prisonchaplain

Accredited Christian law school grads barred from practice

Recommended Posts

Graduates of Trinity Western University Law School (Langely, BC) are barred from practing law in Ontario.  Why?  They signed a covenant agreeing to keep their sexual activity within the bounds of heterosexual marriage.  Critics say that such a covenant is proof enough that the graduates would not treat all clients equally.  British Columbia considered a similar move, but ultimately approved the school's graduates.  At least one commentator wonders when already-practicing barristers will face similar prohibitions.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-rejected-by-ontario-law-society-1.2621211

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah here same sex marriage is legal everywhere, for those who don't know. Also Canada is far less religious then the US.

While belief in God isn't going down, the belief in religion is (23% is none).

I think my father's belief is pretty common- he believes in God but thinks church is corrupt and a waste of time.
It would seem we don't want religion effecting anything since there are so many here-and so many nones.

I for one am glad for that, if I choose a religion-free life, I don't want it in my government regardless, we are a multi cultural nation, why should one rule over all the others?! Why should any rule at all?
They shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yeah here same sex marriage is legal everywhere, for those who don't know. Also Canada is far less religious then the US.

While belief in God isn't going down, the belief in religion is (23% is none).

I think my father's belief is pretty common- he believes in God but thinks church is corrupt and a waste of time.

It would seem we don't want religion effecting anything since there are so many here-and so many nones.

I for one am glad for that, if I choose a religion-free life, I don't want it in my government regardless, we are a multi cultural nation, why should one rule over all the others?! Why should any rule at all?

They shouldn't.

 

But then, heterosexual marriage is not just a religious thing.  Nor signing moral contracts.  Like a no-drugs contract for sports teams.  If the law school would have had a no non-performance-enhancing drugs contract would the law school graduates then be ill-equipped to represent those who take performance-enhancing drugs?

 

It's stupidity, it's what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah here same sex marriage is legal everywhere, for those who don't know. Also Canada is far less religious then the US.

While belief in God isn't going down, the belief in religion is (23% is none).

I think my father's belief is pretty common- he believes in God but thinks church is corrupt and a waste of time.

It would seem we don't want religion effecting anything since there are so many here-and so many nones.

I for one am glad for that, if I choose a religion-free life, I don't want it in my government regardless, we are a multi cultural nation, why should one rule over all the others?! Why should any rule at all?

They shouldn't.

 

What's the difference between one who believes in no organized religion ruling over one who believes in organized religion vs. the other way around? Wherein is it fair or right for the one's influence to count and the others to not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, heterosexual marriage is not just a religious thing.  Nor signing moral contracts.  Like a no-drugs contract for sports teams.

neither type is a religious thing, really. It can be but it's not always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be so easy to start ranting.  This is so outrageous.  Those who take their religion seriously are barred from professional practice?  Really???  I've read two articles on this--both emphasizing that those participating in these decisions took the issue very seriously, spent a great amount of time, and took seriously the issues of equality vs. religion freedom.  In other words, this was no rash decision.

 

Paul tells us to pray for Caesar.  Pray we must!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying how it is here, not what I believe.

I am asking why religion should rule and influence, in a society with a seperation of church and state.

 

Separation of church and state means, and has always meant, that there is no state church and no church state. It means that the religious organization is not the government and the government does not dictate religion. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that religious people are banned from participating in government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Separation of church and state means, and has always meant, that there is no state church and no church state. It means that the religious organization is not the government and the government does not dictate religion. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that religious people are banned from participating in government.

No of course not, but putting their religion in their decisions to govern the people is not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. Religion dictates values. Values dictate morality. Morality dictates governance. 

I disagree, one can have values without religion.

One can have morality without it and one can be a good person while having no faith in something bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, one can have values without religion.

One can have morality without it and one can be a good person while having no faith in something bigger.

