prisonchaplain

Accredited Christian law school grads barred from practice

Recommended Posts

What about how religion and science can't seem to go together-I'll use that as an example, I don't see creationism as intelligant, I see it as one of the moronic things I have ever heard, in terms of explaining, well anything.

Religion doesn't teach me why I get sick, why the platypus lays eggs, why some water is salty-why some isn't, all it does is provide vague answers of nothing that pretend it has something. Historically religion has kind of always repressed intelligence and thinking and learning. They've not been on the ball there. Science is all about change and religion is not. Religion can't really change, since they are always invented in a time and largely meant for that time, you read the bible it is, to me, meant for that time, no one looks at a large chunk of that and thinks that's alright to do now (kill someone if they work on the sabbath, stone women, etc). Science comes along and disproves things their texts say and they have no real answer for that, except having faith.

And faith is a concept that doesn't work in my brain.

I can understand people's need to believe they have a purpose in the universe, and our very real fear of mortality, no other creature wakes up and thinks "I'm going to die one day, why am I here?"

I believe in something more, hope in something more, now weither or not I call that my creator, think it cares at all about me or what happens if I die is another topic all together.

 

I never needed religion to know to be a good person, infact growing up I saw religion as cruel and hateful, mean things I wanted nothing to do with. I still hold that for several of them. A lot do have good parts in them, and I admit that, but hold things I feel uneasy with so I ultimately chose not to be in any of them, to go about my own path in the river of life.

For it is my own personal belief life is like a river and we cannot control where it goes, ultimately, we may slow and take different paths but all end up in the ocean, which is death.

Weither or not something is causing the current or it is just of its own power, like I said, is another topic.

 

Closest example I can give to your question was Buddhist societies because Buddhism isn't a relgion, technically (because there is no worship of God, it is about obtaining enlightenment of ones self and escaping the endless cycle of death and rebirth- because all life is suffering).

 

Looking back in history, religion has been closely associated with science as well as education in general.  For most of human history the idea of being a teacher or educator was directly a result by of religious involvement.  The idea of being a mentor and taking on students as apprentice comes to us through the ages under the care of religion.  In the ancient world one would select a teacher and become their disciple.  Even today becoming involved in religion one becomes a disciple of the master. The first doctors (physicians) came from religion and the universal symbol of healing is a religious symbol.  Even the evolution of music is dependent on religion.

 

The problem is that religion has such a powerful influence on societies as well as individuals there has also evolved efforts of men in positions of power to try to use religion to their individual advantage to exercise power over others.  Thus in the struggles for power and influence religion has been derailed by power hungry narcissus seeking their own glory and the glory of their subculture. 

 

Let’s explorer together your idea that you do not believe religion helps you be a good person.  I will ask just two questions. 

First question: Can a person be a good person without a concept or belief in justice?

 

Before I ask my second question I will submit that only religion considers possibilities before birth and after death.  Now my second question to you – is if we consider only that time after a person’s birth and before their death death how can we mitigate that justice is possible and therefore be a good person that believes in justice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Posted Today, 09:12 AM

I have a basic question--especially for those who believe that we religionists have gotten the whole LBGT thing wrong:  Do you believe that our views about marriage are so damning that we should not be allowed to practice law?  In other words, are the barristers right in this action

 

Again it's not so much their views on marriage that are the focus so much as wondering if these lawyers can actually do their jobs right, think back to the counselor who got booted from her program and the talks we had about that.  I see this as much the same situation.  But to answer your question i don't think they should be kept from practicing, but in some cases i'd have some grave concerns about them representing me.  That being said....looking back on the threads about employment and housing protection for gays and the amount of posters who think there's no right to have employment protection.....is this really an issue or is it just cause it's happening to the side you can relate to?

 

 

I'll confess to being somewhat guilty.  When Christians I discriminated against I am quicker to notice.  However, I have enough confidence in myself to say that, at the end of the day, I come down on the side of individual freedom of association.  That is, the government should not prohibit gay or Christian lawyers from practice.  However, individuals would, in my world, be able to choose who they serve, who rents from them, and who they do business with.  For example, it was not so long ago that many landlords (especially amongst those who owned one or two rentals) would refuse to rent out to couples who were obviously "living in sin."  They lose a customer, but why shouldn't they have that discretion.  Likewise, a homosexual should be able to choose a homosexual attorney, if they believed that such a lawyer would be more understanding.

 

Obviously, it is not my world.  Those days are gone.  Still, I side with individual freedom--even the freedom to be foolishly prejudiced.  Governments, on the other hand, should remain strictly neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I thought you meant a different part, while not all religions are truly counter productive, they do all teach things that are scientifically impossible (Noah's Ark, Mohammed's Pegasus, etc) as true.

And do any of them accept the way science says the universe was formed, how the earth came to be?

What does the LDS teach about that?

 

 

 

This is why I believe that True Religion and True Science are complimentary.

 

However, you have to understand that what they hear these days about Pegasus and Noah's Ark and all that is subject to our (tending toward literal) observations and interpretations, record keeping at the time, and scientific knowledge at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I believe that True Religion and True Science are complimentary.

 

However, you have to understand that what they hear these days about Pegasus and Noah's Ark and all that is subject to our (tending toward literal) observations and interpretations, record keeping at the time, and scientific knowledge at the time.

 

There are too many unknowns when trying to validate Genesis prior to the flood.  In part because, according to tradition, Genesis was not written until, at least and for a minimum, of over 2000 years after the epoch of man in Genesis begins.  According to the ancient tradition the Genesis story comes from oral traditions as much as revelation.  Ancient oral traditions are heavily involved with metaphor and symbolism so we are not just dealing with languages and translations but also cultures and interpretations of things we do not know much if anything about.

 

The biggest problem is that science and religion are asking different questions and searching for different answers.  It is amazing to me how much overlap there actually is.  At the same time as a scientist and a devout LDS theologian I am often astonished with ridiculous scientific claims coming from factions of the religious community as well as completely silly religious claims coming from various factions within the scientific community.  Without doubt there is plenty of fuel to fire the flames of disagreement between science and religion and very little cross-over thinking between the two.   It has been my experience that the main disagreements come from "experts" of one side of the separation that is mostly ignorant of the other.  However, with the same breath it appears to me that the scientist are more open to variant ideas and that religious thinkers are most instant that their understanding of things is unquestionably correct - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.   In general it is my personal belief that religious individuals that cannot get right things in science for which there is overwhelming evidence - that it is also likely that their religious study is also flawed.  The same with scientist that cannot seem to connect to religious evidence.  Not that religious experts should be right about everything scientific but for scientific principles to which there is a preponderance of evidence - to refuse to consider possibilities under such evidence tells me that they are not interested in truth - only arguing and accepting evidence that supports their point of view.

 

I understand that there are some in religion that are not interested in science and vicea versa.   It is just my opinion that such thinkers have nothing if anything to add to the discussion of how to deal with the differences between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@prisonchaplain I don't have time to digest the article, but It looks like the school may have just won in Canada's Supreme Court:

 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2016/11/british-columbias-highest-court-approves-canadas-first-law-school-unanimous-decision-rules-religious.html

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sunday21 and @Just_A_Guy  Thank you for these updates.  They are heartening.  I suspect that the results will stall the inevitable.  My greatest surprise is how quickly the U.S. public opinion turned, once our Supreme Court declared gay marriage a constitutional right.  Opposition shrunk something like 30% within less than five years.  This tells me that our Judeo-Christian heritage does not run so deep as I had hoped.  Without public support, protective laws can quickly be chipped away.  Nevertheless, I celebrate these rulings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear @prisonchaplain

the effect of changing laws has a much greater effect on our behaviour than we think. We are considering legalizing pot here. I think this legalization will dramatically increase consumption. If you don't have a faith based standard in your life, you base your decisions and thus your behaviour on your perception of public mores. Your perceptions of what is acceptable is based on factors such as society's laws. If something is legal, it seems more acceptable. Sorry to be so serious but up here we have made euthanasia legal in some situations. Pot may be legal soon. Common law marriages have very similar rights as do actual marriages. Social acceptance of what was once forbidden is accelerating here. I find this rate of change quite disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://vancouversun.com/news/national/trinity-western-at-scc

It seems this battle still rages and a decision of the Supreme Court is anticipated. Since the honor code can't be enforced and anyone can choose to go to school elsewhere this decision is really about whether or not we want to infringe on freedom of association (Christians choosing to go to a school where they associate with others who have chosen to abide by certain codes) than it is about LBGTQ+ rights. It's completely normal to travel to go to school, simply pick to go somewhere else. It would also be a different story if it was a publicly funded school, but it is privately funded. If the curriculum was at fault that would be one thing, but the curriculum has been found comparable to any other law program and was approved prior to any issues arising.  It's about discriminating against who can practice law based on religion as far as I can tell. If the ruling goes the wrong way it leaves me to wonder what is next... will graduates of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU be barred from practicing law in Canada because they agreed to a so-called bigoted honor code? It's amazing that this can be so overtly pushed to discriminate against a religious belief system in the name of "equal rights".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

http://vancouversun.com/news/national/trinity-western-at-scc

It seems this battle still rages and a decision of the Supreme Court is anticipated. Since the honor code can't be enforced and anyone can choose to go to school elsewhere this decision is really about whether or not we want to infringe on freedom of association (Christians choosing to go to a school where they associate with others who have chosen to abide by certain codes) than it is about LBGTQ+ rights. It's completely normal to travel to go to school, simply pick to go somewhere else. It would also be a different story if it was a publicly funded school, but it is privately funded. If the curriculum was at fault that would be one thing, but the curriculum has been found comparable to any other law program and was approved prior to any issues arising.  It's about discriminating against who can practice law based on religion as far as I can tell. If the ruling goes the wrong way it leaves me to wonder what is next... will graduates of the J. Reuben Clark Law School at BYU be barred from practicing law in Canada because they agreed to a so-called bigoted honor code? It's amazing that this can be so overtly pushed to discriminate against a religious belief system in the name of "equal rights".

Remember the LGBT community telling Christians they're intolerant because this is their personal choice and it doesn't affect anybody else?  Remember that?  I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reading the Vancouver Sun article, it appears that Canada has a much stronger sense of public consensus on human rights, and a somewhat weaker sense of the rightful autonomy of religious institutions. Our danger in the U.S. is that many of our young people do not share the reverence for the First Amendment that most of us middle-age and older folk grew up with. The Right of Association is likely even less appreciated than our right to the free exercise of our religion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2014-05-31 at 10:49 PM, prisonchaplain said:

 

I'll confess to being somewhat guilty.  When Christians I discriminated against I am quicker to notice.  However, I have enough confidence in myself to say that, at the end of the day, I come down on the side of individual freedom of association.  That is, the government should not prohibit gay or Christian lawyers from practice.  However, individuals would, in my world, be able to choose who they serve, who rents from them, and who they do business with.  For example, it was not so long ago that many landlords (especially amongst those who owned one or two rentals) would refuse to rent out to couples who were obviously "living in sin."  They lose a customer, but why shouldn't they have that discretion.  Likewise, a homosexual should be able to choose a homosexual attorney, if they believed that such a lawyer would be more understanding.

 

Obviously, it is not my world.  Those days are gone.  Still, I side with individual freedom--even the freedom to be foolishly prejudiced.  Governments, on the other hand, should remain strictly neutral.

I have not read the whole thread but my understanding is that Mormons are advised not to rent to people who don’t obey the major commandments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I have not read the whole thread but my understanding is that Mormons are advised not to rent to people who don’t obey the major commandments. 

In the modern world?  As opposed to 40+ years ago?  I have not heard this, nor the definition of "the major commandments".  If someone is a criminal, or somehow dangerous to others without being a criminal, then anyone who knows it and has sense wouldn't want to rent to them.  But regardless, there are laws about these things, and we're told to follow the laws as much as anyone.

Meanwhile, I'm with @prisonchaplain - I'd rather allow individual freedom than have government forcing a person to deal with people he doesn't want to (regardless of whether his reasons make sense to anyone else).  The only exceptions I can see to that are government and monopolies on necessities1 (housing, food, clothing, transportation, utilities).

1For some reason, that word looks really weird this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I have not read the whole thread but my understanding is that Mormons are advised not to rent to people who don’t obey the major commandments. 

I don’t think that’s accurate from an official standpoint; at least not today.  The Church helped broker a deal in Salt Lake recently where it came out in favor of housing nondiscrimination ordinances.

*UN*officially, I can see why someone living Gospel standards wouldn’t want a residence they own to be “defiled” by the conduct of those they lease to.  But the Church has determined that this consideration is outweighed by other priorities at present.

(Certainly it’s not only legal, but prudent from a business sense, for landlords to continue to consider things like credit history, criminal background, and so on.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I have not read the whole thread but my understanding is that Mormons are advised not to rent to people who don’t obey the major commandments. 

Like others have said, I think that was the case 50 years ago or so, but not anymore. It's your property and you should be allowed to do what you want, but outside of Utah (and even in Utah now, it's 2017) it would be very difficult to find a tenant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

In reading the Vancouver Sun article, it appears that Canada has a much stronger sense of public consensus on human rights, and a somewhat weaker sense of the rightful autonomy of religious institutions. Our danger in the U.S. is that many of our young people do not share the reverence for the First Amendment that most of us middle-age and older folk grew up with. The Right of Association is likely even less appreciated than our right to the free exercise of our religion. 

You're probably on to something here with differences between Canada and the US. I share the concern that too many people, and it does seem that the young are more likely to be among them, don't understand the importance of freedoms that we've enjoyed and in fact appear all too willing to give them up on the sacrificial alter of political correctness - and yet interestingly enough are too inconsistent to see that they want these freedoms for themselves and those of like-mind but would take them away from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy may have a better legal analysis than I do, but when SCOTUS declared gay marriage a human right it set up an unavoidable conflict between religious liberty and human rights. To the non-religious it seems obvious that human rights should not be infringed upon by others, simply because they have religious opinions. They might allow you to forgo having your own abortion (though, not if the public determines that birth control is essential--consider China's recent past), but you will certainly not infringe upon mine. In fact, I may force you to pay for it (through taxes or insurance schemes). AND, if you are a doctor, you will certainly perform one on me. Your denial to do so would infringe upon my human rights, because my body is my human choice, and your reticence hurts my feelings over something that is my human right choice. Likewise with gay marriage. You will take my pictures and bake my cakes. Ultimately, should there not be sufficient push back from the faith communities in the U.S., I can see a movement to remove tax exemptions from churches that restrict the human rights of LGBT. 

Then again, the U.S. could  experience a revival of faith and spirituality, and these forces and trends could be turned back for a generation or so. We must keep praying and living by godly example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s been a while since I read Obergfell; but as I recall the logic was pretty disjointed and the opinion consisted primarily of emotionally-rooted, ill-defined peans to “dignity”; which creates a minefield for future jurisprudence.

Kennedy wrote that opinion, and he’s also the swing vote in the upcoming Masterpiece Cake opinion.  SCOTUS observers say he seemed “troubled” during the oral arguments heard earlier this month—he’s always had some nice things to say about the rights of religious minorities; and I while I daresay he stands by the result of Obergfell. I suspect he finally comprehends what a logical stinker that opinion was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I have not read the whole thread but my understanding is that Mormons are advised not to rent to people who don’t obey the major commandments. 

Exact opposite, in some ways.  The church co-sponsored some legislation along those lines:

LDS Church, LGBT advocates back anti-discrimination, religious rights bill

SB296 says, in part:

Quote

This bill:
▸     includes sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases for discrimination in employment
▸     includes sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited bases for discrimination in housing

So the LDS church not only has no problem renting to Fred and Bob the gay couple, the church actually co-sponsored legislation to make it illegal to not rent to Fred and Bob because they're a gay couple. 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Exact opposite, in some ways.  The church co-sponsored some legislation along those lines:

LDS Church, LGBT advocates back anti-discrimination, religious rights bill

SB296 says, in part:

So the LDS church not only has no problem renting to Fred and Bob the gay couple, the church actually co-sponsored legislation to make it illegal to not rent to Fred and Bob because they're a gay couple. 

Perhaps we are weird here? When I considering renting a room in a Mormon home when inactive, the sister said no alcohol etc. Others up here ask those who rent their basement apartments to obey Lds standards, no overnight opposite gender guests.

Perhaps the difference is that basement apartments are considered part of your home?

Actually, for a basement apartment with a separate entrance, asking someone to live Lds standards is likely illegal here ...so yes the Lds people are breaking the law. Oh dear! I guess we are not thinking things through!

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Perhaps we are weird here? When I considering renting a room in a Mormon home when inactive, the sister said no alcohol etc. Others up here ask those who rent their basement apartments to obey Lds standards, no overnight opposite gender guests.

Perhaps the difference is that basement apartments are considered part of your home?

Certainly a private person renting out a room in their home is different from a commercial apartment complex.  Not sure what formal business / legal requirements there are (or are being followed) in the first scenario.  But given that this is probably a situation where the renter has free or at least easy access to the home where the owner lives, that would justify stricter standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, zil said:

Certainly a private person renting out a room in their home is different from a commercial apartment complex.  Not sure what formal business / legal requirements there are (or are being followed) in the first scenario.  But given that this is probably a situation where the renter has free or at least easy access to the home where the owner lives, that would justify stricter standards.

Often times laws like this take effect when the apartment in question is "publicly advertised."  If it's by referral only, then such laws tend not to have force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lonetree said:

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada has come down on the Trinity Western Law School matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trinity-western-supreme-court-decision-1.4707240

Informed reaction:

 

This is a sad day for Canadian freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now