Comments on: NPR on the roots of anti-gay sentiment in Uganda

By: Maazi NCO

Maazi NCO — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:15:11 +0000

And the gay propaganda continues…. ZzzzZzz

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:15:11 +0000

Jeff,

The current flag bearer is usually not the person who has been at the lead of a movement – just another person in a long line of other voices that gathered strength over time.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:15:11 +0000

Anti-gay sentiment started long before.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:52:51 +0000

Bob Hunter….. As far as I know there is no “institutional support” for Bahati or Inhofe. They each participate in a Parliamentary prayer group. To my knowledge, neither gets financial or other support from the Fellowship other than the support the members of their individual prayer group might provide, like prayer and friendship, and occasional visits or other communications from individuals involved in other groups.

Considering as Jeff Sharlet has said:

Sen. Inhofe, a frequent Fellowship visitor to Uganda connected to a budget for the development of Ugandan leadership, says he’s promoting “the political philosophy of Jesus, something put together by Doug [Coe, Family leader].” Now here’s David Bahati,: “We know Senator Inhofe. We respect him.” On Inhofe’s

comment: “I think he’s responding to politics as the management of society, according to Jesus, how he brings Jesus to the issues of society.” Inhofe has done so in the U.S. by coining the slogan “God, gays, and guns,” ….

And with your quandry as to Bahati sees the Fellowship as concerns his bill…

….if Jeff is accurately reporting David Bahati’s thoughts, this shows Bahati’s total misunderstanding of the Fellowship. The Fellowship is relationships, not political action. To say “the bill is the Fellowship” (by which he means just the Parliamentary group in Uganda, obviously) makes no sense in the context of how the Fellowship I know operates.

Then perhaps the “gun” is that lack of understanding David Bahati has concerning support of his views by Inhofe or Bahati’s lack of Christian principles as espoused by the Family and thus misconstruing either as tacit ‘institutional support’ by the Family.

…

By: Jeff Sharlet

Jeff Sharlet — Wed, 30 May 2018 17:52:51 +0000

Bob gives us a lot to think about here, and I have just a minute, so for now, one point of clarification, with more thoughts to follow. That point is that Bahati’s support includes the following: He considers Tim Kreutter, the director of Cornerstone, his mentor. Kreutter, a very modest man, was nonetheless comfortable with that term. Bahati deeply values his Fellowship contacts and is grateful to them for making it possible for him to visit the U.S. in 2007 and 2009 to attend the Fellowship’s National Prayer Breakfast (and to Bob for arranging housing on one of those visits, since Bahati was then not as well off as he is now.) A trip to America, for a Ugandan, is incredibly valuable, and hard to arrange, since visas are difficult to obtain. I know upper middle class people with lots of connections to make sure they return to Uganda who still can’t get here, despite legitimate business purposes. Bahati isn’t shy about speaking of the value of a NPB invitation. Nor is he shy about speaking of the political value of the Ugandan Prayer Fellowship, modeled on and in part organized by the international Fellowship. He is especially grateful to the international Fellowship for, he says, helping to arrange speakers such as Senator Inhofe and former attorney general John Ashcroft, both longtime Fellowship participants. He also points to the international Fellowship’s help in organizing the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast. The international Fellowship, he says, is invaluable, too, for political and business contacts, a point made to me by many other international associates. He was grateful to Bob for visiting him past spring to “mend fences” and reassure him that he remains a Fellowship brother in good standing.

But, and this is to Bob’s credit, I think, he doesn’t trust Bob. He thinks Bob is under the control of “the gays.”

What does all this amount to? No kind of conspiracy, that’s for sure. But institutional support? I’d argue yes. That doesn’t seem a controversial assertion.

More on the deeper issues Bob raises to come.