Sen Jim Inhofe Heading To Uganda; Will He Speak Against The Anti-Homosexuality Bill?

According to a tweet from Maria Burnett at Human Rights Watch Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is heading to Uganda. From sources I trust, I have learned that Inhofe and a Congressional delegation will be in Uganda next week.
 

 
Inhofe (@jiminhofe) has stated in the U.S. that he opposes the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, but will he bring up his opposition when he meets with Uganda’s president Museveni? My guess is that regional security issues will dominate the meetings but I hope Inhofe and his delegation will communicate that yhey oppose the human rights disaster in the making in Uganda.
I will add information here as I get it.
 

CVV: Searching For A Libertarian Jesus

Gil Harp and Michael Coulter have a thought provoking op-ed out this morning via the Center for Vision and Values titled, “Searching For A Libertarian Jesus.”
In reaction to various unnamed Christian supporters of a minimalist state, Harp and Coulter search for a libertarian Jesus without success. To listen to Christian proponents of the tea party, for instance, one might think governments are incapable of any good. One might think that, but one should not claim Jesus expressly teaches it. Harp and Coulter:

Must Christians—because of the example of Jesus—oppose states enacting sabbatarian laws or limiting access to pornography? How about making drivers wear seatbelts? There might be prudential reasons for opposing such laws, but Jesus’ teaching doesn’t address them. In addition to punishing criminals, governments can use their power to do positive good, such as sometimes using force so that child support is paid by a non-custodial parent. Government can also use its power to discourage some harmful behaviors, such as divorce or public drunkenness. Nothing in Jesus’ teaching explicitly rules out these kinds of state actions. The Gospels do certainly offer ethical principles, such as the Golden Rule, but they don’t provide a blueprint for health insurance regulations or tariff policy.

While I don’t want sabbatarian laws enacted, I think I get the point. The Gospels, and I will add the Bible, don’t offer us detailed economic policies which must be followed as one would follow revealed truth. In much Christian discourse today (e.g., David Barton’s sermons), the Bible is presented as the GOP policy manual with deviation from the political platform treated as grounds for excommunication.
Christian libertarians who want Jesus to be a libertarian have to contend with an inconvenient truth. One the icons of their movement, Ludwig von Mises, didn’t think much of Christianity. Again, Harp and Coulter:

Mises was no fan of Jesus’ economics. He asserted that Jesus’ “teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” Mises contended that, “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come … In God’s Kingdom the poor shall be rich, but the rich shall be made to suffer.” As for the religion Jesus founded, Mises was convinced that “A living Christianity cannot, it seems, exist side by side with Capitalism.”

Although I wish they would have named names, the article is a good read and I encourage you to check it out.

Was The Death Penalty Really Removed From Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill? (UPDATED)

UPDATE – 1/14/14: This morning, I received an email from Charles Tuhaise, researcher for Uganda’s Parliament. Charles provided clarification about some of the issues I raised in this post. Thanks to him for the information. I am placing his comments in advance of yesterday’s post because they address some of my questions below. Regarding the manner of handling bills in Uganda, Tuhaise wrote:

Over here, the original Bill remains intact throughout the debate period until the Bill comes up for second reading. At second reading, usually on the same day, the entire Parliament constitutes itself into a “Committee of the whole House” and then effects amendments to the Bill clause-by-clause. After that, the Bill is “read” the third time and is passed by Parliament.
The rules of procedure do not provide for any other way of amending a Bill, after it is printed, other than the above procedure, when the Bill appears for 2nd reading in Parliament’s plenary sitting. That’s why the same copies of the AH Bill are provided whenever you request them. Even if it is a Private Member’s Bill, the Bill’s proponent cannot alter anything in the printed Bill, but must wait to propose such amendment at the Bill’s 2nd reading.
After a Bill is passed by Parliament with amendments, the Clerk’s office undertakes to produce the revised Bill that incorporates the amendments agreed by Parliament. This revised copy of the Bill is never availed to the public but is sent to the President for assent. If the President assents, it goes to the Printers and is next seen by the public as an Act of Parliament, (no-longer a Bill).
I hope this clarifies the issue of Bill amendment. The first time we know which amendments were agreed on in the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, is when it appears as an Act of Parliament (i.e. if the President signs it as passed). Alternatively, one can go to the House record of the debates (the Hansard) to see the amendments agreed when Parliament constituted itself as “Committee of the whole House” – (after the Hansard Department publishes the day’s proceedings – not sure if a copy is already available.)
But, Parliament’s Public Relations Department covered the day’s proceedings and wrote an article that indicates what was agreed on that day.

