Accredited Christian law school grads barred from practice

[Jamie123]

(Deleted double post)

 

[Windseeker]

This comedian nailed it speaking of the progressive left.

 

 

“You have become exactly [like] the conservative, religious book burners of the 40s and the 50s and the 60s. You are it!”

“You are the speech repressors, you are the hypersensitive ones, you are the ones who want people fired immediately, you are the ones calling for people’s jobs. You have become what you hated.” ~ Jim Norton

[The Folk Prophet]

For many years now we have been plagued with the absurd idea that best way to ensure tolerance, diversity and mutual respect is to punish anyone who thinks his or her opinions are more correct than anyone else's.

 

Concerning tolerance, I read this in an article yesterday that I thought was interesting.

 

 

According to the Riddle Homophobia Scale, designed by Dr. Dorothy Riddle and used in many of our schools, “homophobic” attitudes include: 1) Repulsion; 2) Pity; 3) Tolerance; and 4) Acceptance. (That’s correct: “Tolerance” and “Acceptance” are now considered homophobic.) Listed under the Positive category are: 5) Support; 6) Admiration; 7) Appreciation; and 8) Nurturance

 

[Quin]

On the US side of things, it's just penduluming a bit now / "examples being made", in my opinion.

Substitute gay marriage / non-discrimination laws for ANY other new law or social more, and there's a spate of charges (or other activity) laid in the beginning, and then people simmer down.

It's a human thing.

Whether it's being allowed to ride in the front of the bus, so even if you like the back you rush the front...

Or being allowed to vote...

Or topless bathing...

Or __________ whatever...

And you have groups of people who respond based on their personality type:

- those who do, who will go back to doing not

- those who party in the streets

- those who seek out opponents to thumb their noses at them

- those who try to set legal precedent

- those who set up boycotts

- those who set up studies

- those who move onto the next cause

- etc.

Whether it's gay marriage, or breast feeding, or city chickens, or emancipation.

Big or small, there's a set series of human reactions the victors (and defeated) all follow.

Some of it's really necessary, though, from a legal perspective.

Because untried laws are straw men.

There has to be precedent set to show a law is actually solid/will be honored by people in general, & enforceable.

_________

I'm not super familiar with Canadian Law, but even in the States, certain professions are held to higher standards than the public.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find a "predictable is preventable" kind of law in CA, that would be illegal here.

Like in the US prior bad acts are usually not allowed in court, but in the UK prior bad acts aren't just allowed they get a spotlight on them to show patterns of behavior. Or our Miranda Rights vs UK equivalent: US is "You have the right to remain silent" (and speaking without an attorney is stupid), but in the UK if you remain silent, but later depend on something in court you didn't say until later it hurts your defense.

So in the US members of the Nazi Party can get teaching certificates,,pass the bar, get their MD, etc.

But it sounds like in CA, belonging to the same hate group would preclude position in certain public positions.

So it's not really a stretch that if you signed a document stating that you would never marry outside your race there would be the same consequences as if you signed a document saying that you will never marry inside your gender.

Q

[applepansy]

 

 

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

Yes we must pray!

[Traveler]

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.

 

This may be an opinion?  Do you have a way to demonstrate the validity of this opinion.  Without question religion is a major factor in human evolution.  The assumption that human society would evolve values without religion is ignoring the historical facts.  I am not sure that human could even evolve intelligence without evolving religion. 

 

Can you point to any civilization that evolved values without some contact with religion?  We may speculate over which came first but then that is speculation.   I do not believe that one can evolve without the other.  Do you have any examples that prove otherwise?  

[Traveler]

Soul and Traveler--humility and grace would be wonderful healers.  Sadly, persecution often breeds a chip on the shoulder, and the pride of victimhood.  I pray we do not sucuumb, but rather take hope in the saying, "This too shall pass."  Yes, it is prejudiced and biased to ban traditionalists in law because of alleged bias and prejudiced.  However, they think they are right, so they perceive their biases as self-evident truths.  Humility, humility, where art thou, or humility?

So are we to assume that anyone intending to obey the law should not be allowed to practice law because they are prejudice against criminals?

 

I would point out that traditional Christians would not protect by law those that disagreed with their interpretation of religion.  The history of mankind has been to take political power and force those that disagree with you to suffer consequences of the law.  Sometime I think that Jesus will be more disappointed from error of his followers in the law than in the mess the rest of humanity has made of the law.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I'm sure you could detail a litany of such failures from the traditional Christian camp.  Then again, 1/3rd of the world is traditional Christian.  I'd just point out that one of the most fiery and conservative traditional Christians of my generation (well, slightly older) was the Rev. Jerry Falwell.  Yet, he declared that he would fight for the right of folk like Larry Flynt to have their 1st Amendment rights protected.  Further, he did cooperate with LDS on political and social issues.

 

So, it's not that I disagree.  I do see hope though.  We can be christlike when we put our hearts and minds to it.  :-)

[Lakumi]

This may be an opinion?  Do you have a way to demonstrate the validity of this opinion.  Without question religion is a major factor in human evolution.  The assumption that human society would evolve values without religion is ignoring the historical facts.  I am not sure that human could even evolve intelligence without evolving religion.

 

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).

[Guest]

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).

 

Well, if you don't know what religion is, you can't really point out what it isn't.  Because... all your spiel here on what you think religion has done is not what my religion is...

 

Religion does not change and is only for that time the book was written?  You've never heard of us Mormons talking about Modern Prophets that apply universal truths of the gospel of Christ to modern civilization?

 

Religion and science at odds with each other?  In your religion maybe... but not in my religion.  It is specifically written in our Articles of Faith just to make sure you see it plain and clear - truth can be found anywhere... including science.

