In Australia Vic Government trying to pass laws that criminalise preaching
- Thread starter FutureAndAHope
- Start date
I suspect we were mostly in agreeance on this point.
While some say that sexual orientation is not fixed (on which I agree) - yet because orientation refers to an enduring pattern not just of sexual attractions but also of behaviours, it would be quite wrong to suggest it might just change all of a sudden. But there are simplistic ideas on both sides of the debate that need correcting.
Sexual behavior may be moral or immoral, but behind sexual attractions towards the same sex there may in some instances be valid same-sex needs that were not met at all or not met in appropriate ways - that seems is the whole burden of reparative therapy which from what I can tell is about recognising were a person has valid non-sexual needs. While in theory it can be fairly complex it seems to be about shame and loss of attachment and needs in this area which when met in non-sexual ways may facillitate progress for some people in regard to healthy same-sex and opposite-sex relating. I don't believe all instances of homosexuality can be reduced to one developmental theory however, and I don't think attachment loss can be said to always eventuate in homosexuality.
I agree with you there are people who have been harmed by some individuals in some of the more fundamentalist churches or by therapists who lack more comprehensive training, but we don't succeed in addressing that by disqualifying the positive when it occurs outside those contexts. Those with simplistic or wrong ideas need better information.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Could the legislation still be amended, or could it be challenged in a test case? I think its right to ban aversion therapies aimed at sexual orientation change, but not reparative therapy or religiously mediated counselling services. I read somewhere that aversion therapy was already banned a good while ago - can anyone confirm that?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,202
- 19,056
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Again you fail to acknowledge the harm, which goes far beyond "disappointment" or "lack of success" to trauma and severe impacts on mental health and an increased suicide rate, just for a start.
I have never denied that there are some positive stories; but not enough, when weighed in the balance, against the very real, very overwhelming harm.
As for unintended consequences, I trust our legislative and legal systems to get that right over time. As an Australian living with the consequences of other laws which have had similar scare-mongering about them, I have seen that the scare-mongering generally comes to have been completely overblown, usually for a political agenda.
(To the best of my knowledge, prior to some action taken by other states last year, aversion therapy was not banned in Australia).
Upvote
0
It is somewhat ironic you should talk about scare-mongering. There certainly was some of that going on before this bill was drafted - as far as aversion therapy it seems to have been fairly rare, and I do not condone its use but have been trying to point out therapists should not be all tarred with the same stick in regard to this! Other talk therapy approaches mainly are accused of lack of efficacy, not harm. Talk therapy doesn't do things to people - therapists usually spend a good deal of the session time patiently listening, occasionally asking questions! Perhaps those disappointed with the results misunderstood what was on offer.
I completely agree that it is wrong for a pastor to humiliate anyone or single them out in a service - I am not aware of that happening often however - but its wrong when it does. I have never suggested God always changes people in this way but He does give grace to the humble and enables one to exercise self-control and provides ways out of temptation.
I have given careful consideration to the different sides of the debate and some of the studies both those more positive and those more critical, and offered balanced comments acknowledging that harm has been done in some contexts while seeking to not disqualify or invalidate those who have reported positive stories of change. However it is my view that it is the latter side of the debate which is more in danger of going unheard currently.
With that - I will have to end this discussion with you.
I completely agree that it is wrong for a pastor to humiliate anyone or single them out in a service - I am not aware of that happening often however - but its wrong when it does. I have never suggested God always changes people in this way but He does give grace to the humble and enables one to exercise self-control and provides ways out of temptation.
I have given careful consideration to the different sides of the debate and some of the studies both those more positive and those more critical, and offered balanced comments acknowledging that harm has been done in some contexts while seeking to not disqualify or invalidate those who have reported positive stories of change. However it is my view that it is the latter side of the debate which is more in danger of going unheard currently.
With that - I will have to end this discussion with you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ken777
"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
States have different laws. Queensland banned aversion therapy but did not try to prohibit conversation & prayer responses to people with unwanted same sex attraction.
As we know, it is impossible to prove a negative, so it is impossible to prove no one has ever changed - we can only assess the personal accounts of people who report they have changed. Some will say such people are deceived or lying but Scripture shows that change is possible, at least for some (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 4:22-24). For others it may be shift in the desired direction, so they are can achieve their personal, social and/or religious goals. For others, it might be a matter of choosing to live a celibate life "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12).
Whatever the goal, and whatever the outcome, most people realize it is morally wrong to try to prevent other people from accessing the spiritual help they choose. If a test case makes it to the Federal High Court, I believe the Victorian law will fail the Constitutional provision that invalidates laws "prohibiting the free exercise of any religion".
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2016
- 5,412
- 5,519
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
I am not so sure that it would fail on those grounds. The Constitution provides for the free exercise of any religion, but that does not mean that someone can do anything they care to so long as they can hide it behind this provision. Laws in Australia prohibit bigamy and polygamy, and you are not able to rely on section 116 to gain an exemption from those laws. The laws of the land to not allow for human sacrifice, and an appeal to section 116 to gain an exemption would fail as well. Australian Law prohibits the marriage of minors, save with some very limited permission of the court, and you don't get to hide that behind the free exercise of religion either. Female genital mutilation is another practice outlawed in Australia and not allowed to find shelter in section 116.
