Christianity Today report: Ugandan Bishop tells American Christians to be quiet

Christianity Today just now came out with an article and interview series which examines the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

One interview is with the Church of Uganda assistant bishop of Kampala, David Zac Niringiye. In the interview, he says to American Christians, in essence, be quiet:

When Western Christians talk about Ugandan legislation, does that create tension?

I would say to Western Christian leaders, Don’t make public pronouncements about legislation in Uganda. If you have relationships, speak to those relationships. Talk to them privately. Ask them, what do you understand this to mean? Do not make any public pronouncements. Any time a Westerner makes a pronouncement in Africa, it seems to imply we don’t know what we want. Trust us, engage with us. Don’t begin to preach at us. I engage with you, I talk with you, and I leave it to you.

All I can say is that such an approach has been applied and is still being applied. I have been in dialogue with several of the pastors in Uganda who favor the bill and I suspect I will continue to be. However, the assistant bishop does not seem to understand that what they do in Uganda has an impact on Christianity as a whole everywhere. In my view, this bill is a significant black eye on the church as a whole and is a stumbling block to the gospel. We must speak or violate our conscience and compromise our witness. I am ready to listen but that goes both ways.

The article by Sarah Pulliam Bailey covers lots of ground and includes interviews with Martin Ssempa and Scott Lively. Ssempa replies to Rick Warren directly and Lively accuses critics of racism (!?).

Ssempa says the bill is to be modified as follows:

Ssempa wrote that the Uganda Joint Christian Council task force will support the bill with the amendments, including a less harsh sentence of 20 years instead of the death penalty for pedophilia or “aggravated homosexuality.” The task force also recommends that counseling and rehabilitation be offered to offenders and victims.

The rehabilitation clause will be a real test of the coalition formed to oppose the bill here. I do not favor any such clause as it still is a violation of free exercise of conscience and based on a false premise that behavioral counseling has been shown to be effect under conditions of coercion. I was glad to see Alan Chambers, Exodus President, come on the Facebook group recently and forcefully assert that Exodus does not support forced treatment.

There is much more to unpack here and it is time to turn it over to readers to do just that.

54 thoughts on “Christianity Today report: Ugandan Bishop tells American Christians to be quiet”

  1. Merry Christmas, Debbie. 🙂

    I lost track of this thread for a bit. Probably ’cause we have an amazing snow storm here. 15 inches and counting. Merry Christmas to you, Michael. We’ll be having a white one here this year. Cool.

  2. Saul…. On the cultural context… I would not, today, campaign to get the anti-adultery laws overturned. Why? That has a huge and negative symbolic impact in a society like Uganda. It would be seen as condoning adultery in a society where adultery has caused so much suffering. It would precisely the wrong message to send.

    Why? Uganda isn’t enforcing their anti-adultery law as far as I know. They aren’t enforcing any existing law against defilement of someone under 18 either except in some cases. One recently got news and the man who statutorially raped the boy is under arrest and facing life imprisonment. But Bahati used the case to say he needed his new law… uh why? More often such laws are used when a family seeking money forces the police to arrest someone. Such was the case when a teenage boy (17, I think) and his young teenage (16, as I remember) girlfriend were found out. The boy was thrown in jail for over 6 months and only got out when a monetary payoff to the girls family was agreed upon.

    Now the current law against homosexuality isn’t being well enforced either. However, there have been gay men in Uganda who have disappeared, others who end up in custody and tortured or even raped. At times there have been newspapers which named names of gay men. Now we have a bill which would imprison homosexuals for life for a homosexual act. The bill would also criminalize anyone who knew of a homosexual act or a couple and did not report it to the police. What are two men who are living together then to do? People who know them will have to rush to the police to accuse them or else they might find themselves accuse of knowing by the person who got there before them.

    I would think that the greater problem now is exactly the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009. If you see injustice and the threat of injustice why shouldn’t you fight against it.

