Month: February 2010

Paul Kengor on President Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast speech

My friend and Director of the Center for Vision and Values, Paul Kengor, wrote an analysis of President Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast speech. As I listened to Obama’s speech, I was distracted in a positive way by his reference to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. However, I also noted the President’s references to civility and hope he means it as more than rhetoric. And like Paul, I loved the reference to the Imago Dei – seeing the Face of God in each other.

God and Man at the National Prayer Breakfast

By Dr. Paul Kengor 

President Obama spoke yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast. I’ve long studied the sitting president’s remarks at these breakfasts, particularly President George W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President Ronald Reagan. I note this to hopefully lend a little credibility in putting my observations into historical context, while also not avoiding the current political climate—as Obama certainly did not. Continue reading “Paul Kengor on President Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast speech”

Uganda criminalization debate comes to the USA

I suppose it was bound to happen. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill has brought out some of the schisms among social conservatives over homosexuality. Christianity Today notes just two examples: Peter Sprigg’s comment on Chris Matthews and Bryan Fischer’s misuse of I Timothy 1.

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews interviewed Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council about the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy (DADT). Sprigg, FRC’s senior fellow for policy studies, said he would support banning all gays or lesbians from serving in the military. At the end of the discussion, Matthews asked Sprigg his view of homosexuality in civilian life:

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: Well, I think it’s certainly defensible.

MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?

SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.

MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.

SPRIGG: Yes.

And then:

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association agreed with Sprigg. Citing policies and findings of the Federal Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, Fischer concluded that homosexual behavior should be criminalized because it “represents an enormous threat to public health.”

“It’s a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health. … Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct,” said Fischer, AFA’s director of issue analysis.

Fischer further justified his view by claiming that 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says “those ‘who practice homosexuality’ should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery.”

I addressed Fischer’s misuse of I Timothy 1 last Sunday.

One contributor to the mischief is Mr. Fischer’s misreading of the word law in I Timothy. Paul is writing Timothy to warn him about false teachers who want the Mosaic law applied to the followers of Jesus. Elsewhere Paul taught that the law was a “schoolmaster” which demonstrated the need for the good news of the gospel of redemption by belief in Christ. Mr. Fischer needs to spend some quality time reading Galatians chapters 1-4.

Paul is giving Timothy religious instructions and not saying that the civil law is given to prosecute various actions at odds with Christian teaching.

Fischer has a new column out titled, “If homosexuality were against the law.” He is not even concerned that such a law would be practically unenforceable. In his opinion, just having a statute on the books would prevent gay marriage, school based gay clubs, and gays in the military. How?

This list could actually be extended, but you get the point. Laws not only curb dangerous and risky behavior, they keep such behavior from being normalized, sanctioned and endorsed by the rest of society, and as such render an enormous benefit to a healthy culture.

Laws exist in Mr. Fischer’s view to enforce a moral view on the rest of society. Even if the law is a sham, it acts like moral code imposed by the state. 

And every student of history knows how well that has worked.

When laws are made but ignored the effect has been to disrespect law and resent the formality and residual control over personal conscience. Prohibition comes to mind as an example of the unintended consequences of using law to coerce conscience and behavior. As Fischer notes, sodomy was widely illegal until 2003, but with none of the effects he proposes.

Other social conservatives are encouraging the Ugandan supporters of harsher criminalization. Cliff Kincaid says Ugandan Parliamentary Research Service staffer Charles Tuhaise is concerned about why more conservatives here are not supporting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

A leading pro-family activist in Uganda says that Christians in that East African country need help resisting the schemes of the international homosexual lobby. Charles Tuhaise tells AIM that he is also disturbed by the general silence of conservatives in the U.S. to stand up for Uganda and its emerging Christian culture. 

The issue is consideration of a piece of legislation to discourage homosexual practices in Uganda.

“Many Ugandans are shocked at the reaction to this bill and the extent to which homosexual activists can intimidate everyone to silence,” Tuhaise said. “This is a bill written to control a problem that has largely gotten out of hand in western society and is now spreading tentacles worldwide. Perhaps Uganda has helped to highlight the danger that the homosexual movement poses to the world.”

