im not gay so why should i give a shit
You should give a shit because it's the decent and human thing to do.
the teh
Trinity Western- Religious Freedom vs Human Rights
One I still talk to once in a while, and therefore have pics. the friend i can't even remember her name.
Getting busted in the fort langley parking lot in the ole 4runner, by the police. good times.
To be young again.
What are you, 20 something? lol. You are young.
This just in …
Thousands of B.C. lawyers have voted for a non-binding resolution to reverse the B.C. Law Society's April decision to accredit Trinity Western University's new Christian law school, which has been criticized for its stance against same-sex relationships.
The resolution directs the board of governors, known as Benchers, to deny law society accreditation to TWU's law school.
Of the B.C. Law Society's 13,000 members, 3,210 voted in favour and 968 were opposed. However, the resolution is not binding, so does not automatically reverse the decision to accredit the law school.
"The decision regarding whether to admit graduates from the proposed law school at TWU is a Bencher decision," said president Jan Lindsay.
"However, the Benchers will give the result of todays [Tuesday's] members' meeting serious and thoughtful consideration."
The special vote was called over the Christian universitys controversial covenant, which forbids students and staff from engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage between a man and woman.
Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, who triggered the vote, believes that covenant is discriminatory.
We are assessing an institution that wishes to discriminate based on sexual orientation," said Mulligan before the vote.
"In my judgment, that is wrong and offensive, and our law society ought not to countenance that or indeed approve the school as they are asking for."
After the vote Mulligan was pleased 77 per cent of his colleagues who voted agreed.
"In my judgment, this gets us on the right side of history of this issue, both from a legal and a moral perspective," said Mulligan.
…
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Lets forget for a minute that the media and complainants continue to take liberties with the wording of the school's covenant……
Less than 1/4 of the law society bothered to vote on this momentous issue….and only 77% of them were against accredation.
….not exactly a resounding (non binding) win, I'd say.
…and for the record, the school asks that unmarried students refrain from sex (no matter who are) and doesn't "support" same sex marriage (not against it, just dont like the idea of it)
Pastor of Muppets
It's interesting a UVIC law professor is stating this is a religious issue:
Students and faculty can choose to adhere to it, or they are perfectly free, of course, not to attend Trinity Western University. It is a private institution. The covenant is an expression of their religious belief, she notes.
In fact, she says its healthy for a society to defend freedom of religion.
Regardless, isn't this covenant a form of judgement, something that is pretty clearly covered in Matthew 7? Mix in a little Matthew 5:43 and I'd say this covenant isn't very Christian at all.
Considering that more lawyers voted in this than the last bencher election even though bencher elections are a simple mail in while this vote had to be done at a handful of polling stations scattered across the province - I would say that the turn out was resounding. This is just the first step in a process that leads to a binding resolution - if the bencher's refuse to implement it within the year.
Two people both legally married are treated differently by the covenant, depending on their sexual orientation. That is the discrimination I see. As for the right not to attend - Rosa Parks had the right to move to the back of the bus. She also had the right to use the back door in restaurants owned by white religious folks - or better yet go to another restaurant all together. Many religious groups said that her discrimination was based on their reading of the bible.
I may be wrong on this in law (the SCC will tell us soon enough) but I would rather be wrong having argued for greater inclusiveness and against religious fundamentalism than condoning discrimination.
Put another way, if somewhere there was a law school that said someone could only attend if they promised to agree that man's law was always above god's, and to never attend religious services on Sunday off campus- I would be equally opposed.
Considering that more lawyers voted in this than the last bencher election even though bencher elections are a simple mail in while this vote had to be done at a handful of polling stations scattered across the province - I would say that the turn out was resounding. This is just the first step in a process that leads to a binding resolution - if the bencher's refuse to implement it within the year.
Two people both legally married are treated differently by the covenant, depending on their sexual orientation. That is the discrimination I see. As for the right not to attend - Rosa Parks had the right to move to the back of the bus. She also had the right to use the back door in restaurants owned by white religious folks - or better yet go to another restaurant all together. Many religious groups said that her discrimination was based on their reading of the bible.
I may be wrong on this in law (the SCC will tell us soon enough) but I would rather be wrong having argued for greater inclusiveness and against religious fundamentalism than condoning discrimination.
Put another way, if somewhere there was a law school that said someone could only attend if they promised to agree that man's law was always above god's, and to never attend religious services on Sunday off campus- I would be equally opposed.
That last part seems to be where the law society is leaning towards.
Pastor of Muppets
Considering that more lawyers voted in this than the last bencher election even though bencher elections are a simple mail in while this vote had to be done at a handful of polling stations scattered across the province - I would say that the turn out was resounding. This is just the first step in a process that leads to a binding resolution - if the bencher's refuse to implement it within the year.
Two people both legally married are treated differently by the covenant, depending on their sexual orientation. That is the discrimination I see. As for the right not to attend - Rosa Parks had the right to move to the back of the bus. She also had the right to use the back door in restaurants owned by white religious folks - or better yet go to another restaurant all together. Many religious groups said that her discrimination was based on their reading of the bible.
I may be wrong on this in law (the SCC will tell us soon enough) but I would rather be wrong having argued for greater inclusiveness and against religious fundamentalism than condoning discrimination.
Put another way, if somewhere there was a law school that said someone could only attend if they promised to agree that man's law was always above god's, and to never attend religious services on Sunday off campus- I would be equally opposed.
Agreed.
Regardless of how anyone here feels the way things so far have played out is pretty normal. The lawyers in BC don't like the outcome of the original vote and exercised their option to get a revote. Which has happened. Whether you like the outcome or not this happening is still good. I would be more disturbed if they had simply rolled over and blindly followed along.
Now let both sides show up at the Supreme Court and explain their case. May the side with the best legal team win.:)
It's interesting a UVIC law professor is stating this is a religious issue:
Regardless, isn't this covenant a form of judgement, something that is pretty clearly covered in Matthew 7? Mix in a little Matthew 5:43 and I'd say this covenant isn't very Christian at all.
Judgement isn't very clear in the bible. I counter your Mathew 7 with John 7:24.
I guess my real point is that you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say, so this isn't a religious debate.
I guess my real point is that you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say, so this isn't a religious debate.
Religion would be great if man wasn't so "Hands On" with it.:)
You can always count on christians not being very christian
You can always count on christians not being very christian
They have the secret decoder ring that allows them to see the 10 commandments with the 125 footnotes.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity.
When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
Judgement isn't very clear in the bible. I counter your Mathew 7 with John 7:24.
Well sheesh, isn't that confusing. Maybe it's best we just completely separate church and state.
yeah, that's a whacked system they have in england.
how does that apply to twu though?
We don't know what our limits are, so to start something with the idea of being limited actually ends up limiting us.
Ellen Langer
Forum jump:
