Current TV’s Mariana van Zeller just posted footage of Lou Engle’s sermon delivered during TheCall Uganda. Roll the tape…
At about 1:28 in, Engle establishes his view that government should reflect his understanding of Biblical teaching. He prays for the government to have wisdom because the homosexual agenda is at work. Uganda has become “ground zero” in the fight against the agenda, according to Engle. This clip makes his news release after TheCall even more puzzling. He says he debated coming to Uganda and we all know from his first statement that the reason he debated not going was because of the controversy over the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Then he says he decided to come to stand with the Ugandans in their stand for righteousness. He prays for the government to stand against the agenda. It is no wonder that David Bahati and Julius Oyet believed that Engle was supporting their bill.
As we now know from Engle’s interview with Sarah Posner, Engle does support the criminalization of homosexuality, but he does not want to see gay people receive the death sentence. He proclaims Jesus as the architect and governor of society but does not know what Jesus wants to do with the gays.
Mariana van Zeller provides some helpful context for the clip she posted over at Huffington Post.
Maazi
On this we agree.
Of course, you and I differ on what it means to be independent. I think that you will discover as African nations move towards self-sufficiency this will also encourage attitudes that lean towards modernity, liberty, and individual freedom.
A prosperous Africa will eventually be an Africa that is less bound to the attitudes that you hold so dear.
So we both have reason to look forward to that day.
While supporters of the bill are eager to raise the walls between Ugandans and ‘Westerners’, as though they have different rights and different deserves, opponents are approaching the issue as a question of universals — be they rooted in humanism or the Church — freedoms of conscience, belief, expression and association.
Timothy, with all sympathy and respect, don’t let yourself be baited by this divisiveness.
Maazi, for the record, America does not have any holocaust-denial laws (or any law of the kind) and is better for it. The AHB will not better Ugandans, by restricting them from speaking as they would.
Timothy,
Thanks for reminding me of why African governments need to wean themselves from donor aid which does nothing but fuel official corruption and provides an effective tool for Western governments to use to manipulate and blackmail us. Anyway sadly for you, chinese, indian, russian, south korean, brazilian and gulf arab investors are now investing in Africa. So the days of the West blackmailing Africans are coming to an end. No foreigner will exercise veto over the Ugandan parliament. If you think that you can sit in location thousands of miles away and direct issues on the ground in Kampala, then you are grossly mistaken.
BTW, please stop flogging tired propaganda— advocates of the bill have already explained that death penalty would be expunged. Freedom of speech is not an absolute. In Germany, Czech Republic and Austria exercising freedom of speech to deny holocaust is criminal offence. In Uganda, any attempt to preach about the “wonders of homosexuality” will be a criminal offence. Distributing pro-gay literature in schools as done by some misguided UNESCO staff in 2007 will also be a crime. Threats of Iranian-style isolation do not scare us. Please take your bullying tactics to the pro-American Gulf Arab states which have anti-gay penal codes worse than that of any African State. Why not compel the US government to ban Saudi Arabian crude oil from American markets until the Saudi rulers strike down their penal code which stipulates death by hanging for people that engage in sodomy?
Warren,
There is no doubt (in my mind) that the bill has serious faults and more wisdom should have been taken in it’s writing. But to say it’s not needed would not be correct. Yes, it needs to be amended – but it is necessary. For it’s imperative for us to implement what we feel is best for Uganda concerning the issue of homosexuality.
Thanks, Timothy. Exactly right.
We are clear that no foreigner will have veto rights.
But we are also clear that the Western checkbook closes when you start institutionalizing murder and banning free speech. If you wish to emulate Iran, you’ll be treated like Iran.
It is amazing how you guys obssess and bother yourselves about issues of another country. Uganda is not the 51st state of the United States. Neither is it a US Colony (sorry, overseas territory) like Guam or Puerto Rico. As far as we are concerned, the bill before parliament is an internal Ugandan matter. Yes, may be foreigners such as Pastor Engle and his band of American christians support the bill. But this foreign support is cancelled out and even overriden by the opposition offered by foreign (Western) governments and NGOs under the influence and guidance of the powerful foreign Euro-American Gay Lobby. So no foreigner is innocent on the issue of interference. As I was saying earlier, this bill is an internal Ugandan matter, which has the overwhelming support of most Ugandans irrespective of ethnicity, gender and religion (or even lack of religion). When the bill comes before parliament for debate, we as Ugandans will decide whether to infuse only positive aspects of it (e.g. banning of pro-gay advocacy) into the existing Sexual Offender Act or whether we need to amend the bill to remove certain undesirable clauses and then pass it as a whole into law. No foreigner—either in support or against the bill—will be allowed veto rights on this matter. I hope we are all clear on this.
Sam Thaw – This is another reason the AHB is not needed since this change in the law covers the situation for perpetrators of either sex and victims of either sex.
/2010/02/09/bahati-says-law-is-silent-about-defilement-of-boys-2007-law-says-otherwise/
Your law was amended in 2007 to address the very issue that Bahati and Ssempa told the world that the AHB was written to address. The 2007 amendment was not addressed just to heterosexual actions.
KAMPALA, 19 April 2007 (PlusNews) – According to a new law passed by Uganda’s parliament on Wednesday, an HIV-positive person who wilfully infects a minor through sexual intercourse will face the death penalty.
According to the new Penal Code Amendment Bill, an individual who is aware of their HIV-positive status and has sex with a child under the age of 14, with or without their consent, is guilty of “aggravated defilement” and, on conviction in the High Court, “liable to suffer death”. The crime of defilement is defined as sex with a person under the age of 14.
Parliament unanimously passed the bill, first tabled in August 2006, but parliamentary spokeswoman Helen Kawesa said it needed presidential assent to become law, which usually takes about 30 days.
The proposed legislation seeks to amend the existing penal code, which has been criticised for being too lenient with HIV-positive people who rape children. Capital punishment has been the penalty for anyone found guilty of rape or defilement since 1996, but has never been implemented.
Sam,
Although you have corrected yourself, I believe that you are still mistaken.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no laws in Uganda to imprison heterosexuals for consensual private sexual conduct. There is no such thing as “aggrivated heterosexuality” or any death penalty associated.
It seems that you are repeatedly insisting on that which simply isn’t true. Please either provide a real reference to these “current laws that imprison or even execute the death penalty on heterosexuals” or quit claiming that they are identical.
I know that you wish us to understand that you see a distinction between homosexual people and homosexual activity. Often this is a distinction without a difference. There are undoubtedly homosexual people who do not engage in sexual activity with people of the same sex, but most humans have a strong sex drive and selecting one group of people to deny any sexual expression is to pass laws against them.
Your attempt to see some level playing field is misguided.
Laws against homosexual behavior are, in reality, laws against homosexual people. They say that, unlike heterosexual people, that this group of citizens are banned from romance, from love, from finding someone to mate with for life, from the experience of joy that comes from sexual expression of your love for another person, from growing old together.
Should a person choose this for their life, that is their choice and to be respected. But coercing one into this life is cruel.
While you may see banning homosexuality as a matter of banning some specific acts, what you really are doing is telling homosexual people, “You will never, ever be the most important person in anyone’s life. I won’t let you.”
Here is my point. I hope I will make it clear this time. I am NOT referring to the current bill being an exact replica of existing laws for heterosexuals. The writer of the bill used the existing laws for laws of heterosexuals and used them to form his bill. Most of the current laws that imprison or even execute the death penalty on heterosexuals are included (almost word for word) for homosexuals.
Where there are other proposed laws that spell out clearly what would constitute homosexual behavior (touching etc). Those are the ones that should be written to make homosexuality illegal in this country – while it should not give the death penalty or cause people to go on a “witch hunt” for homosexuals – it should outlaw the activity.
I am NOT in favor of the bill as it is written and feel there are big problems with in it’s curent state. But I do want laws in place for homosexuals – at least the same one ones that currently exist for heterosexuals – as well as making homosexuality illegal – NOT HOMOSEXUALS ILLEGAL – BUT HOMOSEXUALITY.
Incidentally, when the writer wrote the bill – he wrote it with strong language – knowing that when it gets debated it get watered down as it always does in this country.
Thanks Timothy.
1) I think you addressed my questions/concerns to Sam better than I did.
2) I had surmised that there were local or indigenous languages but I’m still a tad curious how ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay agenda’ were translated. There was an incident or two in the video clip where the translation part went on noticeably longer than the english it was translating.
Sam–You can put my questions on a back burner in favor of Timothy’s. You have suggested that they ‘simply took the existing laws for heterosexuals and substituted the word homosexual’ and Timothy has demonstrated how this cannot be true. There is certainly much more going on.
I will not presume, yet, that you have attempted to mislead us. Perhaps you were only speaking to one portion of the bill. But you came here professing to bring facts and you suggested that you had more information than we do. It is difficult to understand why you, in your professed knowledge of ‘more’, left out those portions of the bill that Timothy mentioned.
Eddy and hazemyth,
Uganda is multi-lingual with over 40 indiginous languages. But English (or what some call Ugandan English) is the official language and is the language in which legislation is written.
Sam Thaw,
With all due respect, that simply is not true.
There are no laws in Uganda that make it illegal to advocate for the freedom of heterosexuals. There are no requirements to turn in heterosexuals to the police. Nor any laws banning heterosexual touch.
I am saddened that you been misled and I challenge you to go back and read the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 and ask yourself if any of these draconian provisions apply to heterosexuals. I think that you will see that they do not.
Debbie
I agree.
I don’t believe that the book opened a path to villification so much. Those who need to believe in a nefarious “homosexual agenda” will do so regardless of whether they find a book to point at or not. For heaven sake, they still pull out the old “Michael Swift” satire, lop off the introduction, and pretend that it is The Homosexual Agenda.
Lastly, Eddy’s questions about language in this issue are fascinating and very cogent. I, too, would appreciate any illumination on this.
I also do not understand this statement. Are you suggesting that there are existing laws that criminalize heterosexual behavior to the extent that the current bill criminalizes homosexual behavior (including any form of touching, advocacy, etc.)? Or are you referring some earlier draft of the bill?
Do you actually mean to suggest that lying is criminalized in Uganda?
Sam Thaw–
I hear what you say about not going for the death penalty however Warren’s question went to other offenses that are also considered ‘aggravated’ in the bill’s wording. My particular concerns go to items a and f.
Re item a: Would a person barely older than 18 (let’s say 18 through 21) qualify as an ‘aggravated offender’ for having homosexual sex with someone who is 17?
Re item f: ‘Serial offender’ is so vague especially when you consider all the possible offenses contained in the bill. For example, if someone was charged several times with the crime of ‘not reporting’ the homosexual behavior of another, is that a ‘serial offender’ and could they face the charge and penalities associated with ‘aggravated homosexuality’?
I was wondering if you could elaborate on this statement from your earlier post to help us understand your people better:
At one point, you seem to be saying that the bill is simply inserting the word ‘homosexual’. If this is the case, and no word for homosexual exists in the local language, how is this being interpreted in the local language? Or perhaps it isn’t. You, for example, seem to have a good command of English. Is this common among your people? (I note that Engle was speaking in English but that his words were being interpreted…this suggests that not everyone comprehends English.) Engle also spoke to ‘gay agenda’, I would assume that since there is no word for ‘homosexual’ in the local language, there is likely not a word or phrase for ‘gay agenda’. Can you explain how this phrase is conveyed in the local language?
You have asked people to take a ‘wait and see’ position but the extremity of the currently proposed penalty does not allow for that. Will your debates be public? Who will be able to see and hear what modifications are discussed between the time the debates begin and a decision is made?
Warren I have a copy of the bill myself. My point was not so much to link the two together (HIV and Minors) – though I did that (because in our discussions here – as we know the bill will be debated – this what we are pushing for) those affected with HIV that are over 18 would be prosecuted. I am not going to say more because it will jeopardize some of our efforts here to push the bill to the parliament (which is quickly becoming harder to do). But in closing I will say we will not push for the death penalty in the end – but rather a prison term.
Sam Thaw: Thanks for commenting. I could take exception to a couple of point but let me focus on one thing you said:
Can you please point out in the bill where the bill limits the death penalty for HIV positive people to adults who infect minors? This is the only section that I can find that is relevant and it does not limit the death penalty to cases where transmission takes place or to minors.
Note that nothing requires actual transmission of HIV. When speaking about HIV above, the age of the partner is not mentioned, rather the HIV status of the “offender” is the issue.
Here is a link to the full text if you need it.
I am here in Uganda – I was at The Ugandan Call and in fact I was interviewed by Current TV — but refused to sign their release form because they did not ask me questions that were relevant to the issues here in Uganda – but wanted to use me as “scape goat” for their point of view.
Since most of you commenting on this issue do not have the information that I do – it woud be good for me to lay out some of the true facts.
In Uganda we have no word in our local language for the word Homosexual – it does not exist. Just as AIDS when it first ravaged this continent was taboo – because of ignorance – it is the same is true with homosexuality. People are always afraid of what they do not understand.
At the present time we have only a couple of laws against homosexual activity. One being that it is illegal. When the bill was drafted the writer simply took the existing laws for heterosexuals and substituted the word homosexual.
For example: The one that most people are ranting about is law the condemns Adults (over age 18) with HIV that infect minors – they would be given the death penalty. That law currently exists for heterosexuals but NOT for homosexuals.
The world needs to know that the bill as it was written (and exists today) was meant to be debated. It was never going to be passed with out debate. The bill has never reached even the first stage of debating.
Therefore, we should all wait and see how this bill is debated first before we throw are arms up.
Because of people’s fear of what they don’t understand some have (mostly the outspoken ones) made it seem like the Ugandan people are haters of sinners and that is not true.
We are against the act of homosexuality – but not homosexuals themselves. We want this country to mature and we don’t want the liberal media telling us we have to accept something that will hurt the country by breaking up the institute of family as it has done in the US.
Just as we would not legalize lying – but would love and accept people who have a problem with lying and try to help them. We too will do the same with homosexuals – we will love them and accept them – but can not sit back let the sin of homosexuality run rampent in this nation and destroy our moral foundations.
Timothy–
Thanks for letting me off the hook re the apologies but it’s part of my basic ‘me’ to admit and apologize when I’m wrong. It’s good for me…I can always stand to be humbled; it’s good for others…to see that you can admit being wrong, have a serving (or two) of humble pie, and still wake up and face a fresh new day.
Thanks especially for recognizing that neither of my ‘wrongs’ was intentional…that it was not my intent to be misleading. I appreciate that.
Busted. Nice work, Sherlock. 🙂 Aren’t you glad you didn’t have to go through all 513 comments?
Now, back to 2010. I will have to get the book again and check out just what Socarides did with his compressed “quote.” Context with Kirk and Madsen could be hard to nail down as they were not very good writers. Don’t you think they came off as way too narcissistic, to say nothing of their condescension? And if their book really did open a path for more vilification of gays, as you believe, then I guess they weren’t very smart, either — unless their crystal ball told them the stupid homophobes and bigots would take their book more seriously than the erudite gays would. Hmmm. Maybe them boys was smart after all.
Debbie,
I checked your earlier comment here. It included the incorrect quote with the changed words.
I don’t believe you were being any more dishonest than Eddy. Both of you cut and pasted something that you had every reason to believe was accurate.
Interestingly, this actually does have a connection with the point of this thread.
Lou Engle simply believed what he was told. Nefarious characters lied to him but because they did so in the name of Christianity, he accepted their lies. But unlike you and Eddy, when he was confronted with the truth, he decided to believe the lies instead.
This is not a worthy way of thinking.
I have no idea if the notes you took were accurate, but I’ll assume so.
As for Socarides’ fraud, you are should look at it more closely. It is not simply using ellipses; he changed words. If you read above in my comments to Eddy you will see what I mean.
Ellipses are used when we wish to eliminate an unessential middle part of something. But when we use it to change the meaning, that is dishonesty. There is no way to ready Socarides’ rewrite and see it as anything but a deliberate attempt to change the meaning.
Let’s not give deliberate dishonesty the benefit of the doubt.
But I’m troubled by a greater issue: the desire to see this book as more than what it was.
It appears to me that some anti-gay activists – including Socarides – have found a book which they think will appear sinister if selectively quoted (or deliberately misquoted). And being delighted at having found what they think they can portray as a smoking gun, they declare that it was a manifesto, a playbook, or – as one anti-gay writer put it – the Gay Bible.
Misquoting and taking out of context is dishonest. But it is no more dishonest than falsely attributing to this book some special importance.
There seems to be a belief that if only it can be proven that there is a Homosexual Agenda and that it is Nefarious then therefore this justifies certain positions, ideologies, or political campaigns.
But really all this does is villify gay people. “See.” It says, “They are sneaky and have an agenda and are using propaganda. So we can therefore treat them badly without feeling guilty. Because they are villains.”
This is not a worthy was of thinking.
I had a copy of the book. I am in the process of getting another one. I made notes from the copy I had when I read it a few years ago. I am bringing it up to see if your copy reads as mine did, according to my notes. It would be unusual for me to put in quotes something that is not verbatim, even in handwritten notes. The plot thickens. … Where’s Watson when we need him?
Thanks for the other LeaderU link to the Socarides article. I scanned it. It appears as if he quoted, using ellipses for the missing parts, from two concurrent pages. I’d have to see the book again to see if he did it correctly. Whoever fixed up and began passing around the other version seems to have been doing it differently.
Debbie,
I seem to recall that you have a copy of the book? Am I incorrect?
