Law Society votes to not accredit Christian Law School

Yes it is about values. What if one of their attorney is representing a client who they find out is gay, and it has no basis for the case. Would it be okay for them to drop their client and if they were ordered they could not drop them, how could one expect representation from them.

 

Honestly I can't imagine why people would want to prevent a group of oppressive ********s who will try to use the law to impose their will on society from forming. That said I do oppose the ruling because even though I wouldn't trust any of these people and don't want them anywhere near power, we are supposed to be a free nation. Then again it's clear they will fight against that freedom, but can we really deny freedom in the name of freedom? I say no, because doing so makes us no better than the christian crusaders who are out there to stop homos from getting married and atheists from getting government positions, you know among many, many other things.

 

You should read the OP if you want to see an example of persecution.

Not hard to miss, it is the first post in the thread. Has a big ole blue link there also and if you click on that it will take you to a bigger story.

Have fun and let us know how it works out for ya.

 

And you guys claim it's the left that loves to play the victim.

 

Yeah clearly atheists banned from government office in 7 states doesn't hold a candle to a school losing accreditation because it wants to push a pledge that no lawyer has business taking

 

There are two threads on the first page of this forum detailing persecution towards Christians. How many do you see detailing persecution against atheists?

 

How many states can Christians hold public office in? How many can Atheists hold public office in? You'll have to excuse me if I don't see some threads on this forum as a greater indication of persecution than being denied the ability to hold a government position because of your religion.

 

Not being allowed to turn a public forum into a pulpit = persecution?

You're not doing your side any favors by arguing this way.

 

I love this country. We are free to bash Christians and free to insult and condemn them when they attempt to defend themselves.

 

Hard to have sympathy for the people who have done all they can to push their morality into law and force us to live under their rules. I still don't agree with this decision, and believe the school should be accredited if the students can pass the same standards as everyone else, but it's hard to fight for the rights of people who I know would fight against my rights.

 

So will they only defend Christians. Law should be free of emotion, religion causes emotions.

 

Atheists are not barred from holding office anywhere except in Texas and that law is actually so old many people do not even realize it exists. Texas also has a law against spitting on the sidewalk but many people do it.

 

It should, but at the same time as a free society we can't limit people because of religious beliefs. If they are doing something wrong like sacrificing virgins to the volcano god then yeah stop them, but just because they take an oath doesn't mean much. If anything it tells you where they are coming from which I think is helpful because they'll discredit any arguments they make to force their religion into law for non-religious reasons.

 

Really. Lets see:

Arkansas Constitution Article 19, Section 1:
1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this
State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Summary/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf

Maryland Constitution, Article 37:
Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/00dec.html

Mississippi Constitution, Article 14, Section 256
SECTION 265.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/constitution/constitution.asp

North Carolina Constitution, Art 6, Sec 8
Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.
Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html

South Carolina Constitution, Art 17, Sec 4
SECTION 4. Supreme Being.
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.php

Tennessee Constitution, Art 9, Sec 2
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
http://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/11-12/TS5_TNFoundingDocs.pdf

Texas Constitution, Art 1, Sec 4
Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

I don't know how I can be any more clear than this. I hope you now understand why I laugh at Christians when they (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about being discriminated against, especially because it's usually something like "I can't keep the gays from getting married."

 

If you were being honest, you'd actually address my points. Not all Christians object to homosexuality, certainly not to the point of promoting active discrimination, and not everyone who does is Christian. Rules and laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality can't be an attack on Christianity in general.

 

Enlighten us as to how anyone pushed and forced their morality on YOU personally where you were unable to protest or resist. Specifics please.

 

The law school Michelle Bachmann attended was not accredited.. There are standards, you know.

 

What kind of BS question is that? It's OK for a group to push their morality on me via law because I can protest it? It's OK to say that the cops can seize and auction off my house or truck if I were to be caught with weed or extra pills from old prescriptions of mine in them because I can protest? It's OK to keep atheists from obtaining government office, as spelled out in 7 individual state constitutions, because they can protest? Certainly I can resist too, I have guns, but I don't know if you've watched the news in the last 20 or so years but resisting the government ends badly.

 

Honestly Joe, you need to understand Christianity. A Christian cannot condone the act of homosexual sex. For you to say that a "Christian" does not object to homosexual sex is like saying a vegan eats meat

 

apparently the kind of question you are not willing or able to answer.

 

All of which are Unconstitutional and unenforceable. The only reason they haven't been overturned by SCOTUS is that no case has made it's way to them.

 

OK answer this: are you still beating your wife? That's on the same level as the BS question you just asked me and I just explained why it was BS. Simply because you can protest or resist a law doesn't make the law just.

 

They already have been overturned apparently, they're just not off the books. Still, they exist, and I'd bet money there will be a fight when they are removed.

 

And the Christians not only bash and insult every one else, but the Christian also demand the right to have LAW make the Christians to jail every one else.

Right here on PF support Texas and the other 6 states that have made certain religions illegal quite happily support these Christians on the site to be jailed. Along numerous other states if Republicans could have their way!

Yet these so-called "American Christians" thinks it is just fine to have laws to ban Religious Freedom of non-Christians.

 

That's clearly a matter of opinion (maybe a matter of faith). There are lots of things different Christians disagree on - that's why there are so many denominations and even disputes within them.

Now you're perfectly entitled to consider them wrong and not really Christians (I'm sure some of them would say the same of you) but they consider themselves Christians and, significantly, everyone else considers them Christians. That's why it remains a fact that rules and laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of homosexuality aren't an attack on Christianity.