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

[Mighty AC]

Yes, I usually hear that line of reason used to discuss why Islam is inferior to 'the west'. Of course I believe that my morals are superior to others', that's because I'm a human. I get that you think that too. You get religious when you want to impose your viewpoint on others who have no choice.

Cute, that you left off the line "Some morals definitely clash with the laws, rights and freedoms declared by the state." when quoting me.

A religious case can be made for slavery and murdering heretics. These acts were actually practiced by Christians. In your opinion, are current laws in western nations that prevent owning human beings or killing members of a different religion superior or inferior?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

The question of should religions be allowed can definitely be separated from should religions be able to ignore the laws, rights and freedoms of the state. Religious practices have been moderated by society for centuries, why should that change now? In the developed world we no longer accept murder, torture, slavery and racism in the name of religion. Why must tempering some forms of religious discrimination that conflict with state practices now lead to an all or nothing ultimatum?

Sure, but it's a significant change - in our time at least - to mandate acceptance of practices that aren't accepted by a religion.

Cute, that you left off the line "Some morals definitely clash with the laws, rights and freedoms declared by the state." when quoting me.

A religious case can be made for slavery and murdering heretics. These acts were actually practiced by Christians. In your opinion, are current laws in western nations that prevent owning human beings or killing members of a different religion superior or inferior?

Cutting off the line wasn't done on purpose.

Yes, a case can be made for those things, based on religion.

"In your opinion, are current laws in western nations that prevent owning human beings or killing members of a different religion superior or inferior?"

Superior - to my mind - but objectively... it's not for me to say. At least I don't feel comfortable passing judgment in that way.

[cybercoma]

If we're going to have religious institutions providing education

Maybe that's the problem then. Why do we have religious institutions providing legal educations? What would be the reaction to a Sharia Law School in Canada?

[cybercoma]

First, it's not in the charter.

Second, the charter is irrelevant to this discussion.

Third, you don't get to tell churches what is sinful.

It's the provincial human rights code. Don't be pedantic.

[Mighty AC]

Sure, but it's a significant change - in our time at least - to mandate acceptance of practices that aren't accepted by a religion.

State changes that clash with the beliefs of a dominant religion are always significant. However, the friction lessens with time. Nobody is attempting to mandate acceptance, just prevent discrimination. Many existing Christians will continue to believe homosexuality is an abomination for the rest of their lives. They are free to do so. At the same time homosexuals are free to be equal. Widespread acceptance will come in time, increasing with each new generation.

Yes, a case can be made for those things, based on religion.

"In your opinion, are current laws in western nations that prevent owning human beings or killing members of a different religion superior or inferior?"

Superior - to my mind - but objectively... it's not for me to say. At least I don't feel comfortable passing judgment in that way.

Most of us don't but judgement does have to be passed. I agree with Sam Harris who argued, in The Moral Landscape, that just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, even though a Christian invented physics and a Muslim algebra, there will be no Christian or Muslim morality. Universal morality, grounded in human well-being and aided by science, is the direction we are headed and that's a good thing.

People will always be free to think and believe what they want; however, they are just less and less able to impose their beliefs on or discriminate against others.

[The_Squid]

The Charter has nothing to do with this. The Charter is a guide for government, not private institutions.

It is ALL about the Charter. Have you not been following this case at all?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-accreditation-denial-upheld-by-ontario-court-1.3136529

Three judges wrote that the law society's decision to deny accreditation carefully weighed the school's right to freedom of religion versus the students' rights to equal opportunity.

"We conclude that the respondent did engage in a proportionate balancing of the charter rights that were engaged by its decision and its decision cannot, therefore, be found to be unreasonable," the judges wrote.

I bolded the important part for you.

[poochy]

Cute, that you left off the line "Some morals definitely clash with the laws, rights and freedoms declared by the state." when quoting me.

A religious case can be made for slavery and murdering heretics. These acts were actually practiced by Christians. In your opinion, are current laws in western nations that prevent owning human beings or killing members of a different religion superior or inferior?