Eddy,
I certainly didn’t think you were deliberately misquoting the book. You were not being dishonest, just a victim of a liar.
No apologies needed about not knowing my current work. Not a problem.
Debbie,
The LeaderU.com article by Socarides is posted here.
I don’t have my book with me at the moment. I don’t think that either I or Eddy referenced the quote you are using.
Can I ask why you are bringing it up?
Sorry to be breezing in out of the blue and quite unexpectedly here. Greetings, all. I’ve a reason.
This LeaderU.com article by Socarides appears to have the original quotes from After the Ball intact. Since you didn’t provide a link to the article you cited, Timothy, we can’t check it, unless we Google it and find it. I haven’t looked. Wondering if Socarides may have been the victim of “creative” quoting by someone who didn’t like him. It happens — lots.
May I ask what page of your copy of Kirk and Madsen’s book the “Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict …” quote is on? And do these words appear on page 154 (or somewhere near there) of your copy: “It makes no difference that the ads are lies because we’re using them to ethically good effect. …”? Do the words “not to us” appear between the words “lies” and “because” in your version?
I am trying to determine if there may be a pirated, slightly edited edition of the book floating around, or if someone just decided to play loose and fast with the material when citing it. Or maybe I’m just feeling a bit too much like Sherlock Holmes this evening. Need a mystery to solve. 🙂
I imagine we all know by now how notoriously lazy many bloggers and some people passing for journalists (on the left and the right) are when it comes to fact-checking. Misquotes can be passed around for many years. Yes, people even pirate books. Nothing should surprise us anymore.
Sorry, Timothy. But please consider that if I hadn’t made a statement about what the book was quoted as saying…we’d likely not know that the bogus quotes were in circulation. While I’m not very proud about the fact that I got suckered into some bogus misquotes, I take some consolation that I did preface the quote by saying:
Had I not presented them in this discussion, I would not now know that not only were they taken out of context but they were edited. Knowing that they were edited rather substantially, I will not refer to them again as what the book says. And I will be mindful of those sources.
Ironically, I came across several other instances where Christian leaders ‘summed up’ the book…and I shunned those sources immediately…feeling that direct quotes would be more appropriate.
And I’m sorry that I was not aware that you were no longer associated with Ex-Gay Watch. When I first started blogging here, someone mentioned that you were a key player there…and when I visited the site, I found articles written by you. So I had no reason to believe that it wasn’t true. Over time, you’d write things like ‘ in a recent discussion over at Ex-Gay Watch’ and the familiarity made it sound again like that was true. Back then, I thought Box Turtle was Jim Burroway’s and then noticed that you began writing over there. I apologize for misreading your focus and for misrepresenting it. I am glad that you were in this conversation and able to clue me in. It was not my purpose to misrepresent you but rather to show that publicly our focus may appear to be one thing but that it does not represent the whole person. I’d be willing to wager that you spend more time ‘in the Word’ than many Christians and I was trying to allude to that part of your whole focus. It appears I botched miserably. And I apologize.
This “quote” is not simply out of context. It is not merely a few replaced words. This statement isn’t in the book at all.
You appear to have pulled this from Socarides’ “Thought Reform And
The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy” in which he says “To quote After the Ball:” and then proceeds to pick a few words from various sentences in completely different paragraphs and run them together as though the authors has written them that way. This is perhaps the greatest example of blatant fraud that I’ve ever encountered.
The actual sentences from the small subquote you provided, while not as wildly rewritten, are a small example of Socarides’ complete lack of honesty and integrity discusses how the break the “reward” that bigots feel from engaging in bigotry:
Bit different, eh?
Not even close to the same. Socarides turned a critisims of homohating bigots into a criticism of “all opponents of the gay movement.” Maybe he thinks that there isn’t a difference.
Wow… I just did a search at it is ASTONISHING how many times this misquote has been repeated on the web.
Lynn Vincent wrote an article in World Magazine using the fake quote.
Frank Turek wrote an article on TownHall using the fake quote.
Conservopedia’s article on “Homosexual Agenda” uses the fake quote.
Charles Socarides, in a NARTH article posted on Leadership U may have been the original fraud who deliberately change the language (he uses a longer quote)
And, of course, you can find it on gayconspiracy, faggotmania, free republic, and scattered about various comments, including an early quote here at Warren’s site.
Obviously these “sources” never read the book. They just decided to bear false witness.
Eddy,
Until such time as you read After the Ball (available cheap on Amazon for a used copy), please stop making statements about what it says.
And, just so you know, the quote you placed above was not only out of context, it was a misquote. Those were not the words from the book.
You claimed that After the Ball said:
The actual quote was:
Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attacks or not.
Isn’t it funny that your source for the quote changed the words from “his bigotry can be alloyed” to “the person’s beliefs can be altered”? And you said that I was the one using propaganda?
If I were you, I would never trust a single thing that your “source” – obviously a bunch of liars – ever said again.
Eddy,
I haven’t written at Ex-Gay Watch for about three years.
I now write at Box Turtle Bulletin and my primary interests are where sexuality, religion and politics intersect. My most recent articles were about:
civil unions legislation in Hawaii
the findings of the European Court of Human Rights about marriages in Europe
the Supreme Court decision on releasing the Referendum 71 names
an odd website dedicated to trying to convince a Mormon girl not to marry a gay man (kinda ex-gay related)
the mayor of Atlanta getting an HIV test
a Wisconsin court decision on parental rights
gay pride in Croatia
Nevada health’s response to CRCC’s Ssempa connection
new york anti-bullying bill
So I think that perhaps you have a misperception about the focus of my writing.
Dave–
Based on how little I knew of the book, I have not and would not enter into a discussion where the book was the focus. That would be irresponsible. But my point was about how the Ugandans see a ‘gay agenda’ and the belief of many in America that there is a ‘gay agenda’. I believe they may have inklings that there was such a thing but they now see it more clearly because the book does speak of an agenda and they’ve been privy to parts of it that appear to be playing out.
The topics here on the blog though are distinctly different…it’s frequently ‘breaking news’. Many times, all we know is what’s been recently said or what’s being said. And we try to make sense of it.
I am in thorough agreement with you re codifying Christianity. I shudder when I hear people refer to America as a “Christian nation”. We sure do have a heckuva lot of Christians…but we’ve got a heckuva a lot of others too…and this is their land too! And I further recognize that there are many who bear the name ‘Christian’ who don’t share my beliefs on every issue. I am not their judge and I shouldn’t try to codify their life. (I grew up Catholic where to view the film “Cleopatra” was a mortal sin…I later went Unitarian where almost anything was acceptable…then Assemblies of God where playing pool wasn’t a sin but going to a poolhall was, where watching a movie on TV wasn’t a sin but going to the movie theatre was. LOL. Imagine trying to codify that!)
My conservative Christian friends were at first mortified to learn that I was publicly against ‘prayer in schools’. Pragmatically though, I had to reckon that these were ‘public’ schools and that the entire ‘public’ did not share in Christian belief.
I need to research Engle and The Call a bit more. My suspicion is that they’d love to make fornication, adultery, divorce, abortion, pornography and probably drinking and gambling all illegal. I’m pretty sure that they’ve ‘prayed against’ these ‘evil influences’ and likely cited them in quite a few sermons.
LOL. I’m still finding it pretty unbelievable that all that I was addressing was the notion that Engle was speaking out of both sides of his mouth…and I cited what I heard him saying when one pulled the assembled pieces together. I made no attempt to justify his stand…only to clarify what his stand appeared to be.
Well Eddy .. obviously both of us are deeper thinkers than what our posts suggest. But I do see some bias here .. if you had approached the book witth the same introspection and asked similar questions as you asked concerning Engle I would see it differently. But alas.. you didn’t. I do appreciate the dialog though. 🙂
On a broader perspective… Its seems that Engle joins the ranks of many others in Christianity who seem to want to give special penalty and special attention to same gender sexual activity. When I see a similar disposition to the sins of fornication, pornography, divorce, and, in some people’s perspectives, even remarriage (all of which are a real and present threat to marriage, ie. .. -one man, one women – for life) then my view of him will change. Though I would not agree with codifying all Christian beliefs into law.
Sorry, Dave.1) I didn’t make excuses for Engle. I tried to clarify what he said…much of which is still in favor of legal restraints and penalties for homosexuals and for restraints on the advancement of the homosexual cause. (It’s not a position that will earn him any accolades here.)
2) You appear to not understand what “out of context” means. “Out of context”
So, the questions would be “did I try to distort their intended meaning?”… “did I misrepresent the position of the authors of “After the Ball” by using the quotes as I did?” ,,,”did I misrepresent them as supporting some position that they did not support?”
And here’s the part I find a tad amusing. Whatever it is that you’re trying to charge me with, you claim that I’m ‘not willing to do the same with Engle’. Question: didn’t I acknowledge that WE don’t have the full context of Engle’s speech? Sorry, Dave, but it would appear that I’m willing to comment both on “After the Ball” AND on Engle’s position without access to everything that they said. LOL. I’m not even embarrassed to say that because it’s a part of what dialogue is all about. If we knew everything, we’d have no need for the input of anyone else.
We differ here. I care BOTH about what ‘my side’ is doing and what the ‘other side’ is doing. When I was a full-time minister for more than a decade, my primary focus was on what ‘my side’ was doing and needed to do (with maybe a 5% focus on what the ‘other side’ was up to). Since my involvement here, I do both. Believe me, I have no trouble having a difference of opinion with somebody from ‘my side’. (For example, Mary and I have publicly disagreed on occasion.) I stay within the context of this blogsite as a rule though…so it turns out that the majority of my differences are with those from ‘the other side’. I have also at times taken corrective needs I’ve picked up here and shared them with the leadership of Exodus. “You know something, Alan, I get what they’re saying re such and such…it seems that what Exodus needs to do is….”
I do appreciate the spirit of what you’ve said but I have to contend with those who share Timothy’s position as well. Timothy writes for a few websites…the name (and purpose) of one of them is “Ex-Gay Watch”. It’s focus is on ‘the other side’…on my side. (Note: I’m not saying that Timothy’s life focus is on what the ‘other side’ is doing but I think it would be fair to say that IS the focus most of his writing.) So, it’s perfectly understandable that, for both Timothy and I, what you see here is only one aspect of our life focus but it tends to magnify the areas where we disagree.
I second that.
Note to Eddy … I haven’t read the book : After the Ball either. But I notice that you said:
I can;t help but notice that with a book that you could read but haven’t .. you are willing to take out of context quotes and run with them but with Engle you are not willing to do the same and seem to want to make endless excuses for what he is doing / has done. So ..to me .. there seems to be a bit of bias on your part.
For me personally as a Christian I don’t care what the so called “other side” is doing .. I care about what I am doing and what others who represent Christ are doing. I’ve taken a long hard look at what they (we) are doing .. And I must say … I am not happy at all with what we are doing. I must also say that I have alot of gay friends .. many through on line forums and some I have met personally. Alot of them are Christian and affirming!! I have to say that there are many times when I find their faith and integrity much more impressive then the faith and integrity of some of these anti gay Christian leaders. One thing is clear .. none of us are righteous .. no not one .. Only Christ..
Blessings,
Dave
Thanks for your permission, Timothy. And for the exaggerations and distortions of my position. And for often being the first to cry ‘snarky’…I didn’t catch even a whiff of it in your comment.
Weeding or not, I’m outta this one.
Fine, Eddy,
You can choose to believe that gay people who comment here are propagandists.
You can believe in a super-secret manifesto, you can believe that Engle doesn’t support the bill, you can believe that there’s something on the transcript that we don’t know which would change our opinions about Engle.
Heck, you can choose to believe anything you like. You’re a very skilled believer.
Re your closing caution, just want to clarify that I specifically referred to ‘that first quoted sentence’ while you included a phrase from the second.