  3. The point I was trying to make, guys, although perhaps it didn’t come off, is not that there is a double standard in the outcry. It is to emphasize the point I was making weeks ago, and which the assistant bishop has intimated, that foreigners ought to be careful in their intervention given the political/cultural context.

    I say careful – it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be intervention, but the way you do it is important.

    As Eddy says, clearly this is not about questioning the _motives_ of Warren and others. It is simply an attempt to question the approach.

    I myself am not certain whether the current protest is the best approach. I can’t say definitively that it is not. But I have my doubts. My hope is that those engaged in this approach also have doubts and be open minded about the efficacy of their methods, rather than simply barge on with blind certainty.

    I believe that open mindedness regarding approach would make for better results in the end.

    Debbie is so right – it’s deja vu. Let’s remember that homosexuality was unfortunately dealt with in the political arena in Western society. Let’s try and avoid the same mistakes elsewhere.

    Like I say, I am uncertain about the best approach. But what I am 100% certain of is that a lot of work needs to take place within Ugandan Christian institutions and that we should not do anything to interfere with that.

    On the cultural context… I would not, today, campaign to get the anti-adultery laws overturned. Why? That has a huge and negative symbolic impact in a society like Uganda. It would be seen as condoning adultery in a society where adultery has caused so much suffering. It would precisely the wrong message to send.

  4. Prediction: When this law passes (and it probably will) some will quickly blame it on gay activists for “pressuring” all these impressionable and misguided people to butt in on behalf of gays in the first place. Then they’ll see. If they had only taken wiser counsel and minded their own business…

    Prediction: parts of this law will indeed pass but the death penalty and life imprisonment will be removed. Monday morning quarterbacks will do what they always do and some will surely put the blame on gay activists. I’ll be in the camp that doesn’t blame the gay activists but rather blames the Christians for once again letting their bleeding hearts dominate without recognizing that their brains also were a gift from God and should have been engaged more.

    Prediction: When this law passes (and it probably will) some will quickly blame it on gay activists for “pressuring” all these impressionable and misguided people to butt in on behalf of gays in the first place. Then they’ll see. If they had only taken wiser counsel and minded their own business…

    They will also suggest that “in your face gay activism” caused the Ugandan backlash in the first place — and that this (made worse by the international/cross faith outcry) will be the reason why Uganda starts hanging gays, imprisoning them for life and jailing those who try to help them or don’t report them. See? They brought this upon themselves. Told you so.

    They will indeed say this, and those looking for evidence will find it. Those who feel that’s an exaggeration will continue to feel as they do as well. I don’t think anyone will say that it was made worse by the faith outcry but many would say it could have been made better by a less demanding and scolding tone and a compassionate listening ear. The ‘hanging gays and imprisoning them for life’ schtick will be the ongoing spin of the activists who will still refuse to acknowledge that the death penalty and life imprisonment had not been considered for ‘gays in general’ but rather for some very specific offenses and offenders. I further predict: The mandatory reporting is another part of the bill that will be seriously modified before any form of the law passes.

    They will also suggest that “in your face gay activism” caused the Ugandan backlash in the first place — and that this (made worse by the international/cross faith outcry) will be the reason why Uganda starts hanging gays, imprisoning them for life and jailing those who try to help them or don’t report them. See? They brought this upon themselves. Told you so.

  5. But it’s still primarily a gay-driven agenda and that motivation is very transparent.

    You see no need to apologize yet somehow you felt the need to insert that straights falsely accused of being gay were also under your radar and concern. HMMM…seems to go to my point that the concern is not for overall human rights but for those human rights impacted by this bill. HMMM…the death penalty and life imprisonment were already on the books (and still are) for various crimes but the only outrage being expressed is with respect to the anti-homosexuality bill. Please don’t pretend that this concern is being expressed elsewhere…EVERY time the omission of concern for the extreme penalities applied to straights has been mentioned here, it has been speedily dismissed. Not once has it been given the discussion that a genuine concern for ‘human rights’ merits.

