Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, not to be rude, but his posts are more logical than yours. Your whole point seems to be that since YOUR beliefs are not made into law, or that anyone that doesn't believe what you believe, is worshiping false prophets,This somehow adds up to mean that YOU and christians are being discriminated against.
A totally false argument.
You see you don't even understand what you're criticizing. The gospels were written within decades of Christ's "death" and three are in part based on an earlier text. Written by someone who would have been alive at the same time Jesus was. The person who wrote Luke is believed to have written Acts, which means they would have had to have been alive at this time because they were witness to the very early years (and persecutions) of the first Christians.
Quote:
P.S. You do know the bible stories were written down a couple of hundred years after Jesus apparently walked the earth.
Care to elaborate? Many of the books of the New Testament comprise letters (often written by Paul) dealing with "issues" in various congregations that were against the teachings Christ. Then like now when people convert they often don't completely give up their old ways or try to usurp control to get others in the congregation to get off message. A perfect example in our times in Canada would be the United Church. (I guess you really thought you got me on that one... LOL)
Quote:
That the very first Christians held ritual orgies?
Actually it's quite consistent with the definition of "persecution" and consistent with what the early Christians encountered. When you think of "persecution" you apparently only think that it applies to being used as victims in blood sports or executed by mobs or the state. Which is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netwit
I'll take a different approach to the subject, if I may. Chevy already covered the part about everyone having the right to representation under the law, and I will take the theological position that the disciple is not above his master and that Christians are told (in the bible) to expect and even rejoice in persecution for their faith.
However, I take exception to your choice of the word 'persecution' wrt this issue. Perhaps you have not heard of or known Christians who are genuinely persecuted. To compare the denial of accreditation to a law school with persecution boggles my mind.
Actually it's quite consistent with the definition of "persecution" and consistent with what the early Christians encountered. When you think of "persecution" you apparently only think that it applies to being used as victims in blood sports or executed by mobs or the state. Which is false.
No, it really isn't. Christians are not barred from practising law - it is the accreditation of a school that is in question. You might fairly use the word 'discrimination' in this context but you can't use the word 'persecution' and be remotely accurate. Christians are not being pursued, harassed or persecuted in any sense of what the word means and the context in which it is commonly used.
Out of curiosity, do you favour a Christian theocracy as a form of government?
You see, in a nutshell, this is why Christians are being persecuted in Canada. How can one have the "freedom" to practice a religion, when certain fundamental beliefs in that religion are essentially criminalized?
Nothing about being a Christian requires you to open a law school and force prospective students to sign a form condemning homosexuality. In fact, not a single Christian I know has done so. Nor has any belief been criminalized. A law school has been discredited for engaging in discrimnatory practices. Why the school has chosen to do so is not relevant.
Nobody's being "forced" to do anything nor are homosexuals being "condemned". The school being Christian has a right to expect from the students that they adhere to a code of conduct that makes the learning environment safe and conducive to receiving the highest standard of education possible. It seems that people are missing the "outside of marriage" part and fail to consider that "between a man and a woman" also means that the school doesn't condone polygamy, common law, and other "alternative" cohabitation arrangements. There is no "discrimination" here because the school has the right to have a student body that in part is militantly opposed to its core values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Nothing about being a Christian requires you to open a law school and force prospective students to sign a form condemning homosexuality. In fact, not a single Christian I know has done so. Nor has any belief been criminalized. A law school has been discredited for engaging in discrimnatory practices. Why the school has chosen to do so is not relevant.
... also means that the school doesn't condone polygamy, common law, and other "alternative" cohabitation arrangements....
And how would the school teach their students to represent those who believe in such concepts? Because as lawyers, they will have to.
Some of my colleagues are fundamentalist Christians and Mormons, neither of which approve of alcohol consumption or sex before marriage. Yet they represent drunk drivers, single never-married mothers, and other such "non-Christian" people. They represent such people professionally and well. But they learned how to set their own views and morals aside at a neutral, non-Christian law school; and to advance their clients' positions--no matter how morally abhorrent to them--in court.
Can you guarantee that graduates of the Christian law school in question will represent drunk, unmarried, etc. clients as zealously as they might those who accord with their moral views?
Ken s. If you want to be religious that's absolutely fine. Canada allows people to be themselves and practice whatever religion they see fit. However please understand that we will not allow religion to infiltrate politics in Canada (gay marriage, abortion) and we will certainly not stand for westbroro baptist church style protesting towards the LGBT community.
Persecution is a strong word. No one is preventing a Christian from becoming a lawyer in Canada, right?
Of course not. Fundamentalist Christians, as opposed to the nominal-Christians, which include most mainstream denominations (e.g. Presbyterians, United, Methodists, Roman Catholics, etc.) that don't proselytize, are welcome to study in Canada's law schools. So are Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
And if they can pass the course at their law school, and can pass the bar admission courses, they will be admitted as lawyers.
And they will represent gays, lesbians, drunks, dopers, single-mamas, thieves, runaway daddies, kiddy-diddlers, child-porn operators, guys who punch out another because he looked at their girlfriend wrongly, car thieves, arsonists, B&E artists, and so many more who violate all ten commandments. And others who manage to go beyond the ten commandments.
I may not agree with my fundamentalist Christian colleagues' personal morality. But I cannot fault their representation, no matter who they are representing, and on what matter. They do so professionally and well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