As for propaganda, we’ll continue to wage that war.
As to the charges of bigotry and homophobia, they seem to come up rather frequently. Perhaps they’ve stopped and I didn’t notice. I’ll try to pay better attention.
But this has been several posts already where we’re on a detour. Sorry Warren! Time to see it’s cooled down enough to do some serious weeding. (I can never say ‘weeding’ without picturing Elmer Fudd.)
I believe that After the Ball had one hardback print run in 1989 and one paperback print run in September 1990. It was hardly a best seller and – as you noted – you can still get “new” copies. The one I got last year for $5 was “new” and was printed in 1989 (I didn’t use amazon but found a bookstore online who didn’t know that the book was an anti-gay activist collectors item).
You can sometimes get a clue from Amazon as to whether a book is still in print or has been in print anytime recently. If a new paperback costs between $86 and $248, then you probably can’t go pick it up at Barnes & Noble.
As for taking the quotes out of context, yes that can make them appear sinister. But more importantly, even if this book was Machiavellian (which it is not), in order to be “the homosexual agenda”, it would have to be adopted and implemented. It was not.
You can decide to believe that After the Ball is some smoking gun. You may well have some personal need to believe that myth.
But just so you know, you aren’t likely to convince me that After the Ball is some sort of manifesto or playbook. I was there. You were not. So regardless of whatever it is that you declare, I already know the truth and any insistence on the myth will not make me recall history differently than it occurred.
If there were any organization that were going to implement Hunter and Madsen’s super-secret master plan, it would have been the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation. GLAAD is the group that lobbied newspapers and Hollywood to present less stereotypical images of gay people, to use respectful terms, to allow responses, and to make the lives of gay people less invisible.
And during the last half of the 90’s (the decade in which the book was supposedly being used as a manifesto), I was GLAAD’s auditor. I reviewed their expenses. I looked into their programming. I saw what books were on their shelves.
And I knew GLAAD and their staff. I knew what they were doing and why. And I can assure you (whether or not you accept that assurance) that they were not operating from this secret manifesto.
If you read the book – which you haven’t – you’d know that the ONE SINGLE PURPOSE of the book was to advocate for the preparation of an advertising campaign – a multi-million dollar concerted effort with consistent branding and an established message – to introduce gay people to America.
This never happened.
Unlike the ex-gay community who, in 1998, did launch a million dollar newspaper and television advertising campaign, the gay community has never attempted such an effort. (Which is too bad).
(And, incidentally, I’d caution you against suggesting that those of us who are gay and who comment here use “propagandistic advertising” or “depict all opponent of the gay movement as homophobic bigots” or that we comment “without reference to facts, logic or proof.” We might take offense.)
Timothy–
Re “After the Ball”. I did not know that it was ‘out of print’ and was misled by the fact that Amazon.com has 6 ‘new’ copies available. (Not being snarky…I happen to know that to Amazon ‘new’ means ‘not previously owned by anyone else’ not ‘hot off the press’.
I have not read the book but have been privy to quotes that, even if taken out of context, seem to speak pretty directly.
“Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propoganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned}”…. “Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof…. the person’s beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not” (p. 152-153)
Of course, I’m biased but that first quoted sentence sure does seem to describe daily life on the Throckblog…. So, while some try to say there is no gay agenda and others try to say it’s something else, those words somehow still seem true. Some would surmise that even if “After the Ball” isn’t a textbook on “The Gay Agenda” that a number of it’s principles and strategies are being employed.
Re your question about the source. I’ve looked for about a half hour and can’t find it. I stumbled upon it while searching something else about a week ago and can’t recall what magic words I plugged into google that led me there. I can and should clarify though that ‘good percentage’ was unclear word usage. I believe the correct number was 6% and the context was that that was a high percentage compared to other countries.
Ugh…
In stead of “for example” I should have said “to make a comparison that may be easier understood, …”
Mary,
No, certainly not. In fact, they don’t have to support a list of the gay community’s goals in order not to be an anti-gay person.
Anti-gay is an attitude which approaches each issue from the perspective of immediately opposing whatever gay people want (and justifying whatever anti-gay people are doing) unless convinced otherwise. It has less to do with any particular position and more to do with biases.
A person could be completely, joyously pro-gay and still disagree with the community on some issue, particularly when it comes to religion.
For example, there are plenty of Christians who are not sexists who believe that women should not be pastors. They may promote women at work, may advocate for womens’ issues, may actively speak out against those who might demean women. That they find scriptural restrictions does not make them sexist.
I know that there are many Christians who are supportive of gay people in civil, social, and societal areas who do believe that same-sex relationships are within the acceptable sexual ethic as laid out in Scripture. I suspect that there are many who truly and genuinely wish that they did find same-sex relationships to be allowable but who simply find supportive arguments to be inadequate to address their concerns.
This certainly doesn’t make them anti-gay.
In the end, we’re going to have two diametrically opposed camps. One side believing that Uganda simply needs to step up and become ‘just like us’ in their response to homosexuality…the other side with a genuine distaste for ‘Western values’ and perceived societal decay…with a national AIDS crisis…and an unbelievable cultural history. (To imagine that a national leader did actually employ sodomization on a grand scale…beyond me. To imagine that a culture still has witches who engage in human sacrifice….astounding. To consider that a good percentage of married men who have extramarital sex have it with men…way different than our culture.)
Perhaps it would be helpful to measure our perspectives against the facts.
The national AIDS crisis in Uganda is almost entirely a heterosexual phenomenon. Those who, like Ssempa and Engle, seek to use the AIDS crisis to justify an anti-gay campaign are not only dishonest but dangerous. If the AIDS crisis response is based on false impressions, people needlessly die.
The national leader who “employed sodomization on a grand scale” was a king who had sixteen wives and at least ten children. The sodomization story may be based in fact or may be a fiction created by Catholic and Anglican missionaries to spice up the Ugandan martyrs story. Although the reason for their martyrdom was almost entirely based on Mwonga II’s struggle to maintain autonomy (a failed effort) from foreign English and French influences (who were in a three way struggle with Muslims), it is now told in sexual terms.