    Yours is a well-intentioned campaign that happens to be largely motivated by a gay-driven agenda. Your campaign appears to be somewhat successful; I believe it would be even more so if it weren’t tainted by the biased agenda.

    LoveUganda makes the same assumption that you are making. The assistant bishop spoke out against ‘pronouncements’…against public statements as opposed to private dialogue (including questions). Where do you or LoveUganda come to your conclusion that he has no interest in listening? My impression was that he’d listen to respectful discussion (including questions) rather than imperious pronouncements. Sounds like the way most of would like to be treated.

  6. And those of us who refuse to fall in step with so-called Christian attitudes in Uganda about homosexuality will no doubt be branded Judases. Ever wonder what it feels like to be a political sandwich, chomped on one day by gay activists and the next by uber-conservative unChristians? Try being ex-gay. I feel a blog post coming on.

  7. If you found my comments offensive and predictable, that is OK. I also find yours equally offensive and oh so predictable. Very. I usually do. In any event, I am breaking my promise not to bicker when there is something more useful and important to do.

  8. Prediction: When this law passes (and it probably will) some will quickly blame it on gay activists for “pressuring” all these impressionable and misguided people to butt in on behalf of gays in the first place. Then they’ll see. If they had only taken wiser counsel and minded their own business…

    They will also suggest that “in your face gay activism” caused the Ugandan backlash in the first place — and that this (made worse by the international/cross faith outcry) will be the reason why Uganda starts hanging gays, imprisoning them for life and jailing those who try to help them or don’t report them. See? They brought this upon themselves. Told you so.

  9. Our “butting in” has not just included discussion of penalties on gays but also the witch hunts on straights who get labeled gay. Also, the effect on AIDS work has been in focus.

    In any event, I see no need to apologize for speaking in favor of life, freedom and self-determination. I think LoveUganda had it sorted out pretty well in the first comment on this thread.

  10. Please mind yourself, sir. My comments went to why we aren’t extending our concerns to include the other sexual human rights violations; I in no way implied that we shouldn’t be concerned about this matter as well. I find your distortion of my comments offensive but oh so predictable. Spin, baby, spin!

  11. Guess Dr. Throckmorton, Exodus International, Pastor Rick Warren, the US State Department, the Vatican, many US religious leaders, conservative and liberal Christians, Human Rights groups here and abroad, Sweden, France, the EU and thousands of people around the globe should just butt out and mind their own damn business. Same thing would be true, I guess, if the law had been aimed at Jews or Christians.

  12. Yup! Something I’ve been saying all along. It’s the chief reason why I felt that Americans butting in on behalf of gays would be viewed as Americans responding as a result of gay pressure rather than out of a genuine and prevailing committment to human rights.

  13. I might fight it too if there was an Anti-Adulterers Bill with death for punishments and prison terms for failure to turn in a known adulterer.

    So would I. Same goes for an Anti-Jewish Or Anti-Christian Bill with death penalties and prison terms for failure to turn in a known Jew or Christian. I am pretty sure there have been such laws in the past — and that some people vigorously opposed them — even at the cost of their own lives.

  14. Saul–

    Good luck with that. I’ve brought up the fact that some of the Ugandan penalties for hetero behaviors are also extreme but those concerns seem to be lost in this appeal re homosexual human rights.

    Puzzled I am as to why we wouldn’t make our appeals inclusive.

  15. Saul- I have not been able to check the status of the adultery law but I am pretty sure it was declared unconstitutional in Uganda (as this one will be, most likely). I might fight it too if there was an Anti-Adulterers Bill with death for punishments and prison terms for failure to turn in a known adulterer.

    Uganda has another bizarre law I only recently became aware of. If a boy and girl under 18 have sex, the boy can be jailed potentially for life. This is not enforced with regularity as are many laws in Uganda. However, I guess the point is lost on my in the practical sense. Americans went to Uganda to say keep it illegal and gays were responsible for Nazis and the Rwandan holocaust and they are trying to take over the world, etc. Americans have been giving lots of aid and spiritual guidance and so we also have a responsibility to say, hey wait, that is not what we mean.

