Day: September 7, 2011

I posted a piece at Crosswalk this afternoon titled Dominionism? What Dominionism? Here is the intro:

Some in the Christian Right have a memory problem. If I was diagnosing it, I would call it amnesia or maybe denial. They have forgotten who they are and from whence they came.
Christian reconstructionist Gary North has no such amnesia. He has been a fellow traveler with the Christian Right since the early days. In 2007, North wrote:
As a swing vote, the Christian Right can sometimes affect the outcome of the well-orchestrated, thoroughly entertaining Punch and Judy show that Americans call national politics. Prior to 1976, when Jimmy Carter openly campaigned as a Christian — the first Presidential candidate to do so since William Jennings Bryan — the Christian Right did not exist. I say this as a minor player in the construction of the Christian Right.
“I was able to wheedle my way into the speaker’s line-up at the three-day public meeting at which the Christian Right came into existence, the National Affairs Briefing Conference, held in Dallas in late summer, 1980. The Establishment did not note its existence, and its historians still don’t, but that was where Ronald Reagan told 13,000 new converts to politics, “You can’t endorse me, but I endorse you.” Those words served as a kind of political baptismal formula — infant baptism, I might add: babes in the woods.”
Those current Christian Right pundits who say that dominionism (various forms of the belief that Christianity and biblical law should form the basis for civil laws which apply to everyone) doesn’t exist are either unaware of their heritage or have selective memory. Reconstructionists (they believe Old Testament law should be the law of the land for all) have been on board in various ways all along, especially as a part of the move toward Christian schools and home schooling.

It seems clear to me that reconstructionists have continued to seek their beliefs and have some organizations within the mainstream of the Christian Right now (e.g., American Vision, Vision Forum, and Exodus Mandate). I don’t think the death penalty for blasphemy is coming back anytime soon but I am concerned about restrictions of freedoms of minorities given the influence of Bryan Fischer and David Barton.
The other issue for me is the erosion of the ability to dialogue with people of various viewpoints. The dominionists see their position as dictated by God. Thus, in a policy discussion, the dominionist can’t give up ground since it is holy. Opponents are not just incorrect, they are evil or as I quote in my article, one of the “enemies of God.” Who makes political deals with an enemy of God?

How many times have I written a headline like that?
Reports are coming from Kampala that the bill has been postponed indefinitely. From Behind the Mask:

The Ugandan parliament’s debate on the issue of whether or not to re-introduce the internationally condemned Anti-Homosexuality Bill was on Wednesday September 7 postponed indefinitely.
According to sources in the House Business Committee, the Parliamentary body that was supposed to have met in Kampala on Wednesday the meeting had to be put off because the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Ms Rebecca Kadaga is out of the country.

Another report from African Activist declared:

Today Uganda’s Parliament Business Committee discussed topics to be brought before the Parliament in the next quarter. The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 was not included. According to Frank Mugisha, Executive Director at Sexual Minorities Uganda, “information is that the bill can not be debated in a 2nd reading it has to be reintroduced and has to go through all the initial stages.”

There are two issues being discussed here. One relates to the current status of the bill – will it be on the Plenaries agenda? Another issue relates to the method necessary to get the bill to the Parliament for a vote.
Mugisha seems to be saying that David Bahati will have to ask permission of Parliament to re-introduce his bill. The competing theory is that his bill can be discussed by Parliament at the point where the bill was stalled in the last Parliamentary session.
I cannot confirm which of these scenarios is true at this time.
If Bahati must get permission again from Parliament to reintroduce the bill from scratch, then the earlier reports from MP Otto Odonga were either incorrect or the plan changed. Earlier, Odonga told me that Speaker Rebecca Kadaga planned to allow several bills to be considered without going through all new procedures.
If the reports of a postponement are accurate then the bill would remain with Parliament and could be brought back at any time. If the bill must be reintroduced then there can be no action until Bahati asks leave of Parliament to table it. At that point, the process would start again.
It seems clear that the bill has generated opponents and supporters within the Parliament which is playing out in a legislative battle.