 

But then... maybe you should define what you mean by religion... because even Darwin had a religion.

[jerome1232]

I know specifically some people like to give the catholic church a bad rep in this regard. It seems to me that despite everything, the vast amount of history and scientific discoveries from those periods are from monks and priests. Even in more recent times the father of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

Many perceive a gap between more recent scientific discoveries and theology that I don't believe exists. Often those who say these things interpret our theology in the worst possible way to make it contradict discoveries and maintain that our theology can not be interpreted another way.

[Lakumi]

I don't have a religion, I made that perfectly clear, and I also said I don't believe all of them are like that.

And of course last, I understand what religion is, I understand the concept of faith, but I don't quite know how to have faith-that's what I mean.

[Guest]

I don't have a religion, I made that perfectly clear, and I also said I don't believe all of them are like that.

And of course last, I understand what religion is, I understand the concept of faith, but I don't quite know how to have faith-that's what I mean.

 

But you did use religion in your post as all-encompassing... you didn't say SOME religions... you said religion is counter-productive to science - which implies religion itself... not specific religions.

[Lakumi]

But you did use religion in your post as all-encompassing... you didn't say SOME religions... you said religion is counter-productive to science - which implies religion itself... not specific religions.

 

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?

 

[prisonchaplain]

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?

[Lakumi]

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?

 

No, there's a difference between simple belief and bigotry.

Just because someone doesn't believe in same sex marriage doesn't mean they're gonna be all "god hates gays" thing.

If these people were dedicated to pracitising the law fairly for all, then by all means they should.

It is only if they do not should they be punished.

[The Folk Prophet]

No, there's a difference between simple belief and bigotry.

 

Not entirely accurate. If I 'simply believe' that blacks are inferior then I am a bigot -- no getting around it.

[Lakumi]

Not entirely accurate. If I 'simply believe' that blacks are inferior then I am a bigot -- no getting around it.

Yes of course, but I could go on for hours about the details of those and how they relate to this.

[prisonchaplain]

Not entirely accurate. If I 'simply believe' that blacks are inferior then I am a bigot -- no getting around it.

 

In light of this discussion, I'm not so sure.  For example, it could be argued, by this standard, that we are all bigots.  After all, I believe that Christians will rule and reign with Jesus, and that others will not.  Then again, let me point to a reprehensible doctrine--but one that a small minority of Christians hold to:  that God intends the races to remain separate because he declared that standard at the Tower of Babel.  This was the justification Bob Jones University use to invoke in prohibiting interracial dating.

 

I find that understanding to be foolish, unnecessary, and possibly a "reading into" of scripture.  Indeed, BJU rescinded the policy back in the early 1980s. 

 

Was the doctrine a sincerely held religious belief, or just bigotry--no getting around it?  Maybe it was both?  However, what concerns me is that the IRS successfully revoked BJU's tax-exempt status, saying no segregated school could be called charitable.  Never mind that the charitable designation was due to its religious foundation.  Government could no distinguish between government-approved religion and that which was not.

 

So, sure.  Racial supremacy is bigoted on the face of it.  Yet, even when such tinges a discussion of religious liberty, I tend to side with non-government interference in matters of faith.

[Soulsearcher]

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?

[Soulsearcher]

I know specifically some people like to give the catholic church a bad rep in this regard. It seems to me that despite everything, the vast amount of history and scientific discoveries from those periods are from monks and priests. Even in more recent times the father of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

Many perceive a gap between more recent scientific discoveries and theology that I don't believe exists. Often those who say these things interpret our theology in the worst possible way to make it contradict discoveries and maintain that our theology can not be interpreted another way.

Remembering that while so much of this is true the Catholic church executed a couple of those great thinkers or cause them a life of torment for being so forward thinking.  And there is still some push back from the church even with some of the more recent advances made by some of their members.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

What about . . . Oh, say, a wedding photographer?

Let 'em all work, I say; and let ''em be open and honest about their prejudices. The free market will sort out 90% of the rest of it.

[Guest]

 

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.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought too when I got assigned a male OB/GYN...

 

If you're a good lawyer, just like if you're a good OB/GYN, it really doesn't matter who you're representing, you are bound by oath to do the job of a lawyer.  My uncle is a lawyer and there was a time when he prosecuted for a victim of rape in the morning and then defended a rapist in the afternoon.  A lawyer does not mete out judgment - he merely works to make sure that the justice system treats the person he is representing fairly according to the law.  If you're a bad lawyer - it doesn't matter much if you're gay or straight... nobody should seek out your business...

[The Folk Prophet]

In light of this discussion, I'm not so sure.  For example, it could be argued, by this standard, that we are all bigots.  

 

We are....unless Christ lives, God reigns, and we're actually right. But until that is proven, yeah...we will be viewed that way.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, that's what I thought too when I got assigned a male OB/GYN...

 

If you're a good lawyer, just like if you're a good OB/GYN, it really doesn't matter who you're representing, you are bound by oath to do the job of a lawyer.  My uncle is a lawyer and there was a time when he prosecuted for a victim of rape in the morning and then defended a rapist in the afternoon.  A lawyer does not mete out judgment - he merely works to make sure that the justice system treats the person he is representing fairly according to the law.  If you're a bad lawyer - it doesn't matter much if you're gay or straight... nobody should seek out your business...

To expand on this a bit--in the US, lawyers are free to cease or decline representation of a client where (quoting Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, and most states have similar binding provisions): "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement".

It's bad business to turn down any client you don't agree with 100%, but the right to refuse to aid and abet conduct one finds repugnant is preserved in the American legal profession.