    By the way, if you want to fight it, go ahead. I already have a lot on my plate.

  16. Would straight people really turn to gay sex and fall in love with someone of the same sex for these reasons?

    The addition of the phrase ‘and fall in love’ is a subtle but significant shift. That ‘falling in love’ thing is probably an homage to the sense of committment or monogamy that I referenced in the heterosexuals but, I believe, it falls far short.. (If what I’m suggesting weren’t true, wouldn’t Michael have used either of the words I actually used–committment or monogamy–rather than replace them with ‘fall in love’?)

    “Falling in love”, by the way, is a somewhat nebulous concept that can’t really be defined or scientifically evaluated. It may be nothing more than finding someone who is physically attractive by your standards and seems to be ‘on the same page’ as you. Whatever gender you regarded as providing sexual satisfaction could provide that ‘falling in love’ experience.

    Why wouldn’t they just become uncommitted, promiscuous, irresponsible straight people?

    Because, as I suggested very strongly, percentage-wise heteros are more given to committment, to monogamy and to responsibility. A straight who continues to remain ‘uncommitted, promiscuous, irresponsible’ is viewed as a scoundrel, as a child who never grew up, as emotionally stunted. Beyond that, the responsibilities that I hinted at are things like the possibility of the sex act resulting in a child and a lifetime of child support payments…of the possibility that the female partner to the sex act would have expectations that go beyond just sex (call me, see me again, reassure me that I wasn’t just a sex object).

  17. I wonder how we–or the others who attempt to follow the comments here–would ever be able to tell the difference between a comment that disparages our point of view and one that is just a poke.

    Oh, it’s Christmas. I’ll let it slide. I’m tempted to go to meddling now and then, myself.

  18. OK, maybe they are not “bored”. Maybe straight people are turning to homosexuality in huge numbers because they don’t like commitment, monogamy or responsibility…

    Would straight people really turn to gay sex and fall in love with someone of the same sex for these reasons? Why wouldn’t they just become uncommitted, promiscuous, irresponsible straight people?

    Or could it be that some people are just SSA not OSA — and they turn to gay sex and gay relationships because it fits what feels to them to be their true orientation?

  19. Amjad–

    Warren has asked you to support those statements you claim as facts. You apparently have some exposure to critical thinking since you felt it appropriate to question his reference to Dr. Green as ‘fact’. Yet you’ve still offered nothing other than opinion. Amjad says and, it seems logical, and thus it is so.

    We are discussing Uganda and, as Warren pointed out, you seem to be fixated on AIDS in the US. You seem to be making the case that ‘as it is in the US, so it must be in Uganda’, yet you’ve acknowledged some major cultural differences and haven’t yet supplied anything to support why AIDS transmission factors must be the same in Uganda as they are in the US. You discount Dr. Green’s assessment but you don’t support it with anything other than your appeal to US AIDS transmission. This is one of the areas where I believe Dr. Throckmorton is asking you to step up with some facts.

    Speaking of cultural differences: you cite genital mutilation of the women and reference how that likely redirects them towards anal intercourse. Hasn’t it been established that anal intercourse is THE most risky behavior when it comes to HIV transmission? You didn’t mention whether the women who were so mutilated were able to pursue normal marriage and family. If they are regarded as ‘scarred’ and if they are viewed as unfit for child-bearing, then the implication is that they are having anal intercourse with multiple partners. Performing the riskiest of behaviors with men who themselves have had multiple sexual partners…I don’t see at all how that supports your claim that it’s the homosexuals who are responsible for most of the AIDS transmission. It seems to support the contrary.

  20. Warren:

    I don’t know how the second quote re is heterosexuality that boring stayed on my clipboard when I re-copied the quote re ‘offered’…please know that I wasn’t asking you to answer to that!!

