from Regent seriously. Though I admit I don't exactly take surveys, I have in fact yet to come across a graduate. I can only imagine my reaction if some day a resume were to slide across my desk with Regent proudly emblazoned near the top. The thought of this school gaining legitimacy is truly horrifying.3. Comment #46150 by Kmullen on May 30, 2007 at 11:40 am
too scary4. Comment #46152 by oarwhat on May 30, 2007 at 11:47 am
And these are the same people who would say Hesbala, and Hamas, and such are evil. I find that Ironic.Further proof there is no god.5. Comment #46155 by firemancarl on May 30, 2007 at 11:57 am
6. Comment #46157 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm
7. Comment #46158 by BaronOchs on May 30, 2007 at 12:11 pm
8. Comment #46164 by Quine on May 30, 2007 at 12:28 pm
9. Comment #46165 by don malvado on May 30, 2007 at 12:33 pm
CARLY GAMMILL: I intend to help further the administration of justice and to do justice. And I believe in absolute truth, and I believe in absolutes. Not grey, you know, not relative truth but absolute truth. And that's what God's word is.10. Comment #46171 by epeeist on May 30, 2007 at 12:47 pm
CARLY GAMMILL: I intend to help further the administration of justice and to do justice. And I believe in absolute truth, and I believe in absolutes. Not grey, you know, not relative truth but absolute truth. And that's what God's word is.
My jaw dropped at this point.
11. Comment #46172 by bhima on May 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm
its been said before, but i gotta add to this:12. Comment #46176 by Duff on May 30, 2007 at 1:04 pm
The next time anyone suggests Dawkins and Hitchens are too unkind to the sweet religious folk, remember this documentary. What is really interesting is that Moyers, who has always been an apologist for religion, seems to be genuinely offended. This is a very good thing, if it is true.13. Comment #46184 by voiceofreason12 on May 30, 2007 at 1:39 pm
This was horrific. These people are stepping on the constitution of the United States in trying to tear down the wall of separatation that are founding fathers worked so hard to build. There is no freedom of choice with religious fascists in political office making decisions based on their "absolute truth."14. Comment #46195 by jaytee_555 on May 30, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Sickening, and terrifying.15. Comment #46199 by Logicel on May 30, 2007 at 2:26 pm
16. Comment #46207 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 2:57 pm
That is one of the most vile things I have ever watched and more scary than any horror film.17. Comment #46218 by Healing One on May 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm
CARLY GAMMILL: I intend to help further the administration of justice and to do justice. And I believe in absolute truth, and I believe in absolutes. Not grey, you know, not relative truth but absolute truth. And that's what God's word is.
The strong intuitive pull of dualism makes it difficult for people to accept what Francis Crick called "the astonishing hypothesis." Dualism is mistaken — mental life emerges from physical processes. People resist the astonishing hypothesis in ways that can have considerable social implications. For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and non-human animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls. For instance, in their 2003 report (Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics), the President's Council described people as follows: "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."
Sekulow now heads up Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, and was hand-picked by the White House to be an advisor on judicial nominations.
Last month, when the ascendant majority on the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on "partial birth" abortion. Sekulow declared victory for the religious right and for Regent.
JAY SEKULOW: Well the end result is that a lot of the findings of fact that the Court made in NY, the finding of fact in our favor about the horrific nature of this procedure were incorporated in the Supreme Court decision that came out today.
Since it was first coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, the term "partial birth abortion" has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[9] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:
" An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)
18. Comment #46221 by Zaphod on May 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm
19. Comment #46222 by godisanidiot on May 30, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I just saw an army of babbling products of an indoctrination machine, very dangerous indeed.20. Comment #46224 by MIND_REBEL on May 30, 2007 at 3:41 pm
21. Comment #46225 by Newton30 on May 30, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Is something being done to overthrow this garbage or what?