I have exchanged numerous emails with Mr. Tuhaise. In them, he asserts that homosexuality can be spread though social acceptance. We have had civil dialogue about the research and science surrounding sexual orientation. Thus, I was surprised to read this statement he made to Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

“I am a Ugandan and I’m writing to thank you for your bravery,” Tuhaise said in his message to AIM. “The articles you’ve written in support of the right of Ugandans to exercise self-determination on the issue of homosexuality have thrown fresh light on the American scene [and show] that not every American is scared of the loud-mouthed homosexual lobby.”

He added, “Please continue to help Uganda by educating Americans about the bill and countering the lies. The American people should wake up and reclaim America from a dangerous subculture that is destroying their children and youth under the guise of liberty and human rights.”

Mr. Tuhaise surely knows that my opposition has nothing to do with the homosexual lobby, loud mouthed or not. He also knows that I am not spreading lies about the bill by simply printing the contents of it and letting people read it for themselves. He, himself, recently confirmed the purpose of the bill in an email to me:

…you have read the Bill and know that its object is to outlaw all same-sex sexual conduct. The question of “consenting adults” therefore does not arise. All same-sex sexual conduct is proscribed under the Bill.

Those who are supporting this position are, whether they realize it or not, advocating for the position that homosexuals are not competent to consent to private behavior. The bill, as written, makes giving such consent an illegal act. Furthermore, the bill, as currently written, makes any same-sex conduct among people with HIV, whether consensual or not, punishable by death.

Inexplicably, Tuhaise continues to say conservative opponents here have made critical statements of the bill without checking it. Not so of this conservative and I am confident Rick Warren read the bill before he wrote about it. If you are reading this and don’t know what to believe, go read the document.

Ugandan reaction mixed to comments from Obama, Clinton

Yesterday morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, keynote speaker, Hillary Clinton criticized the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and President Barack Obama called the bill “odious.” The reaction from leaders in Uganda and Ugandans attending the National Prayer Breakfast has been mixed.

Immediately Minister of Ethics and Integrity Nsaba Buturo reacted with defiance.

Buturo, one of the main Ugandan proponents of the bill which would further criminalise homosexuality and even gay rights advocacy, vowed that Ugandan MPs would not be swayed by US or any outside criticism.

“We cannot tell the Senate what to do. We cannot tell Congress what to do. So why do they feel that they can tell us what we should do in the interest of our people?” he asked.

“It is totally unacceptable,” Buturo added, in reference to any attempt by some of Uganda’s partners to reverse the adoption of the bill.

However, a bit later Minister of Foreign Affairs, Henry Okello Oryem said the bill will be changed.

“I am sure the bill will take a different form when it is tabled on the floor in parliament,” Mr Oryem told the BBC’s Network Africa programme.

However, he also pointed out that it was a Private Member’s Bill and so the government did not have the powers to alter it at this stage.

“Homosexuality is not a top priority for the people of Uganda,” he deputy minister said.

“Our priority is to make sure there is food on the table of our people – that we deal with the issue of disease.”

Ugandan delegates to the National Prayer Breakfast speaking to me anonymously agreed that the bill would almost certainly be changed, perhaps dramatically. One source told me that the section imposing death on a HIV positive person for “touching” should be changed to reflect an offense of knowingly spreading HIV without the consent of the other person. Others made it clear that they believe the aggravated homosexuality section of the bill should only relate to child abuse and rape of vulnerable people. None of those I spoke with believed that private conduct should be criminalized.

However, the delegates differed on their views of criminalization on public homosexual conduct. Some believed that homosexuality could be spread via societal acceptance, whereas others believed homosexuals should be respected as free agents to choose their own actions, even in public. All agreed that homosexuality is not socially acceptable in Uganda.

Some were concerned that Americans critical of the bill are not respecting the autonomy of Uganda. “You must respect our democratic process,” one delegate said. “The bill is only a proposal at this point, there are many chances for it to be amended,” he added. One delegate said emphatically that all input would be considered but that those who are critical should respect the right of Ugandans to govern themselves.

One Ugandan delegate who would only speak on condition of anonymity said that the rumor that people associated with the Fellowship had any influence on the writing of the bill were “totally untrue.” He said Bahati did not ask for advice on the bill and added, “This is not the kind of thing the Fellowship would support.”

Hillary Clinton keynotes National Prayer Breakfast; Clinton and Obama condemn Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The headline says it all. There can be little doubt that the Fellowship Foundation condemns the bill. They provided one of the most powerful platforms possible to offer specific condemnations of the bill.

In Clinton’s keynote address and Obama’s prepared remarks, they both condemned the bill.