    Debbie:

    Thanks. And somehow I must have missed the switch from ‘urgency’ where we couldn’t afford any side discussions to where we have the leisure to just go poking a bit. I’m sorry that you and I had to waste our time responding to a comment that was nothing more than poking. I wonder how we–or the others who attempt to follow the comments here–would ever be able to tell the difference between a comment that disparages our point of view and one that is just a poke.

  21. Dr. Green told me that 90% plus of HIV is transmitted by heterosexual behavior.

    What is the source of that information? I can’t call that statement a fact. How was that number arrived at? If AIDS spreads through sexual opportunity. Who is spreading it? Those that have the most unsafe sexual relations with the most people directly or indirectly right? It’s the men that are spreading it, and it’s the homosexual men that are spreading it to the heterosexual men. Men account for 92% of cases in the USA.

    Homosexuality is a big taboo in African nations. Why would anyone tell you they got HIV from it? How do the women know?

    South Africa cannot be compared to the other African states when it has vastly greater resources invested in education and a different culture.

    Genital mutilation is probably another big factor, as many of the women are incapable of vaginal intercourse (Opening of vagina is scarred by practice thus doesn’t stretch like it should) they end up having more anal sex.

    American victims are still overwhelmingly male: 92%. And though there is no doubt that heterosexual intercourse between intravenous drug users or bisexual men and their lovers is contributing to the spread of the disease, the number of AIDS cases traced to sex between men and women not in these high-risk groups is very low — about 4% — and has remained stable.

  22. What is so un-appealing about heterosexuality that straight people would turn to homosexuality in such numbers that we would speak of it as “rampant”?

    Some find committment unappealing…and, like it or not, heterosexuality is more about committment than homosexuality is. Some find monogamy unappealing…and, like it or not, the percentage of heterosexuals who aspire to monogamy is greater than the percentage of homosexuals who do. Some find responsibility unappealing…and, like it or not, having heterosexual sex usually involves more obligations and responsibilities than having homosexual sex does.

    Tell me, Is heterosexuality really that boring?

    Who suggested ‘boring’ as the reason? Most interesting that the use of the word ‘rampant’ was questioned as perhaps being ‘telling’ of a bias; I believe the use of the word ‘boring’ by the questioner might indeed be ‘telling’ as well.

    Warren:

    I agree with you that IF jail is the other option, then it’s forced. My question went to the use of the word ‘offered’ which is very different in meaning from the word ‘required’. Do we KNOW that ‘offered’ in the context of this quote is really spin for ‘required’ or are we assuming?

    The quote I was questioning is:

    The task force also recommends that counseling and rehabilitation be offered to offenders and victims.

    Tell me, Is heterosexuality really that boring?

  23. I find it interesting one would use the word “rampant” to describe homosexuality — as though it is so appealing to straights that it is spreading so wildly and uncontrollably that they could not resist the overwhelming temptation to do it

    Poor choice of word. I should have said prevalent. My bad. Was that a Freudian slip? Maybe it is an indication of something deep within I need to confront.

  24. Warren it’s not my intention to spread misinformation or disrupt your blog. I appreciate this issue being addressed. If I am not dealing with the facts could you point out my failings specifically?

  25. Don’t you all find it fascinating that the assistant bishop asserted that adultery is a criminal offence in Uganda?

    If it he is right, then what do you consider the implications of this on your approach to the problem?

    Should we not be fighting to legalize adultery since many, many more people are likely to be prosecuted for it than under the homosexuality legislation?

    There are all sorts of laws on the books in Africa, and indeed elsewhere (even here sodomy laws were on the books till recently), that perhaps need revision. But we have to keep in mind the cultural context. As Christians, we have to focus on getting Church right first. That’s what I think.

    If the Vatican helped the Ugandan Catholic Church adhere better to the Catechism when it comes to homosexuality, if Anglican did the same, etc., then there wouldn’t be grassroots support for such laws. As yet, we have not reached this goal. Then we should commit our resources to such. That, in my view, is the more effective route.

  26. Amjad – If you are not going to deal with facts, there is no point in discussing. In the US, MSM is more of the story; but not in Uganda.

  27. We don’t really know how rampant homosexuality is there…

    I find it interesting one would use the word “rampant” to describe homosexuality — as though it is so appealing to straights that it is spreading so wildly and uncontrollably that they could not resist the overwhelming temptation to do it.

    What is so un-appealing about heterosexuality that straight people would turn to homosexuality in such numbers that we would speak of it as “rampant”? Tell me, Is heterosexuality really that boring?

  28. HIV is a homosexual problem, don’t be fooled. Unprotected anal sex is a surefire way to catch it many times more risky than vaginal sex. Homosexuals are much more promiscuous. So one homosexual may have sex with 100 times more people than a heterosexual with a family and is more likely to spread and catch disease. The female element of the family is a check on male promiscuity that is missing from homosexual relationships. Why? Because females favor emotional closeness over sex and require exclusivity to establish those bonds which men work to establish in part for sex. This dynamic is very important in the control of STD’s.

    A country that doesn’t have a well developed justice system cannot become so delicate in it’s handling of these issues. They are systemic. In order to improve the situation they do need to step towards old world morality and they need to strengthen their families so that the cost of living for them gets back into reasonable balance and they can start spending the money instead to actually improve their lives. Religion prescribed these fixes and many more in history, they get antiquated thankfully.

  29. Amjad, you give some interesting food for thought. The topic of AIDS was discussed a lot around World AIDS Day recently. Because certain misperceptions kept coming up, I did some research and blogged about HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa relative to here in the U.S. Here it is, FWIW.

    When you consider that significant numbers of African children are still being ritually sacrificed, you realize the vast gulf between our cultures. We don’t really know how rampant homosexuality is there, but it’s a safe bet Uganda’s clamp-down on gays will significantly set back HIV prevention, screening and treatment efforts there. That, in itself, is reason enough to reconsider such an extreme approach.

    But what if, as Amjad says, doing nothing to address the homosexual spread of HIV there would likewise hasten an impending disaster? How do you allow for peacefu, free coexistence between Uganda’s gay population and others, while at the same time addressing the reality of AIDS?

    Given that the world does have a vested interest in public health, and we are not seeking to quarantine Ugandans but expect them to travel, we should be speaking up. Public health is a moral issue. Here is where I wish folks like Martin Ssempa could be passionate catalysts for positive change that did not demonize a population but sought to educate it instead.

  30. Given the repeated association of HIV with this bill made by supporters, I am concerned that the public will assume that HIV is a gay problem

    And with that in mind, think of how many innocent people will be assumed or persecuted for being gay when in fact they are not gay.

  31. However, this bill could impact more than gay behavior as the stigma of likely enforcement of law could very well keep people from getting services, getting tested or seeking counseling

    Yes. We’ve made that point a number of times. Michael Gerson makes it in his column today. HIV may not be a largely gay problem in Uganda (as it is in the U.S.), but the gay question will cloud HIV prevention and treatment with stigma, nonetheless.

  32. RE: HIV. In Uganda, HIV is not a gay disease. The driver is heterosexual infidelity and sexual networking. So eliminating gays will not move the prevalence numbers much.

    However, this bill could impact more than gay behavior as the stigma of likely enforcement of law could very well keep people from getting services, getting tested or seeking counseling. Given the repeated association of HIV with this bill made by supporters, I am concerned that the public will assume that HIV is a gay problem.

  33. Eddy: I think if jail is the other option, the treatment would have to be considered coercive.

    Lively likes to compare this with drunk driving. I think the analogy fails in that drunk driving is a definite threat to lives. Private bedroom behavior involving adults is not.

