Quote of the Day

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Behold, Coral Ridge Baptist University...

...amazingly occupying one back office in this church! (hat tip: RC)
(Photo credit: Google Street View)
2967 Huffman Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32246

Actually, by now that office is being used for something else, as the "university" is no longer operating. The building is still a church, and still has the same phone number as CRBU. The church is called Coral Ridge Baptist Ministries and you can see its website here.


emig said...

Who CARES what a building looks like. Who CARES how small it is. Who CARES? In 1830, my church was organized in a tiny cabin in the middle of nowhere. Today, that church has spread to many lands and continents and has made great changes in the lives of many. Do you see the analogy here? Who CARES. What George Wythe University is moving the cause of liberty. Why are you wasting your time looking for things to throw against us. Come to George Wythe. Visit a class. See what happens there. Yes, maybe some of the mentors don't have "real" doctorates, but they ARE qualified for the task ahead of them. They ARE statesmen, helping to build more statesmen and women. Joseph Smith, the man who restored the gospel of my religion had hardly education, and see what he did. Stop wasting your time. Times have changed. The need for a "real" doctorate or whatever you want to call it, no longer will matter. It's the message and the principles that matter.

The Real George Wythe said...

Thanks for commenting Emily!

Let me tell you that I don't care what the building looks like -- the point is that the "university" where DeMille got his doctorate was run out of one small room in this church, and it's doubtful that DeMille was ever physically present there. That's the point. An objective person would see a problem with that, and you should be able to concede that point.

I already stated that GWC's location under a dentist's office wasn't necessarily a big deal--that substance matters more than location.

Also, GWU is not the Mormon Church, and Oliver DeMille is not Joseph Smith. Enough said.

I have been to GW, and my views have not changed. If people want to go there, and they have all the facts about the school, more power to them. I think most of the GW people are sincere in what they do. I also believe there's some self-deception there, but don't we all have a little of that?

I know the idea of getting a "job" upon graduation is frowned upon at GW, as that implies you went to school to gain a "professional" education. But here's the reality: at some point, we all have to figure out how to "earn bread by the sweat of our brow" so to speak.

You can go to GW, get a statesman degree, but you'll have a hard time finding a want ad for a statesman. Any liberal arts graduate faces this dilemma--it's not unique to GWU.

At this point you would have a few options: (1) You can start your own business--be an entrepreneur. GW promotes this, but it is NOT for everyone.

(2) You can go to a professional graduate school, like law school -- a handful of GW students have successfully done this by doing well on the LSAT and leaning on the law school. This will indeed qualify you for a good-paying job.

(3) You can go to a non-professional graduate school (e.g. for a master's in history). This will be difficult with an unaccredited degree, but maybe you ace the GRE and make it happen. This might get you a community college job, and a later doctorate might get you at a university.

(3) You can stay on at GW for a masters or doctorate. Upon graduation, you'll have the same dilemma as the undergrads: your degree won't mean much to an employer, but you could start your own business. Or you could always stay on at GW as a mentor.

If you plan on being a stay-at-home mom, I guess the whole job discussion is moot. So maybe this is a good place for females planning for that future.

But if you're a person--male or female--who plans on supporting a family in the future, and you're at GW, I would take a long, hard look in the mirror.

Remember, a wise man once said "the world will largely pay you what it thinks you are worth."

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that Dr. Demille took some sort of distance classes from the Babtist church?

Also, where does it say that getting a "job" is frowned upon at George Wythe? It does imply that you went to school to gain a professional education, but getting a professional education is not a bad thing. Actually, it is necessary. What would we do without doctors and others who have the "professional" education? Many of those who attend George Wythe University actually have other jobs - because it is the only way they CAN get bread on the table and pay rent. Many of the mentors have other jobs as well. It's not a bad thing! I believe Dr. Groft even teaches a class at SUU.

True, it IS hard to get a good job somewhere after attending a school that is not accredited. I believe that GWU is in the process of becoming accredited. They have had to change some things in the curriculum and other ares, but they ARE in the process of becoming accredited. I believe that after they are accredited, it will be much easier to get a good job.

People sacrifice a lot to come to George Wythe. The same wise man who said "the world will largely pay you what it thinks you are worth." also said that "you have the potential to become anything to which you set your mind. You have a mind and a body and a spirit. With these three working together, you can walk the high road that leads to achievement and happiness. But this will require effort and sacrifice and faith. You must get all of the education that you possibly can. Life has become so complex and competitive. You cannot assume that you have entitlements due you. You will be expected to put forth great effort and to use your best talents to make your way to the most wonderful future of which you are capable. Sacrifice a car; sacrifice anything that is needed..."

The Real George Wythe said...

Anon said "Are you suggesting that Dr. Demille took some sort of distance classes from the Babtist church?"

Bingo! This is actually well-documented, and it goes a little further than that. He read from a book list provided by Cleon Skousen and wrote reports. Don Sills, whom he knew from the Meadeau View Institute, suggested he submit the work to Coral Ridge for college credit. It appears this is how his entire CRBU education went down, "distance studies through local mentors" as Shanon Brooks puts it.

Had you known this going in, would it have made any difference to you?

Anonymous said...

Absolutely not at all. Also, just by curiosity - how do you know so much about George Wythe?

The Real George Wythe said...

"how do you know so much about George Wythe?"

I assume you mean the school, not the man. :) The answer is from researching and writing on the subject.

bob said...

Anonymous said...
"Are you suggesting that Dr. Demille took some sort of distance classes from the Babtist church?"

Not only is he suggesting that, but that is where the whole "Dr." title you use comes from. I can't believe DeMille has the gall to use the title Dr.

James F. said...

emig--"In 1830, my church was organized in a tiny cabin in the middle of nowhere."

TRGW--"GWU is not the Mormon Church, and Oliver DeMille is not Joseph Smith. Enough said."

You're certainly right TRGW--GWU is not the Mormon Church. But we can draw a lot of parallels that show a similar plight, and similar opposition. From humble beginnings, to visionary expansion (which often didn't work), to financial crisis. Their opposition accused them of being anti-government, conspiratorial, and the leadership of simply being self-interested scam artists. Of course GWU's story isn't the only one that could be compared to the Church, but it does underscore the need to seek understanding of all people and ideas. Even when we don't agree with them.

So, with your appreciation of the LDS Church, do you see any double standard in degrading one organization because the founding member distance studied with a very small University--when the founder of the LDS church distance studied (with God) from similarly humble circumstances? Yeah, I'm half joking here, but it's the same issue. People that didn't believe Joseph Smith's story certainly didn't see any legitimacy to any of his study or knowledge. So to them, he was lying about his qualifications and using the title of a "Prophet" without any right to it. But you believe Joseph Smith. You however don't believe DeMille and that is what makes all the difference. So not believing DeMille's story, you don't believe he has a right to use the title of "Dr." and you don't think his study or knowledge is legitimate.

So should the anti-Mormons of the time just have passively accepted his title of Prophet and just let them Mormons keep congregating, building, and organizing without any opposition? Sure, why not, it's America for heavens sake. We ought to treat everyone the same, whether we think it is "true" or not.

My point is, you shouldn't take the LDS church and say that their history is all good, their plight was justified because I believe in the LDS Church--but then turn and not apply those same rules to other churches, organizations, or ideologies.

R.C. said...

James, oh James,

The LDS church had fruits by which one could know them... Tell me James, what are GWU's fruits?

Anonymous said...

Emig & James:

Please leave the religious comparisons aside. George Wythe University is a SCHOOL not a religion. Until Diploma DeMille confers a religious title upon himself, we need to focus on academic stuff.

Religious comparisons are a distraction because one could compare DeMille to Kim Il Sung, Karl Marx, Mao, or Lenin using your logic.

James F. said...

Anti-Mormons at the time sure didn't recognize any of this "fruit" of which you speak, did they? It's all a matter of perspective. Advocates of GWU like myself see plenty of fruit emerging from GWU. But 10-20 years into the LDS Church, what is the fruit that was so recognizable to those not members of the church?

The majority of the people that frequent this blog seem to be LDS. The author of the blog clearly states that they are an "active Mormon". Since it is a common background, it provides a sort of frame of reference to the discussions that here occur. We could broaden our spectrum here and refer to religion more generally (as in Christianity as a whole perhaps?), but I disagree that there is some sort of rule that 'school' and religion ought to be treated as two entirely different species. They are in reality beautifully entwined together. Where is the line that separates the knowledge you obtain in school and the knowledge you receive religiously?