22. Comment #46226 by DingoDave on May 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm
23. Comment #46230 by steve99 on May 30, 2007 at 4:03 pm
24. Comment #46233 by lt_zippy2 on May 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Just out of interest are there any schools ANYWHERE that do courses in atheology?25. Comment #46236 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm
QUOTE... "23. Comment #46230 by steve99 on May 30, 2007 at 4:03 pm I really don't understand how this works. A lawyer is supposed to have refined analytical skills... CLOSE QUOTE26. Comment #46239 by HedlesBabey on May 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm
27. Comment #46247 by chbg21808 on May 30, 2007 at 4:43 pm
The founder of the Center For Inquiry is the brilliant Paul Kurtz... Who was largely responsible for the secularization of humanism:28. Comment #46254 by DingoDave on May 30, 2007 at 5:01 pm
29. Comment #46260 by LeeLeeOne on May 30, 2007 at 5:26 pm
30. Comment #46261 by MelM on May 30, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Anti-U.S. and anti-Western Civilization31. Comment #46266 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm
32. Comment #46269 by arthursanford on May 30, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Funny how the christians begin their careers in government as mud-diggers. Apparently, it is God's will for us to become Republican party employees through faith in his only son, Jesus Christ, and a piece of paper from the Regent University degree mill.33. Comment #46270 by MelM on May 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm
An orgainization that's on the front lines against Creationism in the U.S.--and has been for years--is the "National Center for Science Education" ( NCSE).34. Comment #46277 by MelM on May 30, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Further note on "Liars for Jesus".35. Comment #46285 by k1mgy on May 30, 2007 at 7:08 pm
36. Comment #46299 by MelM on May 30, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Asscroft: a bad man37. Comment #46309 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 10:04 pm
38. Comment #46338 by Shuggy on May 31, 2007 at 1:27 am
Across the Potomac River in Virginia, the cradle of the First Amendment, a familiar figure surely smiled as he beheld this mingling of politics and piety. If he had his way, that wall would come down altogether
39. Comment #46343 by pkmusic on May 31, 2007 at 1:55 am
40. Comment #46359 by tieInterceptor on May 31, 2007 at 3:05 am
41. Comment #46366 by Canuck#1 on May 31, 2007 at 3:26 am
As a former fundamentalist I know how their minds work......today the U.S.A....tomorrow the world. As a Canadian and next-door-neighbour we would be target #1.......so my support is twofold....to support the efforts to stop this obcenity and to save my country. Doesn't their self-righteousness make you want to "throw up".42. Comment #46387 by graham513 on May 31, 2007 at 4:59 am
I work at a Xtian Teaching Radio Station and I hear Jay Sekulow's ACLJ Program every day always endorsing Regent University. Any time a controversial court case arises they completely attack everything that is un-xtian about it. You cant even guess how many times I heard the name Terry Shiavo when that fiasco was going on. Xtians may be completely ignorant in a lot of ways but let me tell you they are viciously smart in others. They know what they have to do to change this country and this country (not me) is electing people into office that fill their positions with their xtian clones. I will shed many a happy tear if I am so lucky as to see the day that school is nothing more than dust.43. Comment #46391 by kc091887 on May 31, 2007 at 5:24 am
Vile.44. Comment #46395 by discipline on May 31, 2007 at 5:40 am
Frightening, indeed, but not surprising to those who follow the Religious Right.45. Comment #46414 by SteveN on May 31, 2007 at 6:41 am
The other evangelical "university," Liberty University, just built a state-of-the-art building that exactly replicates the U.S. Supreme Court chambers -- for the express purpose of training Christian lawyers to argue Constitutional law.Good grief! If this is indeed true it's very, very frightening.
46. Comment #46435 by Rtambree on May 31, 2007 at 7:46 am
37. Comment #46309 by Goodwithwood on May 30, 2007 at 10:04 pm47. Comment #46443 by Phaeonix on May 31, 2007 at 8:35 am
48. Comment #46450 by Machoduck on May 31, 2007 at 9:31 am
49. Comment #46452 by wagnerpe on May 31, 2007 at 9:36 am
These people are a cancerous growth on our society. We need to wake up and realize that graduates coming out of this university are becoming government cronies that are intent on hacking away at the integrity of our democracy.50. Comment #46481 by stephenray on May 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Listening to stuff like that - people taking it as axiomatic, as natural as breathing, that they ought to subvert the democratic process in order to further their religious goals - should make people realise that RD, Hitchens and Harris are not being alarmist when they finger religious as a great danger. The people interviewed and mentioned here are not crazy, as for example would be the funeral protesters, just dogmatic.
1. Comment #46147 by doodinthemood on May 30, 2007 at 11:37 am
Frightening.Other Comments by doodinthemood