Banning Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
This is from WorldNetDaily:
One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That’s because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won’t let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client.

Now the gay marriage angle is interesting but not, in my opinion, nearly as significant as the mechanism at work here, which we have seen before on abortion, where doctors are required to recommend abortion as an option.

It seems that we are seeing more and more attempts to force religion into a little private box.

Am I the only one appaled by this?
 
Of course I am appalled but not at all surprised. The secularists have their man in the White House, who will be appointing secularist judges, and so they will strike now while the political climate is in their favor.

We must have the courage to continue to fight for God’s laws and His kingdom. And of course we must always pray.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is from WorldNetDaily:
One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That’s because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won’t let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client.

Now the gay marriage angle is interesting but not, in my opinion, nearly as significant as the mechanism at work here, which we have seen before on abortion, where doctors are required to recommend abortion as an option.

It seems that we are seeing more and more attempts to force religion into a little private box.

Am I the only one appaled by this?
Click to expand...
I believe that a literal war between the Culture of Death and the Culture of Life is on the horizon.If we don’t fight back with EVERYTHING in our arsenal especially the greatest weapon of all-the rosary we will be in for a horrendous persecution and our faith will have to be practised in the figurative catacombs and there will be REAL martyrdom.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
This is from WorldNetDaily:
One of the top lawyers in the nation in the battle to protect traditional marriage, historically Christian lifestyle choices, parental rights and the key freedoms provided by the U.S. Constitution is warning that there eventually could be no lawyers left to take up those disputes.

That’s because of a recommendation before the State Bar of Arizona – the organization that licenses attorneys – to require all new lawyers to swear they won’t let their personal religious perspective on homosexuality affect their representation of any client.

Now the gay marriage angle is interesting but not, in my opinion, nearly as significant as the mechanism at work here, which we have seen before on abortion, where doctors are required to recommend abortion as an option.

It seems that we are seeing more and more attempts to force religion into a little private box.

Am I the only one appaled by this?
Click to expand...
What is the problem? In every case any lawyer is meant to represent the client’s interests, not their own. A lawyer who is against murder is expected to put forward the best case possible if they are defending a murderer.

If the client is against homosexual marriage, then the lawyer will be required to put forward the best case possible regardless of whether the lawyer is for or against. As long as there are clients willing to pay lawyers there will be lawyers available.

This does not seem to me to be a problem, just the Arizona Bar clarifying normal practice: the lawyer represents the client’s, not their own, views.

rossum
 
It’s bound to happen. We can kick, scream, or fight all we want, it’s just going to make the pain of transition worse on both sides.

Although mankind’s desire to worship a Higher Being is eternal, there will be a time when the concepts, myths, legends, and institutions of all faiths will land in museums.

It takes a lot of understanding and appreciation of such faiths to really be alright with that. I am.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
rossum said:
What is the problem? In every case any lawyer is meant to represent the client’s interests, not their own.
Click to expand...
Who in their right mind would put their client’s interests ahead of God’s?
 
Who, in their right minds would become a lawyer if they minded God’s interests?! 😉
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Who in their right mind would put their client’s interests ahead of God’s?
Click to expand...
If they can’t represent their clients best interests then they shouldn’t take the case.

Simply because a client is homosexual doesn’t mean that acting in their best interests goes against God. If the case isn’t related to their sexuality then it shouldn’t matter. Even when their sexuality is relevant to the case that doesn’t automatically mean the homosexual is in the wrong and deserves to be treated differently to a heterosexual client.
 
The lawyer profession begins to ‘back itself into a corner!’ Next, there will be a clause for the races, creeds, invalids, etc. etc.

It should be like the Police oath and remain so! “Without fear or favour.” Period!

Lawyers are like prostitutes anyway! $20 or $20,000 an hour, it’s still a lotery! (Not from experience, of course!)

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top