Trinity Western- Religious Freedom vs Human Rights

Should TWU be allowed Canadian taxpayer monies while operating under rules of their faith and not of common law?

under canadian law, all faiths are allowed gov't monies when it comes to education purposes. students are not forced to attend TWU as it's not the only post secondary option available, they go there by choice. so in the fairly limited scope of their public funding, i personally do not see an issue with it. i would have an issue though if instructional funding came from gov't funds or they were wholly supported by gov't funds. imo, an educational institution that is wholly supported by the public purse should be non-denominationl in it's directives.

did you read the link i posted re TWU's response to questions about the issues people seem to be having with their prgram?

https://www.twu.ca/academics/school-of-law/faq.html

Funding is not the issue here,but the acceptance of a law school by the law society is. Now,on the other hand,should the law society disbar lawyers who are Muslim or of any faith at all,lest their thoughts cloud their judgement?

That isn't the issue. It isn't about the faith of the individual, but rather the teachings of the institution where the individual's degree is earned.

The law society has no business in qualifying education or where it comes from. Law firms and clients do though.

Also incorrect. Qualifying and certifying law education is entirely the law society's business. Their whole model as a self regulating profession is predicated on qualifying which institutions' degrees they recognize for admission to the bar.

http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=2199[HTML_REMOVED]t=The-Rule-of-Law,-Lawyer-Independence-and-the-Self-Governance-of-Lawyers

Most professions, including doctors, engineers, accountants and many others, are regulated. Lawyers are regulated by the Law Society of British Columbia which decides who qualifies to become a lawyer in BC and disciplines any lawyers who do not follow its rules. At the Law Society, most of the people who investigate and make decisions about lawyers are also lawyers. This is known as self-governance or self-regulation and is common to all professions.

did you read the link i posted re TWU's response to questions about the issues people seem to be having with their prgram?

https://www.twu.ca/academics/school-of-law/faq.html

Yep. A truly entertaining collection of lies and half-truths!

http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/25/jonathan-kay-maybe-twus-critics-should-take-a-look-at-u-s-christian-law-schools

Yep. A truly entertaining collection of lies and half-truths!

Proof?

Proof?

Isn’t it strange for a university to try to dictate the behavior of its students?

We don’t “dictate” anyone’s behavior.

Uh, that's exactly what their stupid covenant does do.

So “extramarital” sexual relations between an unmarried couple—whether gay or straight—is unacceptable. But what about legally married same-sex couples?

“Civil” same-sex unions are now recognized by Canadian law. But views on same-sex marriage differ widely. Many religions—including many Christian denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews—have chosen not to bless same-sex unions, and have drafted resolutions or official church policies, based upon their traditional religious teachings, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We share those views.

No, that is a lie. Canada fully recognizes same sex marriage as equal in every way to heterosexual marriage. Full and equal rights under the law for both partners in the union. The Ontario court of appeal pronounced existing Canadian laws banning same sex marriage to be unconstitutional June 10, 2003. The Federal government followed up with the gender-neutral Civil Marriage Act.

See how they skew their statements? They can't even bring themselves to correctly (truthfully?) state the law of the land - and they want to teach law?

That isn't the issue. It isn't about the faith of the individual, but rather the teachings of the institution where the individual's degree is earned.

so if the institution is teaching the individual to practice canadian law then why is there an issue?

Uh, that's exactly what their stupid covenant does do.

No, that is a lie. Canada fully recognizes same sex marriage as equal in every way to heterosexual marriage. Full and equal rights under the law for both partners in the union. The Ontario court of appeal pronounced existing Canadian laws banning same sex marriage to be unconstitutional June 10, 2003. The Federal government followed up with the gender-neutral Civil Marriage Act.

See how they skew their statements? They can't even bring themselves to correctly (truthfully?) state the law of the land - and they want to teach law?

they didn't skew the statement, simply clarified it by making the distinction between civil marriages and their own faith based definition of marriage.

so if the institution is teaching the individual to practice canadian law then why is there an issue?

What is a “faith-based” law school?

A great deal of our western legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values and principles—from a moral code that condemns theft and murder to ethical standards that have guided civilization. We see the opportunity to connect those ethics and values to our students’ Christian beliefs as a very positive way to reinforce both their faith and their professional standards as lawyers.

So, by instilling these values, if one of their graduates becomes a defence lawyer, would he/she be able to represent a known thief or murderer to the full extent of their ability?

i would have an issue though if instructional funding came from gov't funds or they were wholly supported by gov't funds

And therein lies the rub. I bet you would agree that 99% support is too much, correct? How's about 98%? We agree in principle we only differ at the cutoff point.

did you read the link i posted re TWU's response to questions about the issues people seem to be having with their prgram?

https://www.twu.ca/academics/school-of-law/faq.html

Yes I did. Along similar lines, a salesman I met today told me I should buy their product.

Did you read the LSUC transcript?

So, by instilling these values, if one of their graduates becomes a defence lawyer, would he/she be able to represent a known thief or murderer to the full extent of their ability?

i woud ask why not? is a moral abhorration of murder exclusive to chrsitians? does that mean to be a defence lawyer for a murderer one must be okay with murder? your question could be asked of any lawyer, of any belief system, of any race, of any gender, of any sexual orientation, etc, etc fopr any type of defence case.

And therein lies the rub. I bet you would agree that 99% support is too much, correct? How's about 98%? We agree in principle we only differ at the cutoff point.

Yes I did. Along similar lines, a salesman I met today told me I should buy their product.

Did you read the LSUC transcript?

realistically we wouldn't end up splitting hairs like that as the cut-off point is not going to be a blurry line in the sand. but at what point would you begin to be uncomfortable? i would say that as soon as gov't funding is being used in the direction education of students - ie paying for instructors and support staff - that faith based guidelines should no longer be applied to said education.

i didn't read the whole transcript, is there something i should pay particular attention to?

re the salesman comment, is that based in your disdain of religion and bias against twu or do you genuinely beleive they are intentionally misleading the public for their own benefit?

i woud ask why not? is a moral abhorration of murder exclusive to chrsitians? does that mean to be a defence lawyer for a murderer one must be okay with murder? your question could be asked of any lawyer, of any belief system, of any race, of any gender, of any sexual orientation, etc, etc fopr any type of defence case.

So while you are defending the right of a religion based institution to uphold antiquated beliefs while teaching the law of the land, would you hold your defence if they explicitly stated that inter-racial marriage is against their beliefs?

So while you are defending the right of a religion based institution to uphold antiquated beliefs while teaching the law of the land, would you hold your defence if they explicitly stated that inter-racial marriage is against their beliefs?

in order to have that conversation it's important to recognize the difference between holding a belief vs using that belief to discriminate against others. so yes, i would say that while it is ok for a group to not believe in same-sex on interracial marriage is is not ok for them to take that right away from others. that is the conundrum of freedom.

being truly free is alloowing someone to beleive in something you may not believe in. imo where it becomes an issue is when one's beliefs cross the line into discriminatio or persecution.