  34. The task force also recommends that counseling and rehabilitation be offered to offenders and victims.

    It sounds as if we’ve interpreted this statement to mean ‘coercion’. I realize that forced treatment was part of the original bill; is this sense of ‘counseling and rehabilitation be(ing) offered‘ a less aggressive stance or is it spin for ‘forced therapy’?

  35. I’m with the… you should simmer down crowd.

    You can’t apply our standards to their society and be honest or fair. If the homosexuals in their country are practicing homosexuality in an unsafe manner and exposing everyone else to more disease as a result. TO me homosexuals in that instance are detestable; as this is the context they were written about in the Bible. We have advanced and still we deal with the externalities of STD’s that result from homosexual promiscuity and unprotected sex (believe it or not homosexual sex is way more risky and spreads way more disease).

    The leaders have a duty to address it. Catching HIV is like taking fire from a missile it may hit a house but whole families are impacted by it. If the homosexuals are the typhoid Mary’s of HIV, why allow them to bombard a society with it? That said heterosexual sexual immorality has to be addressed too. These problems are exacerbated by the proliferation of HIV as high as 30% in some of these countries. To say it’s not a matter of life and death is a lie. Can you think of any war in recent times that killed 30% of a population? ANY?

    The first step toward a better society is to reign in the sexual immorality. We ourselves are experiencing very hard times because of just this issue. Think about what illegitimacy is doing to our nation. Now everyone needs two homes, heats a lot of empty space, has two home insurance policies, two toasters, two melon scoops, etc. I believe this is the true source of inflation in our society. We’re rich, we can tolerate a lot, but even we can’t tolerate this any longer, it’s gotten to the point where we’re losing our liberties.

    We can tolerate homosexuals in our nation, because we are educated and our homosexuals are educated. We know what the risks are and none of us that get STD’s here are innocent. In Uganda though the kids grow up without education. They don’t understand the consequences (even if you tell them and no it’s not because of stupidity it’s just that it takes a lot of experience and knowledge for people to integrate an understanding of threats to their daily life if you don’t even know how to read that is going to be a very slow process), and they don’t have the money to deal with it if it’s all going toward HIV.

    The church and the state do not mix, and the church needs to stay out of it. The Ugandan state has to make these policy decisions not based on who feels good or bad about them, but because the very behavior of people is causing them hardship. Don’t judge them, we have been imposing our morals which often are convenient for us because of our wealth, for too long. We have to do a better job of thinking about things from the perspective of others.

    For those of you that have never visited a 3rd world country, or only seen it on tv, understanding the pressures and obstacles they face is difficult. So yes, fellow Americans, hold your tongue. Don’t be afraid of homosexual activists, don’t be afraid of what they say about Christianity. One day they may understand things like this, I’m sure the many homosexuals living with HIV in the USA if they were honest, would understand why reckless homosexuality is a threat to society, and especially impoverished societies.

    Liberlism, has been a destabilizing philosophy we’ve exported to the world. Tolerance and acceptance is great when we can afford it. Homosexuals have a place in our society, and we can be better for it, but to say that is universally true is stupid. This doesn’t mean that those homosexuals in Uganda are evil. They’re just people, and they can live and be free if they just stop spreading disease. They really just don’t know better. For them they get told it’s bad, but they don’t understand why it is sooo bad.

  36. Christianity Today:

    How are Ugandan Christians generally responding to this legislation?

    This is not just a Christian response. I can certainly say the objectives of the bill have the total support of most of Uganda, not just Christians, but also Muslims and Roman Catholics.

    Now Roman Catholics aren’t Christian in Uganda? But it still adds up to a theocratic dictatorship.

    And Martin Ssempa quotes the New Vision article about George Oundo saying people are paying to target mostly children “because they are easy to initiate and they like easy things.”

    What Ssempa keeps arguing for are the ‘the children.’ And I tend to agree with him. Except that the current bill completely mixes up consentual adult sex with nonconsentual rape of minors, the disabled and others. Additionally, it somehow calls consentual ‘serial’ sex acts to be worthy of death as aggravated homosexuality. Ssempa fortuitously forgets this in his letter. It is as Mrs Tamale has said a poorly crafted bill. It only makes sense to separate out consentual acts from nonconsentual acts. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be true for Ugandans.