I do concede that such comparisons can be made to Karl Marx, Lenin--its a bit of a stretch, but certainly it can be done. And I admitted this in my earlier post. However by their own admission, Marx and Lenin were pursuing an end much different than that of the admitted goal of GWU. The self stated purpose of GWU (whether you agree with the school or not) is without argument in line with the LDS Church and Christianity as a whole. That is the purpose of promoting liberty and freedom, education, self-improvement, and combating evil. Now whether or not you really think GWU is doing that is an entirely different discussion and it is obviously open for debate (on this blog even). Marx and Lenin didn't ever mince words and even say they were promoting such ideals. They promoted the counterfeits to these ideals.

bob said...

James F., the problem with your comparison is that you are implying that GWU is a religion. That is where you lose the LDS faithful, if that is what you believe. Or even if you believe that with the same religious feelings.

By saying "GWU is going through similar things that the LDS Church did in the beginning too" you are implying that GWU is on the same plane as the church. You are attempting to equate GWU with the LDS Church.

And saying Joseph Smith "distance studied" with God, like Oliver DeMille distance studied with CRBU is just downright offensive. There is no parallel with Joseph Smith and DeMille. DeMille just tried to get credit in the form of a diploma for what he had already done.

It is like saying Joseph Smith made a list of his insights and studies and then mailed it off to some other church and tried to get a religious title to put after his name, instead of the legacy that really happened.

R.C. said...


You dodged my question. What are the "fruits" of GWU?

Fruits of the LDS church in the first 10-20 years?

1) Book of Mormon was published, just read Parley P. Pratt's conversion. He was not a member of the church.

2) Joseph Smith as a leader. Read what Brigham Young says before he was baptized, read what Josiah Quincy III had to say about Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, read about Alexander Doniphan's views on Mormons.

3) The LDS church built 2 temples in that time.

4) The LDS church formed 2 cities from nothing in that time (Nauvoo & SLC).

5) The church growth was astounding notwithstanding outside violence.

The list could go on. Please don't compare something that has achieved (and did achieve) so much during the first 20 years to GWU.

We don't know anything about GWU's graduates. We have no idea what their outcomes are.

"Where is the line that separates the knowledge you obtain in school and the knowledge you receive religiously?"

So, is GWU a religion?

The comparison to anti-mormons comes up on ever message board that I have ever seen where critical views of GWU appear. Go ahead, attack my alma mater - University of Utah. I don't care. Start a website about it, expose the professors who are frauds.

I guarantee you that if you do, I will not accuse you of using anti-mormon tactics, I will not draw parallels between the U of U and the LDS church.

The funny thing is that Brigham Young founded the U of U, and it has been called "the school of the prophets" by some because so many leaders of the LDS church attended there. At my graduation none other than Thomas S. Monson spoke (before he was president).

Why do GWU students have such an emotional reaction to this blog? Why can't they separate their school from their religion. I think it is scary. If GWU crumbles (which I don't think will happen), will those of you who combine their religious faith with GWU lose their religion as well?

James F. said...

First of all bob, you quoted me--using "quotation marks" and then filled those quotations with your own take on what I said. You can summarize what I said, and word it the way you want to, but you don't put it in quotation marks unless it is exactly what the person said.

So we seem to have struck a nerve bringing religious comparisons into the mix. However I stand by the idea--my religious experience is very much a part of every other facet of my life. And I think it is for all of you too. You can be an atheist and your 'religious experience' (or lack thereof) is still very much a part of who you are. Our entire paradigm, our personal model, the way we look at the world, is all based off of our personal, oft times religious, life experiences. Don't you think that an atheist looks at the world, and the world of education differently than someone that has a deep belief in God? Or how about a Mormon compared to a Catholic? Any general differences in their outlook on life (or perhaps the purpose of life)? Sure there are a lot of similarities between such groups, but there are going to be distinct differences too. Even within a specific group of religious believers there are going to be differences in outlook. I am not saying one outlook is better than another--that one outlook is going to produce a 'smarter' person--I'm just saying that these outlooks are different one from another. When religion forms such an integral foundation to the way we look at the world, why are you trying to argue that religion has nothing to do with education?

I never said that GWU was a religion. It isn't a religion to me, and it isn't to any of the students of GWU. But the principles of education are a part of a religious outlook and life experience. In that sense what students at GWU or shucks, even BYU do at school is a part of their religion.

