Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

[TimG]

It remains to be seen if the inherent evangelical atmosphere of the school will actually be detrimental to the law students ability upon graduation.

It is no worse than the insipid "social justice" ethos that dominates most public universities. Given current trends in political correctness, the TWU campus could be a better forum for open debate of issues than a public university.

[WestCoastRunner]

If you have not figured out already I am not insisting that my interpretation is the correct one. I am simply saying that the people claiming that this clause was intended to prohibit gays or gay relationships have no real basis to make that claim because the wording is vague enough to leave multiple interpretations open.

I wonder why they left the wording vague?

[TimG]

I wonder why they left the wording vague?

Perhaps so they could adapt to the times?

Perhaps the critics should give TWU a chance to demonstrate how they apply they rules instead of get outraged over whatever strawman they created to justify their outrage?

Edited May 1, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Perhaps so they could adapt to the times?

Well, it's time to start, any day now.

[Peter F]

It is no worse than the insipid "social justice" ethos that dominates most public universities. Given current trends in political correctness, the TWU campus could be a better forum for open debate of issues than a public university

of course TWU could be a better place for such things...so could the U of Sask, or my backyard.

[Peter F]

I wonder why they left the wording vague?

I don't think the covenant wording is vague at all. Its very obvious that any student at that university must agree to forgo sexual relations on or off campus unless they are married to a person of the opposite sex.

That is very clear.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Peter F

[WestCoastRunner]

I don't think the covenant wording is vague at all. Its very obvious that any student at that university must agree to forgo sexual relations on or off campus unless they are married to a person of the opposite sex.

That is very clear.

Well, that is the heart of the argument.

[Peter F]

Indeed it is the heart of the agument. I was very interested to read my Hero Marion Boyd ask (on page 169 of the 10 Apr convocation)

But as I understand it, if you sign thiscommunity covenant, which you are required to do each

year, all of those behaviours are not allowed, and as I understand it, people may be subject to expulsion as

the extreme penalty there. I need more information about that.

I need to know whether a second-year law school who goes away somewhere for a world experience

in the summer and comes back and as a result of those experiences, for any of those grounds, finds they

cannot in good conscience sign the covenant, have they wasted two years of legal education?

I'd like to know what happens to them and what is the process that Trinity Western would go through?

I need to know there's due process for people. I need to know what happens there?

The answer from the Lawyers for TWU is as follows (see reply submission of TWU at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/twu/#transcriptsetc page 42)

(xiv) Ms. Boyd also asked about the process by which members of the TWU community

are held accountable to their commitment to the Community Covenant. Ms.Symes raised a similar issue.

172. TWU does not seek out instances of non-compliance with the Community Covenant, or

with any other of its policies/guidelines. In circumstances where wilful contravention of

the Community Covenant are made known (usually by a complaint from another person),

there is an accountability process in which TWU works together with a student to

prayerfully and objectively assess what has occurred, demonstrate care and acceptance for

the individual (if not her/his behaviour) and educate her/him on the reasons for the

Community Covenant and/or the policies and guidelines of TWU.

173. Consistent with the fact that they have voluntarily joined a religious educational

community, students are invited to consider whether they are still prepared to abide by the

terms of their original commitment to the TWU community through the Community

Covenant. Students are encouraged to reflect upon their own goals and values to ensure

that they are not in conflict with the religious educational environment in which they have

chosen to learn.

(snip by Peter F)

177. Given that TWU primarily serves evangelical Christians that willingly choose to attend

TWU as a religious educational community, instances of non-adherence to the

Community Covenant are rare. In the past ten years, no student has been expelled for this

reason.

I gather they are saying that there is no possible way in hell they can enforce the covenant.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Peter F

[Bryan]

I gather they are saying that there is no possible way in hell they can enforce the covenant.

Now you're starting to understand. "Enforcement" has no part in the policy. The point is, the University is looking for students who already agree with the covenant, and WANT to sign it. The students who go there are doing so specifically because of that charter -- it's the environment that they WANT to study in.

[Peter F]

yeah, I'm starting to understand that the convenant is a meaningless load of feel-good crap.

[cybercoma]

There is a big difference between discriminating someone based on their race and based on their personal beliefs. Race is something a person cannot change or control. Belief is something a person can change.

When did you choose to be straight?

[cybercoma]

So "casting aspersions" on the openly anti-homosexual stance is "bigotry"; but the anti-homosexual stance itself is not "bigotry."

alrighty.

2 + 2 = 5

[-1=e^ipi]

When did you choose to be straight?

No one chooses their sexual orientation. But people choose their beliefs.

[cybercoma]

No one chooses their sexual orientation. But people choose their beliefs.

So then you take issue with people discriminating against others for their sexual orientation, which they do not choose?

[Bryan]

No one chooses their sexual orientation. But people choose their beliefs.

Now you're just being ridiculous. People change teams all the time. I know several people who have done so, in both directions.

[-1=e^ipi]

So then you take issue with people discriminating against others for their sexual orientation, which they do not choose?

I take issue with discrimination based on sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean private religious institutions cannot be bigoted, since otherwise you wouldn't have freedom of belief and freedom of religion.

Now you're just being ridiculous. People change teams all the time. I know several people who have done so, in both directions.