 

You're disagreeing with something I did not say. I did not say one cannot have values without religion. I said that religion dictates values. I'm saying that one person's values as dictated by their religion are just as valid as one whose values are dictated by something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be so easy to start ranting.  This is so outrageous.  Those who take their religion seriously are barred from professional practice?  Really???  I've read two articles on this--both emphasizing that those participating in these decisions took the issue very seriously, spent a great amount of time, and took seriously the issues of equality vs. religion freedom.  In other words, this was no rash decision.

 

Paul tells us to pray for Caesar.  Pray we must!

 

I agree....about the ranting, I mean. Also I am concerned...if those who are serious about religion are barred from practicing...who does that leave us with?  Scary thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No of course not, but putting their religion in their decisions to govern the people is not a good thing.

 

The government is putting their secular/humanist religious beliefs in their decisions to govern and in so doing are discriminating against a graduates of a religious college.

 

...and it's a bad thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll pose this as a question.  Is the LBGT community--those pushing these kinds of decisions, anyway--engaging in payback for the centuries of Sodomy laws and our sexual teaching against that which they do?  In other words, is this really mostly about revenge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll pose this as a question.  Is the LBGT community--those pushing these kinds of decisions, anyway--engaging in payback for the centuries of Sodomy laws and our sexual teaching against that which they do?  In other words, is this really mostly about revenge?

 

out of all the GLBT people I have known-and know, revenge never comes up, its about simple equality.

They simply wanting every right and freedom and protection from slander and what not, that everyone else has.

Freedom to marry, to live, that sort of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll pose this as a question.  Is the LBGT community--those pushing these kinds of decisions, anyway--engaging in payback for the centuries of Sodomy laws and our sexual teaching against that which they do?  In other words, is this really mostly about revenge?

 

I think it's about a sea change in public (if not the general public's actual thoughts than those opinions voiced in public) opinion concerning traditional religious mores. I think religion is in the process of going from being seen as the bastion of morality to the bastion of unwanted perspectives and opinions. In other terms, it's less vengeance and more a shift towards seeing conservative religion as akin to the KKK. This is not to discount cases where there are individuals, and even organizations, engaging in revenge against conservative religion, but I think classification of happenings such as highlighted in the OP as vengeance is to dismiss a trend. I honestly think those behind barring the practice of law by those graduates are doing it because they see it as akin to a bunch of lawyers getting together to keep their marriages racially pure*.

 

*The validity of such a comparison is of course up to debate, my point is not that the comparison is valid but that I think the individuals are making it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

out of all the GLBT people I have known-and know, revenge never comes up, its about simple equality.

They simply wanting every right and freedom and protection from slander and what not, that everyone else has.

Freedom to marry, to live, that sort of stuff.

 

If it's about simple equality out of government then they already have it.  They've always had it.  So, this is not about simple equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's about simple equality out of government then they already have it.  They've always had it.  So, this is not about simple equality.

I am just going by what is said, they didn't have equality for a long time (eg being able to marry the same gender) and no they've not always had it, beyond the marriage thing.

More on topic, I have never heard revenge being brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am just going by what is said, they didn't have equality for a long time (eg being able to marry the same gender) and no they've not always had it, beyond the marriage thing.

More on topic, I have never heard revenge being brought up.

 

Yes, they've always had it.  Nobody is able to marry the same gender.  All equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

out of all the GLBT people I have known-and know, revenge never comes up, its about simple equality.

They simply wanting every right and freedom and protection from slander and what not, that everyone else has.

Freedom to marry, to live, that sort of stuff.

 

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?

 

"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?

 

"Live and let live" would seem to have to be quite so vindictive?

 

Easy answer.

 

Because they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If so, why ban lawyers from practicing because of their religious convictions?  Why force a CEO to resign because of his political donations from 6 years ago?  Why bankrupt a former employer because they do not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding?  Why fine football players $10,000 and send them to re-education camp (i.e. sensitivity training) because they state publically that the new gay football player ought not be quite so in-our-faces with his public displays of affection on national TV?

 

"Live and let live" should not have to be quite so vindictive?

 

Yeah some get a little much, I said those I knew, I don't speak for the GLBT community (if I did I'd have a hat and a cape or something lol).

 

I mean how would Christians feel if they were treated that way? Would they not act?

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