    Oh now, Warren…. it wouldn’t be forced therapy, afterall a gay or lesbian wouldn’t have to take it. The atheists and animists wouldn’t want to anyway since the Ugandan theocracy would be palming it off on the Christian churches (I guess that doesn’t include the RCC).

  37. Mr. Kankaka:

    Where have we misunderstood the bill? Here is what it says:

    2. The offence of homosexuality.

    (1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

    (a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

    (b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

    (e) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

    (2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

    There is nothing in this language which mentions age of the participants or coercion. If rape of children is intended as Martin Ssempa says in his Christianity Today article, then this bill does not say it here.

    The reason the plain language here is taken as adult consensual relationships is due to the opening paragraphs which state:

    The object of this Bill is to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (i) any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and (ii) the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places through or with the support of any Government entity in Uganda or any non governmental organization inside or outside the country.

    The purpose is to eliminate homosexuality not only to “protect the boy child.” Could you please address what how putting forth the plain language of the bill is misleading?

    There is much more in this bill which goes beyond children, but let’s start with these sections.

  38. Bishop Zac Niringiye is absolutely right.

    True, what a christian does in America concerns the Christians in Uganda.

    But it is unfortunte that the Christians in the west are responding to this bill under pressure and with false information from gay people and pro-gay people who have gone so far by misrepresenting the bill and even demonizing it.

    I also insist the West should back off, for it has kept on commenting out of ignorance on the true intention of the bill. By opposing the bill, they undermine Uganda’s good intention of protecting our children and the weak from pedophiles and acts of dehumanization.

    95% of Ugandans want the bill to go through. In Uganda, Homosexuality and lesbianism moreover is NOT a human right, and thus corrective measures must be put in place.

    We ask for mutual respect from donor communities. If you can not respect us but go ahead to demonize us, then away with your money! We tresure our God-given values, natural law and social order far more than sacks of food and dimes.

    This bill must be passed. We know the agony of the victims down here in Uganda, those who have no voice at all.

    The west clearly shows it is not interested in our good. Why do they protect pedophiles, and say nothing about the victims?

    Most of those countries are even morally failed states!

  39. Their Christ would be arrested and sentenced to prison under this bill.

    It already happened once – of course it could again.

    I am appalled at the willingness of others to crucify a man,woman, or child for the sake of “God”. It’s done all the time.

  40. @ Lynn David,

    Intriguing phrase…I usually associate sublimation as a defense which effectively masks the more primitive drive (a recovering sex addict who become obsessed with miniature trains, for example).

    So, I am not sure how sublimated this actually is…

    It just seems like acting it out.

  41. Also the measures against “Aiding and abetting homosexuality” which could be used to quash those opposing anti-homosexual measures in the future.

  42. Outrage and public opposition is not on the preferred list of reactions in the church.

    We can “speak to relationships” and have in other arenas, but often there are deaf ears or pressure to be “loyal.”

    It is a very sad phenomenon…narcissists get things done…because they have the energy and a narrow focus (often simplistic)…but narcissists are rarely open to criticism.

  43. However, the assistant bishop does not seem to understand that what they do in Uganda has an impact on Christianity as a whole everywhere. In my view, this bill is a significant black eye on the church as a whole and is a stumbling block to the gospel. We must speak or violate our conscience and compromise our witness. I am ready to listen but that goes both ways.

    I completely agree. This isn’t just about Uganda.

  44. The assistant bishop wants the Americans to simmer down, but he is fine to tell the rest of the world how Uganda is right on the matter.

    He wants to advise but he wants no advice.

    Is Rick Warren wrong and Zac right? Maybe but don’t they both have the right to speak about God’s church. Yes, of course.

    Is the church only for Uganda?

Comments are closed.