And I never called anyone here "anti-Mormons". What I did do was explain my feelings that there is a double standard for those that accept church history and the grievances of the LDS Church, but yet see no problem treating other organizations in which they don't believe in much differently and applying different rules to them.

What I said about Joseph Smith and Oliver DeMille is pointing out my feelings that those that didn't believe JS didn't see any of his qualifications as legitimate. Just as those that don't believe DeMille find his background illegitimate. I never said the two were on the same level. My point is simply that JS could have been lying. But we believe he was telling the truth, so his qualifications to us are legitimate. You don't believe that DeMille is telling the truth, and so you don't believe his qualifications are legitimate. But for those that do believe him, his qualifications for being a teacher and a leader are just as legitimate as JS's qualifications were in making him a Prophet. Once again, may I emphasize, I just said JS=Prophet and DeMille=teacher. They are not on the same level, but since the LDS faith is a common element to others on this blog, I find it helpful to use such a comparison in explaining my own feelings and perhaps those of other GWU supporters.

The Real George Wythe said...


To quote the excellent blog whyidontdotjed.blogspot.com,

"I also realize that some people will think that my criticism of TJEd is like anti-Mormon literature. They might point out about how the LDS church and Joseph Smith received similar criticism from people ever since the church was restored. If that accusation were even true, that would just reinforce my notion that TJEd is pseudo-religious. I am trying to use arguments and logic in my reasons for not doing TJEd. I am not appealing to the authority of the scriptures or declaring TJEd to be some deviation from the "true faith." It's not the newness or difference of TJEd from what I am used to that cause me to not do TJEd. TJEd is an educational approach that has taken on religious aspects. I am criticizing those educational aspects."

tommybell said...

While I do NOT claim to be religious, I have taken the time to do more than a little research on all that you've presented. I've listened personally to Oliver DeMille speak, and while I don't agree with much of it, the man is well educated. No thinking individual can deny his knowledge, demeanor and ability to think and project well. So wherever he obtained his education from, "well crap it worked" because he knows his stuff! He is articulate, not arrogant, and what he has is a great deal better than what you seem to possess. As for the "Coral Ridge connection" they are in fact also a church right? So my non-thinking accusatory, gossiping friend, they have an entire chuch facility. Duhhh!!! They are a church Mister, and how do you KNOW that they only use a "back room" for anything? What a jackass thing to even say! What a sheer pice of stupidity. You try to be so "academic" yet you don't use ANY common sense. Blinded by your jealously of DR DeMille, you come across as a "total goff" hahaha. Let me break it down VERY simply for you, as on your level. I own a house see? And... I use every room for many things. Coral Ridge is a church right? And they have an enitre complex, right? Well it doesn't take a genius to realize that they have probably have classes in their auditorium, in church sclassroom.. and woww they probably even have real bathrooms and a dining area, which I am sure they use! Furthermore they never said they were accredited, but that they only had a desire to train people for Christian ministry, wiht degress taht reflect that. That Mister, is still perfectly legal in this country! Everything you've said about DeMill has been full of jealous and slander, adn while I have friends at the school..me..not religious. Sure I am being redundant, but I want that to sink inot your "brain." I just get tird of people like you, shoveling out gossip. Seems to me that GOSSIP is forbidden in the Bible, isn't it? I KNOW you haven't visited Coral Ridge and personally talked with then or even seen teh inside of their facilites. I KNOW you haven't met DeMille personally and tried to reason with him as Jesus taught. ow do I know? Because gossips are cowards, and you are just that. What not be man enough to seek an appointment with those you hate so much, and meet them face to face? Share your grievanes, and ask for your friends money basck from DeMille. Hey John Wayne would. Elvis Presley would, or Ronald Reagan..and maybe Thomas Jefferson..not sure hahahaa. So in fact Mister, you may be Morman, you might be religious but you are no "like Jesus person." Nope, your character is less than poor. I can tell too, you need to go to these guys "face to face")that much of the Bible I do know) but you won't. I've seen your kind before and will answer to God one day, that much I do believe. Nope "Mr tuff guy" instead you'll hide, and you'll hide like a demented little cockroach crouching behind your walls, writing fabrications inciting, lying and conniving, a "cyber bully" thriving on lies, half-truths and loving to incite fear and mistrust. Again YOU need to met with DeMille, face to face. Ask for a refund from the man and settle the matter with him"

tommybell said...

ohh and a step in the right direction son, is publishing ALL of what this I wrote. we'll see if you can do even that much, and when I do go to GWC to vist, and i do sometims when i drive to town there, I'll mention my idea to Oliver for you two to meet. up to it?