People may change their perception of their sexual orientation, but short of hormone therapy, generally people can't change their sexual orientation.

[Bryan]

People may change their perception of their sexual orientation, but short of hormone therapy, generally people can't change their sexual orientation.

Their perception is their orientation.

[bleeding heart]

TimG:

I scarcely know where to start correcting this mess of illogic.

If your analysis were correct (it isn't, as I'll get to) then "marriage" is to "man and woman" as "superfluous" is to "supererogatory."

But perhaps we can agree that your argument is smashed beyond repair by sticking our heads warily into the horse's superstitious mouth (bolding mine):

From Trinity's website:

"Civil" same-sex unions are now recognized by Canadian law. But views on same sex marriage differ widely. Many religions [...] have chosen not to bless same sex unions, and have drafted resolutions of official church policies, based upon their traditional religious teachings, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We share those views.

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

Mind you, this is easily predictable and understood--except by yourself, for whatever reason--given that Trinity is an Evangelical organization, whose first statement of its Core Values is:

We believe the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, to be the inspired word of God, without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the Divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life."

Meaning, by definition, that homosexuality is "an abomination," as the more....retrograde...like to remind us.

Obviously, the school is not run by evil men. Far from it. I have no doubt they are perfectly decent, and view homosexuality as merely one more sin among many.

But it is nonetheless a bigoted view, which was, as you'll remember, my point.

And so it would appear that it is your prejudices and preconceptions that have led you astray on this matter, not mine leading me.

Edited May 2, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Bryan]

But it is nonetheless a bigoted view, which was, as you'll remember, my point.

Do you think no smoking policies are bigoted?

[bleeding heart]

When I was smoker, I thought them a royal pain in the ass. But no, of course I didn't then, nor do now, consider them bigoted.

Are you going to let the shoe drop and conclude the "gotcha" attempt, or do you have something more mysterious in mind?

[cybercoma]

I take issue with discrimination based on sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean private religious institutions cannot be bigoted, since otherwise you wouldn't have freedom of belief and freedom of religion.

Private businesses are not allowed to discriminate when they offer a service to the public. Full stop. It's in the human rights legislation of every province, as well as federally entrenched in the Charter of Rights.

[-1=e^ipi]

Their perception is their orientation.

Nonsense. I have a friend whose perception has changed between lesbian and straight several times.

Private businesses are not allowed to discriminate when they offer a service to the public. Full stop. It's in the human rights legislation of every province, as well as federally entrenched in the Charter of Rights.

As a male, can I join an all female college? If not, is that discrimination?

Not that I really care what the charter says... but since you do... What about section 29 of the charter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-nine_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Or section 15.2?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

[TimG]

I scarcely know where to start correcting this mess of illogic.

The only illogic is coming from you.

For starters, I never claimed that TWU did not have the position that marriage is between a man and woman. The issue we are discussing is what behaviors are supposed to be restricted by their covenant. You are insisting on ignoring the word "sacredness" and simply assuming that the phrase has the meaning it would have if that word was omitted. Despite ignoring words in the covenant you want to pretend that you are reading it and taking it a face value.

So the question we need to discussion is how does the word "sacredness" change the meaning of the sentence? For starters it expands the scope of the restriction. i.e. it is not enough for people to be married to make sexual intimacy ok - the sexual intimacy must not violate the "sacredness" of marriage. This is why I suggested it could be interpreted as a ban on certain kinds of sexual acts no matter who commits them. If this is the case the covenant would be completely non-discriminatory since the same rules would apply to everyone.

That said, we can't know what they had in mind nor can we know how the rule would be enforced if it is enforced at all but I think it is pretty clear that an openly gay person choosing to be celibate would not violate the covenant so people saying this clause is intended to ban gays are spouting nonsense. The argument that married gays are discriminated against only holds water if the "sacredness" comment was only intended to refer to acts between homosexuals - an interpretation that makes no sense unless you assume the writers added words that had no meaning.

Edited May 2, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

I think most people on both sides of this debate would not agree with Trinity's position on gays but the question is, are they within their rights to act on their beliefs. The SC and the BC Human Rights Tribunal have already ruled that they do. The Ontario Law Society should stick to its knitting and evaluate schools on the quality of their programs and regulating the conduct of its members, not setting itself up as a morality police.

Its interesting how people who decry the way institutions like Trinity impose a moral code on its students, have no hesitation when it comes to imposing their own moral code on others.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Wilber

[Peter F]

You have not in any way demonstrated that there is any bigotry at TWU. Just because people want to live their lives a certain way, does not mean they expect anyone else to follow it.

well, actually they really do expect everyone else to follow it - thus the covenant. If what you say was true, that they believe in personal freedom of choice , then there'd be no covenant at all. But there is and having all adhere to the University's Evangelical belief is in fact why the university was created.

They have rejected the concept of personally living thier own lives to thier own moral standards and ethics. Having congregations with like minded individuals isnt good enough for these folks.

All must adhere to thier moral standards and values else there is no avail to the public of the universities courses and education.

So I think the university is most certainly a bigoted institution. Which they are allowed to be - to a limited extend - under the laws of this fine land.

But that in no way requires Law Societies to accredit thier bigot university.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Peter F