Trinity Western’s law-school bid gets provincial approval despite same-sex intimacy ban

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta4

Yes, while I certainly don't agree with everything Magoo says (except about cooking and cats) , "religious freedom" is being used to intimidate many women, especially minority and racialised women. I have some horror stories from my secular Maghrebi and Levantine friends, who are not at all of the "feminists for imperialism" coterie, far from it. Being harassed by fundie neighbours.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think that the "tell" as to what's going on is the fact that (and I'm using the U.S. as an example here) not filling a birth control prescription is considered "freedom of religion/belief", but simply purchasing and using birth control is NOT equally regarded as "freedom of religion/belief".

When others can tell us what we must or must not do, based on their own personal beliefs, I feel like it's time to walk that back.

Rev Pesky

Another interesting thing about the TWU case is that there's no way any court would allow them to carry out the penalty for breaching the 'no sex' pledge.

It would have been instructive if someone had openly gone back on their 'pledge', and had declared they were in a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage, and without the benefit of an opposite sex partner. I would have loved to see TWU try and have that person tossed from classes. Like I say, I doubt any court in this country would allow them to carry out the penalty.

The new NDP government in BC has the right to close the TWU  law faculty, and also to rescind the  'university' designation. It will be interesting to see whether they do.

Mobo2000

RE Post 102 -- Yes, agree the evolution of "religious freedom" is curious and a little alarming.   Here's Jagmeet:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jagmeet-singh-stands-against-hate-...

Jagmeet:  

"Once we say it's OK to hate someone based on their religion, we're also opening the door to hate based on race, gender, sexuality, and more," Singh said in a statement.  "It's important that we stand united against all forms of hate."

To me this is a somewhat vacuous but basically well intentioned statement with some truth to it.   But is there a distinction to be made between hating a practitioner of a religion and hating a particular religion, or all religions?   

The militant atheist position has a right to be expressed, and I do think there is a sort of blurring of the lines going on in popular culture around this, on both left and right.   And the current imperial conflicts in the middle east makes this more difficult, as the effect of progressive criticism on religious practices, particularly with Islam, can increase public support for more imperial wars.   The Christopher Hitchens effect.  

RE: TWU, apologies for the tangent, and I do appreciate the detail on the relevant issues here.  

 

Rev Pesky

from Mobo2000, addressing a quote from Jagmeet Singh:

"Once we say it's OK to hate someone based on their religion, we're also opening the door to hate based on race, gender, sexuality, and more," Singh said in a statement.  "It's important that we stand united against all forms of hate."

To me this is a somewhat vacuous but basically well intentioned statement with some truth to it.   But is there a distinction to be made between hating a practitioner of a religion and hating a particular religion, or all religions?   

There is a basic difference between religion and the other things Mr. Singh pointed to. Religion is a personal choice. Those other things aren't. Not that I suggest hating someone because of their religion, but certainly one should be able to be critical of it. 

And the fact is that many adherents of religion engender hate and distrust of other religions. I remember from my youth, a church service in my small home town, right here in Canada, when the Reverend made part of his sermon a look at John Kennedy running for president, and worrying about having a Catholic as president of the USA. 

You might wonder why the prospect of a Catholic in the top office of another country caused such concern, but that's religion for you.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You might wonder why the prospect of a Catholic in the top office of another country caused such concern, but that's religion for you.

I seem to recall that Jack Chick, of those ubiquitous, evangelizing "Chick Tracts", had quite a bee in his bonnet about Catholics.  I think he generally referred to them as "Papists".  I guess the idea is they owe fealty to the Pope rather than directly to Jesus.

But I've heard it suggested that while an atheist believes that all religions are false, most faithful believe all but one are.

NorthReport

Why don't the BC NDP just revoke their university charter and put an end to this festering blight on our education system.

Over to you Melanie Mark

Rev Pesky

From North Report:

Why don't the BC NDP just revoke their university charter and put an end to this festering blight on our education system.

Couldn't agree with you more on this particular subject. That 'university' charter was granted by the BC government (can't remember whether it was the Liberals or Socreds) as a sop to the voters of the Bible Belt. There is absolutely nothing in it for the NDP to continue to support a 'university' that violates the most basic of human rights. 

​Unfortunately I doubt the BC NDP has the jam to do anything about it. I would love to be proven wrong on this...

Pages