The Canadian government recently passed “Bill C4,” banning “Conversion Therapy” for LGBTQ folks. I found an article on “Canadian Centre for Christian Charities” which provides this explanation:
“Bill C4, Conversion Therapy Ban Passes the Senate
“On Tuesday, December 7, Bill C-4, which criminalizes conversion therapy, passed the Senate in a single motion. It had already passed the House in a single motion on December 1.
“What is Bill C-4?
“Bill C-4 adds a new offence to the Criminal Code that prohibits conversion therapy. What is conversion therapy? Bill C-4 defines conversion therapy as a ‘practice, treatment or service designed to’
- Change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;
- Change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;
- Change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth;
- Repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
- Repress a person’s non-cisgender gender identity; or
- Repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth
“Now that Bill C-4 has passed both the House and the Senate, it needs Royal Assent. Royal Assent is approval by the Governor General.
“It will be effective 30 days after it receives Royal Assent.
“Why does it matter?
“Any time the government introduces a new crime, it is important for Canadians to be aware of what behaviour or conduct is prohibited.
“In this case, insofar as Bill C-4 eliminates abusive, involuntary or coercive practices from our communities, that is a good thing.
“The concern—raised by CCCC and many others—has been that the definition of conversion therapy was too broad, and that clarifying amendments were needed in order to avoid capturing legitimate expression and activities. Neither the House nor the Senate amended the Bill.
“Through the course of debate and committee hearings on Bill C–6 (Bill C–4’s predecessor), Ministers and Members of Parliament gave repeated assurances that the bill’s aim was coercive and systematic efforts as well as forced and coordinated efforts, not conversations about sexuality. The Minister also noted that practices, treatments and services designed to achieve objectives such as abstinence or to address sexual addictions are clearly not captured by the definition.
“While clarifying amendments would have been our preferred path forward, we trust that these statements will guide and appropriately restrain the scope of the prohibition.” Link
This has raised a lot of concerns by religious and Christian groups about the religious freedom to teach and preach against LGBTQ practices. They fear that the legislation may have the unintended (or perhaps intended!) consequence of limiting religious freedom and expression. John MacArthur for example has published an open letter (including a short video) on his church’s website encouraging opposition to the bill, which can be seen here. Apparently he has also preached a sermon about it which I was not able to find on the Internet. It would have been preached on the 16th of January, so perhaps it has not been posted yet. However, this raises another question about John MacArthur’s views on such matters. He had earlier preached a sermon objecting to “religious freedom” altogether. He categorically states that he is opposed to religious freedom:
At 44:26 minutes into the video he says the following (with some gaps in between):
“By the way, I read the other day that one of the Evangelical publicists, whatever that is, said he is happy to let us know that the new administration will uphold religious freedom. Really? The new administration will uphold religious freedom? I don’t even support religious freedom. Religious freedom is what sends people to hell. To say I support religious freedom, is to say I support idolatry. It is to say I support lies, I support hell, I support the kingdom of darkness. You can’t say that. No Christian with half a brain would say, We support religious freedom. We support the truth. … If the new administration supports religious freedom, get ready, persecution will be ramped up; because the more supportive they are of the devil’s lies, the less they are going to tolerate the truth of scripture. We condemn every lie, and we call every person to this. … We are not going to lobby for freedom of religion. What kind of nonsense is that? We are in the world to expose all those lies as lies.”
That is a long video. The relevant clip, however, was extracted and posted on Twitter which can be seen here. Some have said that the clip was taken out of context; but that is not true. That is what he said—although in fairness, he was a bit emotional when he said it, as he was emerging from the lockdowns being imposed on church gatherings at the time due to Covid-19 (especially in California, which he had successfully fought against). But you don’t win against religions persecution by opposing religious freedom. As the proverb goes, “What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.”
If you are going to restrict religious freedom, who determines which religions will be restricted, and which ones will not be? And if you are going to restrict it to all except Christians, who determines which Christian denominations will be restricted, and which ones will not be? And then the Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, Daoists, Shintōs, Sikhs etc. can legitimately claim the same rights for their own religions—and who is going to argue with them about that? There are a lot more of them in the world than there are Christians! Religion cannot be forced. You cannot force your religion on anyone. It is something that can only be freely accepted or rejected. If you expect them to allow Christians the freedom to practise and preach their religion among them (which for the most part they do); they reserve the right to be granted the same privilege among the Christians.
If you are going to restrict religious freedom, and limit it just to Christians, which particular Christian church or denomination are you going to restrict it to? Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Lutherans? Catholics? Pentecostals? Charismatics? Eastern Orthodox? etc.? Pretty soon you are going to end up where the Puritans were in the UK, where they faced religious persecution at home by their government, which favored one particular Christian denomination above the rest (which opposed them) before they fled to America to escape that persecution. Most of the early migrants to America were people who were escaping religious persecution at home in Europe, at the hands of their own governments, which favored and supported one particular religious group, faction, or denomination above the rest. That is what happens when you start restricting religious freedom, which is what John MacArthur is advocating in that sermon.
The reason why religious freedom is enshrined in US Constitution is because of the experience of religious persecution at home in Europe, where the early American immigrants had come from. It was precisely the existence of this bill of rights* in the American Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, that protected John MacArthur from encroachment by the California State which wanted to limit his religious freedom. Now he is expressing opposition to the very law that gave him protection. That is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on, or biting the hand that fed you. It’s crazy.
If you are going to restrict religious freedom, what is the agent which is going to restrict it? You can’t restrict religious freedom without an agent which has the power and authority to enforce it, and that agent will have to be the government. So John MacArthur wants the Government to tell people what religion they are allowed to have, and what religion they are not! If so, what makes him so sure that the government is going to pick his religion instead of a different one?
Religious freedom is the mother of all freedoms. If you start limiting religious freedom, you start on the road to limiting every other kind of freedom. So John MacArthur wants to undo more than two centuries of American freedom, which has made America the greatest country on earth. I don’t think he really knows what he is talking about.
_____________
*Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
_____________________
P. S.
John MacArthur’s sermon supportive of the Canadian pastors, and in support of biblical sexual morality can now be seen here. Since he posted his appeal on his Church’s website, lots of other pastors and preachers have also responded to his call to speak and preach against Canada’s “Bill C4” legislation, and in support of sexual morality which is also a good thing, and which can be seen on the Internet, of which the following are a few examples:
https://youtu.be/EkSQ4bhhfUw https://youtu.be/7SnrgU-yDa0 https://youtu.be/bjjo_fuZhIQ
A Google search will produce more interesting results. So John MacArthur gets credit for that, but not for his unwise comments in opposition to religious freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment