Category: uganda

David Bahati: Lou Engle expressed support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill – Guest Post by Jeff Sharlet

[Author Jeff Sharlet (The Family) recently returned from Uganda where he conducted research for an upcoming book. While there, he  interviewed most of the key promoters of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, including David Bahati and Julius Oyet. He also attended The Call Uganda and heard Lou Engle speak. After reading Lou Engle’s recent statement about The Call Uganda, Jeff sent along the following observations which he offers in this guest post. Jeff has some important information and perspective to report here.]

David Bahati: Lou Engle expressed support for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Jeff Sharlet

Either Lou Engle isn’t telling the whole truth, or some of his key allies in Uganda aren’t. I attended his rally in Kampala in the company of Member of Parliament David Bahati, the author of the bill. After the rally, I rode with Bishop Oyet and Bahati in Bahati’s car to the Sheraton hotel, where I interviewed Oyet for about 45 minutes, recorded. I’ll be writing about what I learned in Kampala in my forthcoming book, but Engle’s latest statement prompts some points worth making in the meantime:

1. Both Oyet and Bahati were ecstatic at what they perceived as Engle’s strong support of the bill. They felt his rally and his statements would be a turning point for the bill, reassuring their Ugandan allies that they had support abroad.

2. Both Oyet and Bahati told me that Engle had explicitly expressed his support for the bill, telling them that he had to lie to the Western media because gays control it. They said he said one thing to the BBC and then walked over to Bahati and said that he really supported the bill. Either Engle isn’t telling the whole truth, or Oyet and Bahati aren’t. I tend to believe Bahati here, since Engle didn’t mean anything to him until he met him that day. He hadn’t heard of him and decided to attend the rally only after I’d told him a few things about Engle. In other words, he left the rally thrilled with Engle based on that encounter with Engle alone. Clearly, Engle did something to please him.

3. I spoke with Engle briefly–also recorded–and he said the following: “To this nation the pastors, the leaders, they’ve said they don’t want that agenda but it’s coming in, getting pushed by NGOs, UN, Unicef and other organizations so we’re just trying to take a stand to encourage them in their stand.” That certainly sounds like he’s supporting the bill, which is the only Ugandan stand to which he could be referring.

4. Engle says in his statement last week that Christian leaders in Uganda are working to soften the punishments. But both Oyet and Bahati, at least, strongly support the death penalty. For Bahati, author of the bill, that goes without saying. It’s worth noting that Oyet is now formally working for Bahati – according to Oyet and Bahati, Bahati used his [Parliament] office to empower Oyet to gather signatures in support of the bill AS a government official.

5. Here’s Oyet on the death penalty: “There is not the death penalty at the end for everybody. There is the death penalty at the end for aggravated homosexuality.” He explained that the death penalty already applies for four crimes in Uganda (child rape, treason, murder, and causing death by female genital mutilation) “So I want the world to understand,” Oyet continued “that homosexuality is not the first death penalty in Uganda. I think that U.S. journalists should make that known. It is not the first one, it is going to be the fifth one.”

His rationale for the death penalty? “If the Bible supports the death penalty which is true and then you call yourself a Christian nation, listen. If I would be killed because I am dying scripturally I can repent to God before I am killed but [if] I am [eliminated] from the Earth that’s ok… if the victim confesses or repents, we can waive it off. Something like that…. In my view, homosexuals should be grateful. But instead they are not. Why I’m saying they should be grateful is because in Ugandan culture if you go and rob someone, if you go and rape a child and people find you, they will kill you.” [Here he is echoing a point made to me by many leaders of the anti-gay movement — that the bill is for the benefit of the gays in that it protects them from mob justice, replacing it with the rule of law and a death penalty they can appeal.]

6. Oyet seems to be quite confused about what homosexuality actually is. After he explained that he was engaged in spiritual warfare with homosexuality, I asked whether he believed homosexuals are demonically possessed.

Oyet: “Um, because it is abnormal. It is abnormal sex, you would say yes. You would say yes. Because one drives you to that. Because homosexuals, they would now eat their own feces. They would eat their own waste. That is what they call golden shower where you lick the anus of someone. Isn’t that demonic?”  [For Warren’s more conservative readers: Yes, there are a few people, heterosexual and homosexual, who do such things, but they are A) not linked to sexual orientation; B) not harmful to anyone who minds their own business. Also, as one might guess, “golden shower” means something else.]

7. Last but not least: Oyet insisted that there are American church leaders who are supporting the bill privately but lying to the American media about it. When I asked why it was ok for them to lie, he said “I do not judge these kind of people.” True enough; he reserves his judgment for other people’s sex lives.

[End of guest post]

Although I [Throckmorton]have reasons for doubting David Bahati’s word on some matters (e.g., what the bill actually says), I can understand why Jeff thinks he is speaking accurately here. If not a deliberate effort to mislead and instead a misunderstanding based on terminology, it is an understandable one. Lou Engle says he supports “the stand” taken by the Ugandan leaders. “The stand” in Uganda means the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. However, Jeff is reporting something more than a misunderstanding. He is saying that the Bahati and Oyet – the men praised by Lou Engle – accused Engle of misleading the press. 

I cannot know what the truth is but I would like Mr. Engle to speak clearly on this topic. Are Bahati and Oyet mistaken? Did they mislead Sharlet? Does Engle support the AHB? Does he support it with lesser penalties? Does he support the criminalization of homosexuality in Uganda? In the USA? Given Engle’s recent rise to prominence among religiously conservative political figures, these questions have important implications for American politics and policy.  

Lou Engle regrets the promotion of Anti-Homosexuality Bill during TheCall Uganda; urges bill supporters not to give in to Western opposition

A little while ago, this statement appeared on Lou Engle’s blog:

TheCall Uganda Press Release: Part 2

Posted on June 10th, 2010

June 2010

Three weeks ago I returned from Uganda where I participated in TheCall Uganda. Prior to going I released a statement declaring the intent and purposes of my going there and holding TheCall. In that statement I clearly declared that TheCall was not going to Uganda to promote the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (”Bill”). Instead, the purpose of the event was to pray and fast for this nation in crisis.

I was actually asked to release a petition at TheCall for the people to sign in support of the Bill. I did not allow that to happen because the purpose of the gathering was not a political gathering; it was a prayer gathering. However, I had to leave the prayer meeting early to catch our flight back home. After returning home, I was told that the Bill had been clearly promoted after I left the meeting. I apologize that this took place and that my stated purpose of not promoting the Bill was compromised. I take responsibility for what was done on the stage of TheCall, even in my absence.

That being said, I am grateful that I had the privilege of going to Uganda and meeting Christian leaders who explained their heart concerning the Bill. Not one was carrying even an ounce of hatred for homosexuals. They actually desired to influence the lawmakers in Uganda to lessen the penalties. However, they were committed to raise up a principled stand to protect their people and their children from an unwelcome intrusion of homosexual ideology into an 83% Christian nation, an intrusion that is being pressed upon them by the UN, UNICEF, and other NGOs and Western colonialist powers.

These powers are threatening to withdraw funding from Uganda if they do not open their doors to these ideologies. They shared with me with broken hearts some of the painful stories of the effect of this worldwide pressure, as it is being pushed and promoted into their educational system. I appealed to them that in all their labor and their stand they express the mercy of Christ to broken people, but I also stood with them in their desire to not succumb to the political ideological pressures of the West and many of the voices of the Western Church that have come strongly against them.

These brothers in Uganda will give an account to the Lord on how sternly they stood as a prophetic community in their nation and we, the Church of the West, will give an account for our response when homosexual ideology swept into our nations.

For TheCall,

Lou Engle

I am confused by this statement. He apologizes for The Call being used for promotion of the bill and identifies the promotion as taking place after he left the meeting. And indeed, Minister of Ethics and Integrity Nsaba Buturo spoke directly about the bill after Engle spoke. However, Apostle Julius Oyet spoke just before Engle and also promoted the bill. According to the Religion Dispatches account (which matches other on-the-scene accounts which I am not at liberty to identify), Oyet spoke directly about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill:

“We call on parliament not to debate heaven. We call on them to pass the bill and say no to homosexuality,” preached Julius Oyet, a pastor with Life Line Ministries in Uganda who titles himself Apostle. Oyet also brought up the common Ugandan perception that homosexuality is an import of the West which “recruits” new members primarily by bribing children. “Father, our children today are being deceived by the West. To buy them, to give them school fees so that they can be homosexuals. We say no to that,” Oyet said with a rolling voice as a live band played smooth jazz in the background.

When Engle himself finally took the microphone at about 5 p.m., he dug almost immediately into the controversy, saying he hadn’t known about the bill and nearly canceled his trip over questions raised by his presence. But at no point did he contest Oyet’s support for the bill.

Why apologize for what happened in your absence if you don’t apologize for what happened in your presence? By not saying anything about Oyet’s call on Parliament “to pass the bill,” he dilutes the impact of his acknowledgement that the bill was in fact promoted.

Further confusing the impact of this statement is the statement about the intent of the bill promoters. It appears that Engle favors criminalization in that he commends those involved with The Call Uganda for seeking to lessen, but not eliminate the penalties. I am reading between the lines but it appears that he thinks they are correct to pursue a specific law relating to homosexuality but advises the Ugandan supporters to be stand less “sternly” as a “prophetic community” and “lessen the penalties.” In essence, since he views them as pursuing a reasonable goal with reduced penalties, he supports what the Ugandan bill supporters are doing. I suspect that is exactly what they believe.

I have altered the title of this post to reflect that his apology seems to be directed to The Call Uganda and not the bill itself. If he opposes the actual bill, it is not clear at all from this statement and actually seems to make it more clear that if the bill has lesser penalties, he is fine with it.

Canyon Ridge Christian Church in conversation with Martin Ssempa

In response to the Current TV documentary, Missionaries of Hate, Canyon Ridge Christian Church (Las Vegas, NV) today issued this statement to me regarding their mission partner, Martin Ssempa.

The mission partners of Canyon Ridge Christian Church are more than just names on a bulletin board or a web site, they are our dearly loved friends and family. Because of this, we take seriously our commitment to them.   When accusations or ill reports come to us about one of our partners and their ministry activities, we’re committed to do what the Bible instructs us to do; we go to our partners (when possible, going to see them face to face) and work through the issues with them personally. We don’t make public statements about our partners until we have worked through issues with them personally and brought those issues to resolution. We have been and are currently in conversation with Martin Ssempa and others regarding the controversy in Uganda and his activities in addressing it.

Martin Ssempa was featured prominently in Missionaries of Hate showing deviant porn to a stunned audience. He is shown praying with Islamic clerics for David Bahati, the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. This statement seems to move slightly away from their earlier position which was:

Canyon Ridge Christian Church partners with missionaries and ministry leaders around the world, including Martin Ssempa, for the purpose of reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ and providing humanitarian aid where possible.

 

With the oversight of our elders and missions team, we constantly evaluate our ministry partners and their activities. We will only support those who engage in and promote activities consistent with the redemptive and grace-filled purposes of Jesus Christ in the world.

 

Canyon Ridge Christian Church does not wish to enter into the debate over the legislation in Uganda. We do encourage those involved to seek God’s leadership in humility and grace and to follow Jesus command to love one another as they wrestle with this difficult issue. Our prayers are for the good of the people Uganda.

It seems to me that Canyon Ridge has entered the debate through their mission partner. He has become one of the public faces of the bill around the world and has recently partnered with Islamic clerics on a renewed effort to promote the bill.