I am not familiar with statistics which show that good percentage of married men who have extramarital sex have it with men.
Can you provide any source for that statement?
I recently re-read After the Ball. Although it has been out of print for years and never sold that many copies to begin with, I was able to pick up a pristine copy in hardback last year for $5 from an online used book source.
I first read the book back in the 90’s and found that it had both positive and negative suggestions. But most everyone in gay activism at the time paid it scant attention. I can say with a certain amount of certainty that more anti-gay activists have read the book – and with more attention to detail – than ever have gay activists.
Primarily, it laid out some common sense ideas about changing the gay community’s image. In the 80’s any media mention of gay people always hyped the extreme or the flamboyant, portrayed gay people as villains, and icky, and scary. Hunter and Madsen recommended some ways to change that image; a few had already been in place for a while (GLAAD was founded in 1985), a few were plain ol’ common sense (let people speak who are informed, not who are just angry), and a few were rejected (the idea of Greek-like mentoring never caught on).
Mostly, the book said, “It’s time to grow up and be mature and responsible. So start thinking of yourself that way, make that your goal, and start putting out that image for you to live up to.”
The one place where After the Ball received acclaim at the time was from Log Cabin Republicans. Because the message within the book was primarily one of taking responsibility and reflected what they had been saying for years. They loved the examples that Hunter and Madsen used of making gay republicans and gay bowlers as visible as drag queens or gender activists. The leftist or more liberal activists found the book a bit offensive.
And it was forgotten until that veritable source of integrity and truth (snark), the Alliance Defense Fund, discovered the book and declared it to be the gay community’s secret manifesto. This came as a bit of amusement to the community, especially those of us who actually were activists, as we knew it to be nonsense.
And the ookie-spookie “agenda” as laid out by the book is really nothing other than to be smart about marketing. Put your best face forward. Give people a reason to like and support you. Make those who are actively trying to hurt you look bad. Get the subject off of “sex” and back on people.
But funny enough, when anti-gay activists talk about it, the book now contains all sorts of things that actually weren’t printed on the pages. But these myths are pretty safe as few people ever read the book or recall what it said if they did. So anti-gays can list all sorts of imagined tactics and agenda items, especially if they themselves have never read the book.
Yet there are some who have a deep need to believe in a sinister homosexual agenda and who cling tightly to the myth that this book was a manifesto, a master plan to fool America.
Because if folks really just came to know and love gay people on their own and changed their impressions and political positions without being fooled, then maybe, just maybe, they are the ones who are out of touch. If it wasn’t a grand conspiracy, if no one else is deceived, then their own personal anti-gay attitudes look to be based in less-that-admirable motivations.
So rather than reflect on their own attitudes, they declare, “No! The gay people you see and know are fake! It’s all a conspiracy! It’s their agenda! It’s in a book!!!”
The gay community does have an agenda. Not to destroy western society or to silence Christians or to legalize child molestation or to get special privileges or really anything other than what everyone else wants, to be given a fair shake, an equal opportunity, and play on a level playing field. Our agenda is that gay people be treated equally to straight people in matters of civil, social, and religious life.
And this agenda – equality – is exactly and entirely what Engle opposes.
Thanks, Dave.
I also think the bill is detestable and that it was a huge mistake for them to even attempt to introduce it. It truly did become ‘ground zero’…international attention and focus drawn in principally due to the extreme penalties. Any legitimate concerns that Ugandan’s may have over homosexuality or the ‘advancement of a gay agenda’ are being rendered invisible primarily due to the extremity of the proposed penalites.
The volatility runs high. Perhaps foolishly, I have an eye to the future. I feel very strongly that this extremist bill will not pass. If, in the off chance that it does, a justified furor to repeal it will spring up immediately and be completely warranted. I also feel that the eventual resolve will not be advanced by spin and randomized, unfounded mud-slinging. (There’s plenty of real true mud without any attempts at exaggeration or distortion.)
In the end, we’re going to have two diametrically opposed camps. One side believing that Uganda simply needs to step up and become ‘just like us’ in their response to homosexuality…the other side with a genuine distaste for ‘Western values’ and perceived societal decay…with a national AIDS crisis…and an unbelievable cultural history. (To imagine that a national leader did actually employ sodomization on a grand scale…beyond me. To imagine that a culture still has witches who engage in human sacrifice….astounding. To consider that a good percentage of married men who have extramarital sex have it with men…way different than our culture.)
Here ‘the separation of church and state’ is a long-standing principle; there it’s a completely foreign concept and not one they are likely to embrace anytime soon. The extreme penalities drew us ALL in with strong reactions but precious little understanding of these people and their culture. Huge blunders continue to be made on both sides. Walls of separation are being built even higher than they already were. I’m somewhat focussed on those walls. I see that, in the end, even if they can’t be totally torn down, we have to be able to see over them. So I’m focussed on not seeing them be built any higher.
I realize that my understanding is incomplete; I also realize that my approach is incomplete and inadequate. But I’m convinced that the majority of those attempting to speak forcefully to this issue–on both sides–share in my incompleteness and inadequacy.
Dave – I think you are seeing this clearly and without distraction. Engle may not support the death penalty but he does support the Ugandan stand. It is not just that he supports criminalization, he supports what they are doing to take a stand. And that stand is the introduction of the AHB.
Engle has had weeks to complain about the quotes attributed to him in Uganda and produce his own transcript or film. He has not because it does not matter. His essential position has been presented.
RE: Engle’s appeal for wisdom. He also prayed that the US Congress would have wisdom in voting on health care reform…even though we know exactly what Engle thought they should do. For him in that situation wisdom meant to vote against the bill. Praying for wisdom for other people often means that the preacher wants God to make them do what the preacher thinks is wise.