Be very assured neither the Church nor any other religion has not been given a blank cheque. Section 116 is probably best understood as opposed to any religious discrimination, rather than allowing any practice that might be accepted and endorsed by a religious group.
Upvote
0
There is a rather good analysis of what seems to be going on in some countries of which this may be but one aspect in Melvin Tinker's book That Hideous Strength - A closer look at how the west was lost. I recommend it as well as Lewis's Science-fiction trilogy of which That Hideous Strength is the last part, and his essay Bulverism.
The Creepy Normalization of Bulverism
A less well known short essay of Lewis's Meditation on the Third Commandment - is also worth reading.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,202
- 19,056
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree. Another example would be laws compelling the reporting of child abuse disclosed in confession. Freedom of religion does not extend to harming - or standing by while others harm - other people.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
ken777
"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
It would be foolish to categorically state how the Federal High Court would find in such a case - many were surprised by the unanimous 7-0 finding in favour of Cardinal Pell.
Cases are often decided on what is considered "reasonable" and on that basis I believe a test case would fail. I would be most surprised if any reasonable person saw human sacrifice or coercive genital mutilation of girls as being in the same category - and marriage is not relevant because it is already defined in law. What a person can say in a conversation & prayer with another person would seem to me to be very different, especially among adults with their consent.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ken777
"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"
Paul wrote about the age old battle of evil versus good (Ephesians 6:12). It is taking place in society but, sadly, also in the Church. The influence of evil makes some want to see business owners punished for not participating in same sex weddings, the same ones who wanted to deny justice for Cardinal Pell, who wanted to see Israel Folau penalized & Margaret Court stripped of her awards - and now they want see churches punished for practicing their faith according to their conscience.
This divide in the Church is seen in Jesus' parable of the wise & foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-2), in Paul's reference to spiritual & carnal people in the Church (1 Corinthians 3:1), and in those who overcome and those who do not in the letters to the churches in The Revelation (Revelation 3:21).
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
This divide in the Church is seen in Jesus' parable of the wise & foolish virgins (Matthew 25:1-2), in Paul's reference to spiritual & carnal people in the Church (1 Corinthians 3:1), and in those who overcome and those who do not in the letters to the churches in The Revelation (Revelation 3:21).
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Upvote
0
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
or this poor restaurant owner who just didn't want those horrible black people in his establishment.
Upvote
0
SilverBear
Well-Known Member
it wasn't evil that made some want to see business owners punished ???
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I would agree, and churches are allowed to preach and teach from the Bible, but cannot drag people in through the doors.
Nevertheless what we are talking about here is someone seeking pastoral care, or psychotherapy of their own volition for their own reasons, to diminish or be free from homosexual feelings. What right has any government to prevent someone receiving proper care and spiritual direction for their problem in accordance with their beliefs and values and goals in life? Won't this law rather leave those who counsel in a secular setting more in jeopardy of investigation if they help a client who expresses a desire for help with unwanted homosexual desires? I think it might because they would have less protection than a minister or pastor who did the same.
I hope and pray more people in the churches who are involved in pastoral care / prayer or counselling will read Elizabeth Moberly's book - Homosexuality : A New Christian Ethic, or some of the other books on Homosexuality and Healing Prayer such as those of Leanne Payne. A lot of harm could be avoided I think if pastoral carers had a better understanding of how to pray and counsel people seeking help with sexual or homosexual conflicts.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Apr 25, 2016
- 34,202
- 19,056
- 44
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
That's a misrepresentation of what the government is doing. This law doesn't prevent proper pastoral care or spiritual direction; it prevents improper care. And the government has every right - and indeed the responsibility - to take an interest in the welfare of its citizens, and act to protect them from those who would harm and exploit them.
I would think secular workers would have more protection, since through their professional bodies, standards of accreditation and so forth, they would be more likely to have clear guidelines and standards and education. Where ministers or pastors, especially those outside the larger institutional churches, are more likely to be operating outside any of that sort of safety net.
Indeed. And this law helps with that, as it raises awareness of some of the very harmful things people might otherwise be inclined to try.
Upvote
0
As it was you who were saying what religious free exercise (in Australia) might not cover I directed the question to you.
I don't know for sure what would happen in event of a test case. Ken may be correct in that religious free exercise could be said to cover if not all yet some instances of christian pastoral care in which the individual seeking help is a christian, doesn't identify as gay, lesbian etc. and wants prayer for release from homosexual desires. Perhaps a case might be made that feelings by themselves do not constitute an orientation or identity. I don't think one can pray for someone to be converted from homosexual to hetrosexual - I think its better to just discern by pastoral conversation and spiritual gifts if the person has unmet emotional needs, and or barriers and pray about those, asking them to repent from any overt sin. I don't know however what way asking someone to repent from homosexual sin would be viewed under this law?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I would like people not be prevented from getting the help they need from qualified, caring and skilled therapists - unfortunately this law won't improve the level of care available. This law is not about that - its political, even if your MPs think they are stopping some harmful practice. I think its based on disinformation about reparative therapy and other psychoanalytic therapies which seek to understand the unconsious conflicts involved in homosexuality. There are exploitive people out there unfortunately because of this law its as likely to be the good therapists who will be subject to investigation.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