The article indicates that an act of homosexuality could lead to 14 years in jail with life in prison for repeated offenses. I have also been told that the 30 day period for Museveni’s assent (or not) does not begin until he gets the amended bill. If that is true, then his time for consideration may not have started since he may not yet have the amended bill. I asked Charles to clarify that point and will add that information when I get it.
……………. (Original posts begins below)
After the passage of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill on December 20, all news coverage of that event claimed that the death penalty was removed from the bill.
On one other occasion prior to the adjournment of the 8th Parliament, the public was told that the death penalty had been removed. However, later, it was learned that the death penalty was in fact, still in place. And if the committee report that supported the enactment of the bill in December is the same report as offered in May 2011, then the death penalty could very well still be in the bill being considered now by Uganda’s president Yowari Museveni.
I have asked Parliament several times for a copy of the amended bill. Recently, when I asked Parliament’s media relations for a copy of the bill passed in December 2013, I received a copy of the bill tabled in June, 2011. In that bill, there are no changes from the original bill; the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality is still in place.

The date stamped on this bill is June 30, 2011 which was when the bill was tabled in the 9th Parliament. Click the link to read the bill sent to me and described as the bill passed by Parliament. The description of “aggravated homosexuality” is the same.

The death penalty is still in there (UPDATE: but as noted above, the death penalty is supposed to be removed. I still want to see the language myself due to the incident in 2011).
Now it may be that amendments were made and the bill as amended is being kept a secret. However, with the deadline looming for Museveni’s decision, it is worth asking what is actually in the bill. The world was told once upon a time that the death penalty was taken out and that other changes were made. However, the committee report in 2011 revealed otherwise.
Life in prison is bad enough and as this Cameroonian fellow proves, any time spent in prison could be a death sentence, so the removal, if true, is not reason for relief.
As I understand it, the bill becomes law if Museveni does nothing by next Monday (please see above — this may not be true). As of now, in my mind, there is still some doubt about what that law will look like.

David Barton's Favorite Candidate For Texas Attorney General Preparing Texas To Be Independent Nation

Like Ted Cruz before him, Barry Smitherman is a rising star in the Texas GOP. Smitherman is currently chair of the Railroad Commission and running to be Texas Attorney General.  David Barton endorsed Cruz and now David Barton has endorsed Smitherman for AG.
Smitherman’s views are right of center to say the least. He is preparing for the demise of the nation and wants Texas to be ready to secede from the union.  So when Smitherman says he wants to secure the borders, he might mean with Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Arkansas as well as Mexico.
His defense of Christian identity group “Crusaders for Yahweh” is disturbing for one of two reasons. Either Smitherman doesn’t know the Crusaders are white nationalists, or he does know and stuck up for them anyway. Being in sympathy with white nationalists would be worse than being uninformed, but being uninformed about such things does not inspire confidence in an Attorney General candidate.
 
*I changed the headline to reflect the fact that I have seen no evidence that Smitherman advocates secession from the U.S. now. His statement to WND supports Texas independence if the U.S. collapses.

At Least One Fan Of Todd Starnes Is Not Happy With Alan Noble

Recently, fellow Patheos blogger Alan Noble wrote a post at Christ and Pop Culture titled, Todd Starnes Sold Us A War On Christianity. We Bought It. It has created a bit of a fuss among fans of Starnes, leading to, among other things, this love tweet from radio talk show host, Kevin McCullough:


and then


This tweet was directed to Mediaite editor Andrew Kirell who posted this article today supporting Noble.
Here is the opening to Noble’s article:

The media is filled with lies and liars. We all know this, so there’s no need for us to point out every lie told online. But some lies and some liars need to be called out. And when a liar identifies with my community–conservative evangelicals–and tells lies to my community repeatedly and without apology, influencing hundreds of thousands of people, that needs to be addressed.
Last week, Todd Starnes at FOX News published two articles on anti-Christian discrimination at Veterans Administrations hospitals this Christmas season. In both reports, Starnes lies and tactfully omits facts in order to deceive his audience, creating the impression that the government is at war with Christmas.

From there, Noble delivers a take-down of Starnes’ claims relating to Christmas and the Veteran’s Administration. In this case, Starnes did what he has done before, cite only part of an official statement when he had access to the entire statement. The part he cited fit his war on Christians narrative. The part he left out would have weakened his case significantly.
McCullough must like Starnes’ narrative but that does not give him grounds to attack Noble’s faith commitment. Noble used strong words to disagree with Starnes but he did not say Starnes was not a Christian. I know this attack; it is similar to the one David Barton used against me when his book, The Jefferson Lies, was pulled from publication in August, 2012. McCullough should advance some evidence if he thinks Noble is wrong. My guess is he won’t do it because he doesn’t have it.
Starnes unnecessarily and unhelpfully fuels the fears of Christians who are worried about their religious liberty. There are sufficient concerns to address without making things seem worse than they are. Given Starnes’ track record, one should not take his columns at face value. Starnes’ fans (and his network) should turn their frustration on the source and not on the people who provide the whole story.
Previous columns on this topic:
Todd Starnes and the Pentagon Still Not Together on the Facts
Air Force Statement on Religious Proselytizing and Religious Materials on Desks
On the Military and Religious Proselytizing: Military Spokesman’s Original Comments Used Out of Context
Is the Military Preparing to Court Martial Christians?