Hi Eddy,
I agree we do not have everything he said and I am usually a stickler for getting the whole scoop. If Pastor Engle has video or transcript of what he said I would be happy to see it.
However; I was quite disturbed a year and several months ago over what was presented by Scott Lively and others in Uganda .. long before this bill took shape. It seems to me that someone such as Engle going in to such a powderkeg environment, who claimed to have knowledege of said bill, would be doing a lot more to counter it and would come no where near what is recorded. I would have expected him to be preaching grace and mercy and giving them an alternative way to respond to homosexuality rather than any endorsement of this bill.
I am a Christian.. I am a minister of the gospel in the Church of the Nazarene. I don’t support (theologically) same sex sexual activity. But I see nothing postive in this bill and I am distrubed when anyone comes anywhere near supporting it. It seems totally opposite of the principles Christ gives us and is very counter-productive to the carrying out of the great commission.
Dave
Note to Dave. I didn’t realize I’d picked up anything ‘positive’ out of Engle’s quotes….people suggested that Engle was speaking out of both sides of his mouth when they compared his two talks; I thought I’d summarize what WAS coming out of his mouth in both the vid and the talk with the reporter.
I also noted that we didn’t have ‘all of what Engle said’…have you ever heard of a preach lasting only 3 to 4 minutes? Did it look like he was done talking when the video clip ended? Actually, I’m not sure that the vid started with his opening words either…but I’d find the words that followed the remarks we heard more telling than those that preceded it.
Actually, ALMOST everything he said appeared to support the bill. However, his appeal that God grant them the wisdom to respond to this situation suggests that he believes they need MORE wisdom. He could have said “May God grant you the courage and strength to stand up to those who don’t believe in this bill”…that would have been a complete endorsement. But he appealed for wisdom.
IF he followed true preacher form, he had an intro (where you touch on your main points), a body (where you further clarify and expound on what you said) and a conclusion (where you tie it all back together). So I don’t know if he ever got back to elaborating on the wisdom they need. And I don’t know what he said privately.
We can all debate on what we think did or didn’t get said outside of the film clip; all I did was point out what Engle DID seem to be saying in both this preach and to the reporter.
Note to Eddy … it really doesn’t matter what Engle said here in the U.S. .. Nor does it matter what mini-‘positive’ quotes you can wring out of all of what Engle said. What matters is that there in Uganda .. with many religious leaders and other Christians present .. everything he said appeared to have supported the bill as written .. you seem to miss this point. For Uganda .. which is the center of this controversy .. Engle looked totally supportive of the bill. I doubt anyone from Uganda is going to come here to seek clarifications .. They are going to take what he said there in Uganda at face value.at face value.
Jayhuck–That’s okay…especially since you were able to provide the actual link. Just when I think I’ve learned how to link correctly, I find out I’m still ‘hit and miss’.
Mary: I wouldn’t think so. You can believe gay sex is sin without depriving other people of basic rights.
No
Soooo…. if a person does not support homosexuality in a biblical sense but for all others ways supports homosexual rights to marry, non-discrimination acts in housing, employment, rights etc…. is that person still anti-gay?
Sorry Eddy – just realized you suggested reading Wiki a few posts back
Wikipedia has a nice article on the term Gay/Homosexual Agenda, including origin;
Gay Agenda
That’s a bit of a no-brainer when you consider that in the agenda promoted in “After the Ball” one of the key elements is pretending NOT to have an agenda.
Beautifully put Timothy! And oddly enough it seems to be a term used primarily, not exclusively, by anti-gay folk
David–
You can actually search ‘gay agenda’ or ‘homosexual agenda’ on Wikipedia and gets lots to ponder and digest. It’s not that long of a read…and you have to remember that it’s Wiki…the parts that I found came closest to answering your question were a lengthy quote from James Dobson that listed what I think most believe the gay agenda to be and references to the book After The Ball.
I wasn’t completely satisfied with the excerpts provided from After The Ball but googling ‘After the Ball book’ led me to a bit more substance.
David,
The gay agenda is that gay people be treated equally to straight people in matters of civil, social, and religious life.
When people “oppose the homosexual agenda” it is always – without exception – because they oppose gay people being treated equally to heterosexuals in some way.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me just what “The gay agenda” truly is.
1) Engle is against the severe penalties presented in the bill and against at least one of the offenses (reporting). Hence, Engle is against the bill.
2) Engle, however, believes there is indeed a gay agenda and that it is dangerous to the future of Uganda. Therefore, he stands with the people of Uganda in their desire to restrain the gay agenda.
3) He does not wish to see homosexual behavior decriminalized and he also wants to see some restraints against the advancement of the gay agenda.
4) So he’s against the bill, per se, but is not in favor of total decriminalization and is against advancement.
5) Although he did proclaim that Uganda is ‘ground zero’, he did not add “in the fight against the agenda”. It may be that he thinks Uganda has been thrust into the ‘ground zero’ position…not that they planned it. The campaign against the bill is likely what created ‘ground zero’.
6) Did anyone else notice that somewhere around 1:25 or 1:26, he speaks a few words that aren’t English? Not sure if he had learned a phrase in their language or if he had gone off into ‘tongues’. The rhythym of speech sounds a lot like the interpreter but it’s not the interpreter’s voice. Definitely male and sounds like Engle himself.
Have actually been wondering about that… Not ready to believe in any good conspiracy theories, and, since I do live in Uganda and am Ugandan, I have been seeing that kind of stuff for a long time…. But what is it about homosexuality that has Christians lying, playing politics, showing the real ugly side of humanity? In Uganda it is kind of visceral… as long as it is about homosexuality, rationality is not on the books. And it is just so politically correct to bash gay people….
Hey, my apologies to Christians out there, but it is kind of interesting how irrationality seems to rule thinking. Ideals no longer matter, etc
Well it certianly seems that Engle talks out of both sides of his mouth . So .. I guess we can add deceptive to the list of Engle’s qualities … sigh … Why is it that the issue of homosexuality brings out the worst in Christianity?