Policy statement: Exodus International opposes criminalization of homosexuality

Today, Exodus International issued a policy statement regarding the criminalization of homosexuality.

Criminalization of Homosexuality

Exodus International opposes the criminalization of homosexual behavior as conducted by consensual adults in private. We strongly oppose the imprisonment, mistreatment, or death of homosexual men and women on the basis of their perceived or known sexual orientation. These actions breed cultural violence and institutionalized shame, neither of which reflect God’s redemptive heart.

In the blog post, Alan Chambers also expressed regret for the delayed response to information he received about the Ugandan ex-gay conference as well as the potential fall out.

That said, and without a wordy explanation or excuse, this public post is way overdue and I sincerely hope it clears up any speculation about how I really feel about gay and lesbian people, Ugandan or otherwise, the criminalization of homosexuality, Exodus’s connection to the now infamous Ugandan conference where Exodus board member, Don Schmierer spoke, and most importantly the grace of God.

First things first, I was personally lax in investigating thoroughly the pre-conference intelligence that was coming in from Timothy Kincaid, David Roberts and Warren Throckmorton, to name a few.  My initial belief was that their major concern was over Caleb Lee Brundidge’s association with Richard Cohen.  Again, no excuses, I was negligent in digging deeper and heeding their warnings.  While I did share my concerns with Don Schmierer prior to the event, he was on the ground in Uganda and I saw this as an issue that didn’t warrant him canceling his appearance there—after all, in my mind, Don was simply sharing his normal talk on parenting.  I do realize that his mere presence there, even as a private citizen, did give the appearance that Exodus was endorsing the conference and eventually the horrific political position that was fueled by that event.

I appreciate this acknowledgement. Alan is correct that some of the initial concern related to the involvement of Brundidge but as he says here, it was much deeper. The events in Uganda, played out over the last 16 months, have required U.S. Christians to rethink their stance toward homosexuals. As Alan’s remarks indicate, it is now necessary to articulate one’s position on criminalization. The Uganda situation unearthed a division among social conservatives about the law and homosexuality. Just yesterday, one of the voices of the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, again said that he favors a return to laws penalizing homosexual conduct.  The Ugandan initiative has touched many American evangelicals in a way that few issues have, forcing many ministries and leaders to choose sides. While I personally had little doubt that the policy of Exodus was to oppose criminalization, today’s announcement makes that clear. I applaud them.

McCollum contradicted Rekers in gay adoption case appeal

I posted last week that Florida Attorney General and Republican candidate for Governor, Bill McCollum hired George Rekers as an expert in a gay adoption case over the advice of his staff. The state lost the case and the ban on gay adoption was set aside by Judge Cindy Lederman. Lederman took strong exception to Rekers’ work, saying that Rekers’ testimony “was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence.” Despite the apparent harm the testimony did to the case, AG McCollum defended Rekers in a brief filed August 6, 2009 before a Florida state court of appeals seeking to overturn the lower court ruling. More specifically, McCollum defended Rekers’ religious writings and the evidence Rekers presented in defense of the ban on gays adopting children.

However, on one point McCollum contradicts his expert without acknowledging the contradiction. Rekers testified that one might exclude Native Americans from adopting if it could be shown that, as a group, they had higher rates of many distressing conditions. Here is Rekers’testimony:

Q. Well, Dr. Rekers, earlier you testified that Native-Americans have a higher rate of alcohol abuse than the general population does, right?

A. Yes.

Q. It’s a very significantly elevated rate of alcohol abuse, I mean compared to the general population?

A. Yes.

Q. So if Native-Americans have significantly higher rates of alcohol abuse, and if they also have significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders, and if they also have higher rates of relationship instability, is that enough for you to say that all of a sudden they should be categorically excluded?

The Court: I think you can add violence to that, as well.

The Witness: Yeah, violence, yeah.