Right, because being forced into slavery is the same as a religious school that people can choose to attend, it is the same sort of imposition upon their rights, surely, while we are at it, anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin should be sent to a reeducation camp, so what level of immorality, using yours as a guide, are you willing to accept?

Why is your standard, the correct standard, why is one religious school too many and what other things do your beliefs have zero tolerance for? Just how many devout homosexuals are there anyway, why would you be a follower of a religion that teaches your lifestyle choice is a sin and want to attend a university that follows those same teachings? Not even to mention all of the other schools available.

No, as usual this is just another progressive crusade, live and let live, so long as you follow the new rules, as has been said by other posters, it is just a religion by some other name, just another morality code that must be forced upon people for the greater good, and just like religions, some of it is good, but not all, though i'm sure being compared to religious morality codes is something the new true believers won't appreciate.

Edited July 7, 2015 by poochy

[The_Squid]

It's not about imposing morals on a religious school. It is all about the school adhering to particular standards set forth by a group of lawyers who are the ones that set and enforce these standards.

Lawyers... can you get a more conservative group than that??? These are not exactly progressive-pinko-commie-hippies...

The standard is "a law school must not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

This school is in violation, so no accreditation.

All the noise about "progressive crusade" and such nonsense is all a bunch of bull. Red herrings... straw men... Try dealing with the actual issue for once, rather than ranting and raving about the boogy-man "left".

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe that's the problem then. Why do we have religious institutions providing legal educations? What would be the reaction to a Sharia Law School in Canada?

It would be extreme. There may be enough of a shift for someone to suggest religious education isn't needed today

[cybercoma]

It would be extreme. There may be enough of a shift for someone to suggest religious education isn't needed today

I'm not sure I would do away with all religious education, but religious law schools? There's something qualitatively different about that to me.

[The_Squid]

I'm not sure I would do away with all religious education, but religious law schools? There's something qualitatively different about that to me.

But if the religious law school adhered to the rules set out by the Law Society, there would be no issue with being accredited. So I disagree that there is a difference based only on the fact that it's a religious school.

TWU has a biology program. I bet that they teach evolution. If they taught that evolution wasn't real, then there would be an issue. So the fact that it's a religious school isn't the issue, IMO.

[TimG]

Why is it discriminatory for a law school to say, "No Blacks Allowed" when they have "plenty of choice" when it comes to law schools?

Except that that is NOT what they are doing. They are saying single people can't have sex and gays are always single people. Gays are welcome to attend as gay people. They just have to act like all of their single colleagues and abstain from sex. Frankly, it is clear that your zealotry means that you are not interested in a rational discussion of the topic if you have to manufacture such irrelevant strawmen. Edited July 8, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

I bolded the important part for you.

The trouble is the SCC set out the rules for balancing rights years ago in the BCTF case and these judges thinks they can ignore precedent and rewrite those rules. This case is headed to the SCC and the judges simply wanted to make sure it was heard by deliberately writing an absurd decision that the SCC could not possibly uphold as is. Edited July 8, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

Maybe that's the problem then. Why do we have religious institutions providing legal educations? What would be the reaction to a Sharia Law School in Canada?

And If there was a Sharia law school I am sure you would be strongly defending the code of conduct that discriminates against women in the name of "reasonable accommodation". I think the only reason you complain about TWU is because it is a Christian school and therefore not a member of a 'victim group'. I think you would have give it a free pass if it was non-Christian.

As I said before: if we are expected to tolerate a symbol of female oppression like the niqab then we should have no problem with the TWU code of conduct. If the TWU code of conduct is unacceptable because of the "message" it sends to gay people then the niqab is also unacceptable.

Edited July 8, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The trouble is the SCC set out the rules for balancing rights years ago in the BCTF case and these judges thinks they can ignore precedent and rewrite those rules. This case is headed to the SCC and the judges simply wanted to make sure it was heard by deliberately writing an absurd decision that the SCC could not possibly uphold as is.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[WestCoastRunner]

They are saying single people can't have sex and gays are always single people. Gays are welcome to attend as gay people. They just have to act like all of their single colleagues and abstain from sex. Frankly, it is clear that your zealotry means that you are not interested in a rational discussion of the topic if you have to manufacture such irrelevant strawmen.

