Trinity Western- Religious Freedom vs Human Rights

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.

In the bigger picture, I don't support mixing of religion and education. Religions have their churches, synagogues, temples, whatever and they can preach their dogma there. "Religious based education" is not education at all, and it shouldn't be accredited with degree granting status in any field, whether a private or public institution.

But "any lawyer" is granted their LLB by an institution that openly states that the laws of their god come first, human laws come second. This gets right to the heart of the core dogma of just about every religion, which is absolutist moral codes. A lawyer must be able to be free of this sort of moral code.

The christian religion is pretty clear: "thou shalt not kill" is written in primary list of moral codes (a sadly deficient list it is, I might add). There is absolutely no wiggle room - kill=bad=sin=hell. Our laws are more humanist. We have degrees of murder (killing with intent is worse than neglectful action resulting in death). We have the ability, within our legal code, to use self-defence as a reason to kill if the evidence can support it.

How can someone who has "all killing bad" drilled into their core values fairly represent someone who admits killing, but just wants the extenuating circumstances fairly represented in court? Our laws started out as christian values, but the evolution of our laws has been along humanist lines. Religion has no place here.

true, but you're making the assumption that any and all chrstian lawyers who attend TWU will be incapable of making the disticntions you lay out. i think that's an incorrect assertion. besides, how do you solve the issue of a fundamentalist christian who attends law at ubc from making the very mistakes you warn about? do you hsay that only atheists can be lawyers? no of course not, that would be discriminatory.

i see your point ken, but it falls on false logic based on assumptions that may not even exist.

In the bigger picture, I don't support mixing of religion and education. Religions have their churches, synagogues, temples, whatever and they can preach their dogma there. "Religious based education" is not education at all, and it shouldn't be accredited with degree granting status in any field, whether a private or public institution.

i'm well aware of and disagree with your stance here. i find it unfortunate that you think anyone who believes in any level of any sort of faith is nothing more than a blibbering idiot. it's also unfortunate that you can't see that people can have faith of varying degress and be well educated with rational thought process. you see this as an all or none equation whereas i do not.

i'm well aware of and disagree with your stance here. i find it unfortunate that you think anyone who believes in any level of any sort of faith is nothing more than a blibbering idiot. it's also unfortunate that you can't see that people can have faith of varying degress and be well educated with rational thought process. you see this as an all or none equation whereas i do not.

Now who's making incorrect assertions?

i'm well aware of and disagree with your stance here. i find it unfortunate that you think anyone who believes in any level of any sort of faith is nothing more than a blibbering idiot. it's also unfortunate that you can't see that people can have faith of varying degress and be well educated with rational thought process. you see this as an all or none equation whereas i do not.

He got there fast. Only about 4 pages.

Now who's making incorrect assertions?

you've clearly stated a rather abject view of people who believe in religion in previous threads as well as indirectly in this one with your assertion that chistian lawyers who attend a christian based university are unable to distinguish between the varying legal degress of murder.

your words ken, not mine.

and just so i am clear KenN, why do you feel that TWU should not be able to graduate lawyers within the scope of this thread and the articles posted by enduramil?

the question at hand seems to be that it may be because they may discriminate against those of the LGBT community.

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.

0%.

Should Scientology manage to become an official religion in Canada, would you be fine with our levels of government providing them with funding for learning facilities besides, "paying for instructors and support staff"?

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

Yes, nearly all of it.

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?

'YES I DENY I HIT MY WIFE'.

I have disdain for integration of church and state. I have bias against Christian institutions that can ignore Matthew 7 whenever it fancies them. I believe they are a successful commercial institution and have intelligent people writing their copy just like these folk.

Now that buggery is legal, how long until society advances to where bestiality is no longer shamed?

i think we might already be there switch . . .

i hear about guys " fuckin' the dog " on jobsites all the time .

I liked working in a pulp mill. The workers were always bragging about who ducked the dog the most during their shift. I also liked their ultimate insult: calling another worker a lifer.

you've clearly stated a rather abject view of people who believe in religion in previous threads as well as indirectly in this one with your assertion that chistian lawyers who attend a christian based university are unable to distinguish between the varying legal degress of murder.

I have stated that my opinion is that religion imposes a net negative value on individuals and society. That is to say, the few positives are outweighed by the many negatives. And, in fact, the positives don't actually require any form of religious belief to manifest themselves. I have never stated or implied that …

i find it unfortunate that you think anyone who believes in any level of any sort of faith is nothing more than a blibbering idiot. it's also unfortunate that you can't see that people can have faith of varying degress and be well educated with rational thought process. you see this as an all or none equation whereas i do not.

Or anything of the sort.

your words ken, not mine.

Your words, not mine. Oh, dem incorrect assertions!

i see your point ken, but it falls on false logic based on assumptions that may not even exist.

Funny how it's the same logic being used by those in the law profession to oppose the accreditation. Huh.

and just so i am clear KenN, why do you feel that TWU should not be able to graduate lawyers within the scope of this thread and the articles posted by enduramil?

the question at hand seems to be that it may be because they may discriminate against those of the LGBT community.

Sorry if your definition of reasonable debate means placing constraints on the conversation that limit content to a single opening statement. Many here are correct - the whole issue around gays and the 'covenant' are the smaller issue. In the bigger picture, the validity of a 'faith-based' law school is the more pressing question.

Now that buggery is legal, how long until society advances to where bestiality is no longer shamed?

WBC is that you?