Q. And violence, as well.

A. Yeah, if it turned out that a majority of the individuals in the Native-American population, that a majority of them were high risk for one of these things happening, as a lifetime prevalence, there could be a parallel rationale for excluding them, as adoptive parents, because it would be not only them, they would tend to hang around each other. So the children would be around a lot of other Native-Americans, who are doing the same sorts of things, you know. So it would be a high risk, and, in fact, since you can’t perfectly predict human behavior, the best you can do and the best the State can do is to look at risk levels, and if a particular kind of household poses multiple high risks for condition that would be detrimental for children, then that would be a rationale for excluding that group.

Perhaps, with hindsight, Dr. Rekers would reconsider his testimony. However, there is no indication that it was ever amended or directly addressed by the state of Florida. However, here Rekers provides a rationale for excluding Native Americans along with homosexuals.  The line of questioning seems as though it was designed to get Rekers to make some sort of distinction between sexual orientation and race.  However, at least in this instance, he did not.  

As I have looked into this, I have been puzzled about why Mr. McCollum would not dismiss his witness at that point or seek to distance himself from the testimony. I have also been puzzled about why Native American groups did not speak out when this was first repored in May. One representative of a Native American advocacy group, speaking on condition of anonymity said that such criticisms of Native Americans are made frequently and they do not take them seriously.

Perhaps one reason they do not take such arguments seriously is because such arguments would likely be dismissed in a real public debate or in a court proceeding. When arguing racial issues, courts take a more strict review of any governmental action to discriminate on the basis of race. Generally, on matters of race, if a government policy burdens an individual due to racial category, the government policy will not survive. AG McCollum argues in the 2009 appeal that the adoption case should be decided on a rational basis test. In this test, the government is generally given the benefit of the doubt in crafting laws when no fundamental rights or suspect classes are involved. McCollum argues and all agree that adoption is not a fundamental right and he also argues — and this is where the disagreement comes — that homosexuals are not a class worthy of the strict scrutiny test.

On page 8 of the appeal, McCollum discusses the matter of Native Americans and adoption.

McCollum here contradicts Rekers by saying that the category of Native American “would likely fail strict scrutiny.” This means the Florida legislature would have to have a much higher burden of proof as to why violation of the equal protection clause — e.g., excluding Native Americans — would serve a compelling state interest. What surprised me here, and perhaps it is because I am not a lawyer, is that the appeal narrative does not mention the testimony of Rekers in this section, even as Rekers is defended in the other sections of the appeal. Rekers clearly testified that the basis for exclusion in his opinion was the higher rates of distressing conditions. In the appeal, McCollum addresses the theory but does not address the fact that his own expert failed to make categorical distinctions.

The ways that some conservatives think about gays confuse me. On one hand, gays are considered a cohesive enough group with characteristics so common that they can be lumped together. When viewed this way, Rekers-style testimony is offered about the high rates of distressing problems and thus, how the entire group of people should be viewed negatively. However, on the other hand, some social conservatives do not consider homosexuals  to be related enough to be a suspect class. Some go so far as to say there is no such thing as a homosexual, rather heterosexuals with homosexual behavior or problems.

McCollum then continues his argument that sexual orientation does not warrant a strict scrutiny standard.

McCollum here continues to argue that one distressing condition is not sufficient, or else only Asian males could adopt. However, McCollum wants the appeal court to know that the lower court did not demonstrate any other group like homosexuals, who have as many problems. Without acknowledging it, McCollum disagrees with his expert to further serve his case.

In this situation, I don’t think there is a fundamental right to adopt or be adopted so I am not sure how this case will turn out.  However, a troubling thing here is the reasoning which invalidates individual rights due to membership in a particular group. It should make everyone a little nervous when individual gays are judged due to rates of distressing problems among larger groups of gays. Even on a practical level, such stereotyping can become the basis for predjudice and discrimination. Christians complain about this and we have freely chosen our beliefs. We don’t like it when such logic is used against us, and we should be very careful about where such thinking can lead.