Gays are not always single people. Why do you keep saying that? I don't get it. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005.

[cybercoma]

And If there was a Sharia law school I am sure you would be strongly defending the code of conduct that discriminates against women in the name of "reasonable accommodation".

You're not a smart person if you believe that.

[Canada_First]

Gays are not always single people. Why do you keep saying that? I don't get it. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2005.

According to Christianity they are. As Christians don't recognize gay marriage. At least these ones don't

[WestCoastRunner]

According to Christianity they are. As Christians don't recognize gay marriage. At least these ones don't

Oh right. I forgot. So let's deny them their rights to have sex with their lawful partner while attending the university.

Edited July 8, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[Mighty AC]

No, as usual this is just another progressive crusade, live and let live, so long as you follow the new rules, as has been said by other posters, it is just a religion by some other name, just another morality code that must be forced upon people for the greater good, and just like religions, some of it is good, but not all, though i'm sure being compared to religious morality codes is something the new true believers won't appreciate.

It's unfortunate that you didn't read the rest of the conversation between MH and I before jumping in with a misguided post.

I find it interesting that those who attack secular law do so by comparing it to religion which they try to defend. Anyway, a strong separation of church and state and the freedom of and from religion is actual choice and freedom. Previously, homosexuals did not have equal rights. The ideals of some sects of some religions were actually imposed on an entire sexual orientation. Granting equal rights to said class does not in any way force the Christian right to wed or fornicate with a member of the same sex.

The same Christians who hated homosexuals previously can still do so today. They can still attempt to instill that hate in their children and disown them if they happen to be attracted to the same sex. Christians are still free to be straight just now gays are free to be equal.

Remember that the freedom of religion is also the freedom from religion. People are free to live by their religious beliefs up until the point those beliefs infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. For example I am free consider those who subscribe to mythologies and woo as crazy idiots; however, I am not free at my business to deny services to Christians, anti-vaxxers and followers of feng shui. Similarly, Christian business owners can't force their beliefs on employees and customers by denying access to contraceptives or not selling a cake to gays. Do you see how our freedom of belief is intact but we can't force it on others?

[TimG]

So let's deny them their rights to have sex with their lawful partner while attending the university.

Just like they do with common law hetero students who are 'equivalent to married' according to the govt. Why aren't you up in arms because single students are denied their right to have sex?

[Mighty AC]

Just like they do with common law hetero students who are 'equivalent to married' according to the govt. Why aren't you up in arms because single students are denied their right to have sex?

Interesting. Does the covenant the school forces students to sign allow for or recognize same sex marriage?

[WestCoastRunner]

Just like they do with common law hetero students who are 'equivalent to married' according to the govt. Why aren't you up in arms because single students are denied their right to have sex?

Not a good argument. Gay people are legally married but yet they can't have sex within their 'legally lawfully married' relationship, recognized by every legal entity in Canada!

[TimG]

Gay people are legally married but yet they can't have sex within their 'legally lawfully married' relationship, recognized by every legal entity in Canada!

A complete strawman. Having sex has nothing to do with being married. The entire association between sex and marriage is a construct that comes from *religion*. If having sex is a right then single people deserve it too yet you ignore the plight of the single hetros at TWU who can't have sex because of the code of conduct. Why the hypocrisy?

[TimG]

Interesting. Does the covenant the school forces students to sign allow for or recognize same sex marriage?

The covenant simply asks students to abstain from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman". It says nothing about whether gays can marry - just that even if they are married they should not have sex.

Frankly, the entire debate is absurd. The real issue is how there are different rules for different students. i.e. single and gay students can't have sex but married hetero students can. It makes no sense to say that married gays can have sex but single students still can't have sex because it still means different rules for different students. Why is it fine to tell single students they can't have sex? If it is not fine then you are basically saying no private institution is entitled to have any code of conduct that prohibits people from participating in legal activities which is basically the same as saying that freedom of religion does not exist.

Edited July 8, 2015 by TimG