Lynn David – Good point

F Young – Another good point. I think I was too kind as Timothy K says. FRC finesses this issue when the righteous response is to condemn the Ugandan bill and lobby in favor of passage of the House resolution. I can see a group saying this is not our issue so we don’t have a view. But once you get involved as FRC did, I don’t see how you can stay neutral.

“To me, it wrong and short-sighted for Christian groups to complain about being mistreated or disrespected when those same groups are promoting or refusing to condemn the same treatment to those who hold different views.”

Respectfully, this is not a valid comparison.

There is no “same treatment” here at all, not even remotely. The Anti-Homosexuality Billis aimed at destroying homosexuality and homosexuals in Uganda though imrisonment and execution. It is genocide, not mere mistreatment or disrespect.

Furthermore, the Bill is not directed against those “who hold different views” (except to the extent that it also crminalizes those who support homosexuality). Unlike religion, sexual orientation is a fundamental human characteristic, like gender or race, not a belief or view (much less a lifestyle). So, it is accurate to call it a genocide bill, more so that the Nuremberg laws, for example, since they did not incorporate the “Final Solution” within the laws themselves.

Ugandan Resolution Pro-homosexual promotion

In your paperwork, you are just opening yourself up for the expected interpretation.

.

But then again, the real use of the lobby without bringing undo attention to oneself is to lobby for the least action that brings you the desired outcome. In this case it may have been the change in wording in the House document which brought about the desired outcome for the FRC, that is no passage by the House. No doubt the FRC is most happy that a unified resolution was not passed by both houses of Congress.

…