According to the HCC, an exposition of Romans ch.1 or 1 Corinthians ch.6 would fall under the umbrella of harm. In other words, classical Christian teaching about sexuality is deemed to be harmful. Notice the attention given to Church teachings (as opposed to other religions who also identify homosexual practices as sinful). “Church teachings that homosexuality is sinful ” “Conversion therapy/practices reinforced homosexuality as a form of ‘brokenness’” The HCC report includes under its understanding of harm, The definition of harm, however (as expounded in the HCC and HRLC Reports) extends beyond certain practices which are found on the margins among some religious organisations. It seems as though these have come about through good intentions, but funnelled through misleading understandings of Christian faith and psychology. It is important to hear that I am not disputing that some Victorians have been subjected to practices that have caused them all manner of distress and damage. Certainly, we do not want any Victorians, including LGBTI Victorians, being harmed.
The Government is using the argument of harm in order to limit the freedom of religious groups. Having said that, we mustn’t ignore the suggestion of harm, for the wellbeing of these Victorians is important.Ĭlassical Christian teaching defined as harmful Sexual expression is an expression of one’s deepest convictions about God, the world, and the individual. It is, of course, a false binary, for a person’s understanding of sexual morality is always attached to religious presuppositions. The intention is also clear: without any philosophical working, the Government has assumed that sexual rights are more important than religious rights. To be clear, the Victorian Government is targeting religion, and specifically, the primary focus is on Christian churches, organisations, and denominations, as the material in the 2 reports exemplifies. Legislation to implement the government announced ban on conversion practices needs to demonstrate that it is necessary, effective, and proportionate to protect LGBT individuals from harm.” The impact of a ban of conversion practices on the right to freedom of religion may be justified given the nature and extent of the harm described in the HCC and HRLC Reports. This right to manifest is not absolute and a number of commentators argue that it is not clear that it extends to practices that seriously harm others.
Manifestation of religious belief through religious practice is protected by the right to freedom of religion. “Both the HCC and HRLC Reports highlight that many modern LGBT conversion practices are religious rather than medical in nature in that they involve, or consist entirely of, pastoral and prayer activities. The Government has admitted that it is prepared to further limit religious freedom. The Government justifies limiting religious freedom However, before offering a comment on the definition it is worthwhile highlighting this salient point which comes from the Government’s own website for the rather Orwellian sounding, “Department of Justice and Community Safety”. The definition which the Victorian Government is suggesting is the same as that offered by the HCC report. How is conversion practice being defined and what should we think about it? In this second post, I am turning to the question of definition.
0 kommentar(er)