The Real George Wythe said...

Note: I posted two of Tommybell's comments, but stopped there as his other 3 became increasingly profane and disgusting, in violation of the blog rules.


Anonymous said...

Why do I think that Tommybell is an expert on the following topics:

1) The new world order
2) Obama's fake birth certificate
3) 9/11 truth
4) Star trek

Tommybell is obviously typing from his montana cabin waiting for the opportunity to gain a voice for his crazy, fundamentalist ideas. He demonstrates the extent to which GWU poisons minds. GWU is obviously a cult-like group as opposed to a school. Tommybell demonstrates that.

Bipolar Attorney said...

I personally care about educational fraud that causes distress and great harm. Ann Tracy claims a PhD from this fine institution based upon "life experience." Apparently, her prior work in biology was with Coral Ridge Baptist. She ignores the fine schools that mentored her in biology and neurochemistry. Yet she sells herself as the world's greatest expert on SSRI pharmaceuticals. It would be laughable except there are those who believe her. She represents that she has testified in court, a claim that cannot be verified through standard legal research (Westlaw). There has been no court anywhere in a reported case who has found her to be an expert on anything. If she and the school were just playing make-believe, I would not disturb their reverie. Tracy has mastered post hoc proctor hoc reasoning. With real education she might be more dangerous. But their attacks upon psychiatry have cause unmeasurable pain. I say the whole outfit has blood on their hands. How does one measure the amount of pain this school has inflicted upon those sufferers who cannot distinguish a fake degree? I do not care if they are LDS, lying about education to fool the unwary is sick.

Anonymous said...

Bipolar Attorney:

An unaccredited degree is not a "fake degree". Just ask John Adams or Thomas Jefferson or better still Abraham Lincoln (the least accredited great American I know). Ask any holder of a GW degree and you will learn that they did more work, more study and more thinking for their GW degree than any other school would demand of them. I know from experience that compared to GWU, study at SUU is a joke. That isn't to imply that all SUU grads didn't think or study, but it is possible to get an SUU degree without much of either. I got A's in SUU classes I didn't even open the textbook for. Try bluffing your way through your GWU degree and you won't last a week.

It sounds to me Mr. Bipolar, that you believe that properly accredited public schools are the best place to get an education these days. That is first laughable and then tragically sad. I might agree with TRGW that an "accredited" degree might make it easier to get a job (if that is what you want with your life), but no one will ever convince me that it is a better education.

That might be why more and more public school teachers are choosing to homeschool their own children. I should know, I'm one of them. Public Education is the joke, not GWU.

Bipolar Attorney said...


You are right. I do believe "real" schools provide "real" education. At my law school, I studied Constitutional Law with a man who was a Rhodes Scholar, attorney general of the state, law school dean and president of a PAC-10 university. My torts teacher is a nationally recognized expert. My conflicts of law teacher was dean of a Big-10 school and wrote the casebook. My federal lands teacher was a pioneer in Indian land litigatio0n. I could go on.

As for Ann Tracy, you have no defense. The only time she tried to testify she got "Dauberted." In lay words, the Judge found that he could not discern a scientific method, let alone one accepted by any other authority. The only reference to her in Westlaw is a case where the defendant told the Judge that if he disclosed what Tracy would say, he would incriminate himself.

She is not competent to do a double-blind study nor has she ever done so. What she does is phone distressed families of victims and harass them. That is her "research."

My fields of expertise are law and history not biology. Yet, "Dr." Tracy has yet to explain why murders, murder-suicides, mass murders, rapes and abuse occurred prior to the introduction of SSRI drugs in 1988. Have you ever heard of the Borgia family? Maybe some alien spiked the Manson family's water with Prozac. Post hoc proctor hoc.

My brother is an MD with an MPH. I think that eleven years of difficult scientific study counts for more than a scientific degree awarded by Mr. DeMille who as far as I can tell has no background in science.

There may be problems with pharmaceuticals. It will take biologists, chemists, epidemiologists and statisticians to decide those questions. When they do, their findings will be in JAMA and the New England Journal and not in a self published book with spelling errors.

You are right; qualifications matter.