Not what you must believe but what you must not. . .

Over and over again the most profound challenges to orthodox Christianity have come not from the imposition of what must be believed but what must not be believed, or at least what cannot be tolerated.  We have witnessed the narrowing of the right of religious freedom to the freedom to worship and we have seen the court of public opinion, sometimes governmental agency, and occasionally the judicial system place limits upon this freedom, especially when it impinges upon the freedom of others.  Hence the cases involving florists and bakers and the tension between their own religious freedom and the right of the public to purchase their services.

Canada seems to be leading the way in this method of proscribing religious liberty.  In a recent decision that has been hailed as a great triumph by gender-identity activists, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that certain religious beliefs are too onerous to be allowed, especially for the situation of a law school within a university that has a traditional code of ethics.  By a majority 7-2 decision June 15, Canada’s highest court upheld the right of two provincial law societies (somewhat akin to our own American Bar Association) to prevent graduates of a proposed law school at Trinity Western University from practicing law.  All of this was because they would be required to adhere to the private evangelical Protestant university’s code of traditional Christian sexual ethics.  This code was seen to be a violation of the rights constitutionally granted to Canadian citizens.  According to the decision, religious-freedom rights that are formally enshrined in Canadian Constitution are subordinated to the need to protect the rights of students who might seek a legal education at TWU to not be forced “to deny who they are for three years to receive a legal education.” 

This decision by the court effectively means that provincial law societies can discriminate against lawyers on the basis of their religious affiliation and moral values and thus prevent them from practicing law at all.  In effect, the Supreme Court decision has placed at risk any group whose views on equality, diversity and inclusion conflict with those bestowed by the judiciary, constitution, or law. You do not have to believe as the law or court or constitution declares but your rights may be abridged because you do not.  We won't tell you what you must believe but we can prohibit what must not be believed or practiced.

Watch for this methodology to be used more and more to restrain the freedoms here, especially when free speech, freedom of religion, and individual rights conflict.  Orthodox Christian agencies dealing with everything from adoption to foster care of children as well as individuals providing services have already seen this conflict.  While some have challenged this in courts here, other agencies have simply stopped providing the services regulated by the state.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Methodists develop angst over the word Father. . .

Image
In case you have not heard: The Minnesota Conference of the United Methodist Church has removed the term, ‘Father,’ from the Apostle’s Creed in an attempt to be more gender inclusive to God. The ancient creed of the Christian Church reads: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. However, United Methodists in the Minnesota Conference decided that referring to God as “Father” wasn’t inclusive enough for the 21st century United Methodist Church. At the conference, held May 30 through June 1, conference organizers omitted reference to God the Father. Instead, they changed the phrase “God the Father Almighty” to “God the Creator Almighty.” The creed passed out to attendees also removed the phrase, “Jesus Christ, His only Son” to “Jesus Christ, God...
Read more

Infant Conscripts? Well, well. . .

Image
Ex-president of Ireland says baptism creates “infant conscripts” In this March 23, 2007 file photo, then-President of Ireland Mary McAleese poses with Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican. McAleese says she will not attend this summer’s World Meeting of Families in Dublin, which will feature Pope Francis, because it will be a “reinforcement of orthodoxy.” (Credit: Alberto Pizzoli, Pool/AP.) LEICESTER, United Kingdom - Baptizing babies is a violation of their human rights, according to the former president of Ireland. Mary McAleese, who served in the largely ceremonial role of president from 1997-2011, also said she would not attend the Aug. 22-26 World Meeting of Families taking place in Dublin. She told the Irish Times the event, which Pope Francis will attend Aug. 25-26, will only serve as a “political rally” for the “reinforcement of orthodoxy.” McAleese told the newspaper that by baptizing children before they have reached the age of reason, the Church is creating “infant c...
Read more