martin ssempa – Page 8 – Warren Throckmorton

Correcting Canyon Ridge: What Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill really says

On July 11, Pastor Kevin Odor took about 17 minutes to open his sermon with a description of the current controversy over Canyon Ridge Christian Church’s partnership with Martin Ssempa. He described some of the methods Ssempa has used to promote Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill as “offensive” and said the church leaders met with Ssempa in March to hear his side of the story. While the church leaders advised Ssempa against the unnamed offensive methods, Pastor Odor said the group was heartened by Ssempa’s reasons for supporting the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Those reasons seemed to center around the perception that the bill was needed to cover certain gaps in the law.

I certainly agree with Pastor Odor that Ssempa’s methods and rhetoric have been offensive to say the least. However, I completely disagree with Odor’s description of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. In essence, with the narrative he provided for his church, he suggests that Rick Warren, World Vision, WAIT Training, Philadelphia Biblical University, and numerous others have misunderstood and/or misrepresented the AHB. Although this is familiar territory for frequent readers here, we go over it again.

Here is what Pastor Odor told his congregation about the bill:

Now the problem comes last Fall that there was a member of Parliament who decided to propose a bill to take care of some things that he was concerned weren’t being protected. And it was introduced as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Uganda. There had been a number of sodomy laws on the books already in Uganda but there were a couple of things that weren’t protected. One in particular is aggravated pedophilia basically where there was a repeat offender who was violating young men over and over again and there wasn’t a protection for that. And the second was now with HIV/AIDS if someone with HIV/AIDS, knowing that, violated someone and passing that on that was another concern.

And so…the new bill that was written had about 60% of the old bill in it and it added these new provisions to protect young people and this lawmaker’s idea was to make the equal punishment because over there already on the books if a man violates a young woman, the man would be put to death. The death penalty was prescribed for that. Let’s make that equal for young boys, let’s make the death penalty for someone who violates young boys. And so that was his intent and that was what he put in the bill.

A little later in Odor’s speech, he described his interview with Barbera Bradley Hagerty of National Public Radio. He told her his view of why the bill was tabled:

…she didn’t understand the equal thing of boys and girls being protected and so there was a misrepresentation that we were trying to clarify.

Pastor Odor wants us to believe that Ugandan law does not address the same-sex molestation. However, as I pointed out here, it does. On April 18, 2007, the Uganda Parliament passed The Penal Code Amendment Act of 2007 and corrected the imbalance by removing references to gender.

The principal Act is amended by substituting for section 129 the following new sections—

“Defilement of persons under eighteen years of age

129. (1) Any person who performs a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years, commits a felony known as defilement and is on conviction liable to life imprisonment.

(2) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years commits an offence and is on conviction, liable to imprisonment not exceeding eighteen years.

(3) Any person who attempts to perform a sexual act with another person who is below the age of eighteen years in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (4) commits a felony called aggravated defilement and is, on conviction by the High Court, liable to suffer death.

If the boy child is unprotected by this language, then so is the girl child. In fact, all situations involving male and female victims and male and female perpetrators are covered here. Girls and boys are protected equally; Pastor Odor’s narrative falls apart.

The other issue referred to by Pastor Odor is intentional spread of HIV. The Penal Code Amendment Act also references that crime and imposes the death penalty:

(b) where the offender to his or her knowledge, is infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS);

Don’t believe me or the minutes of the Parliament? Then maybe Pastor Odor will believe Martin Ssempa. On Michael Brown’s Line of Fire radio show and then on his blog, Ssempa acknowledged for the first time that “the boy child” was, after all, protected. Speaking to Brown about the need for the AHB, Ssempa wrote:

3. Why does Uganda need bill now.

a. International groups which are coersing homosexuality down our throats ie France and Netherlands at the UN.

b. Lack of protection for the boy child from homosexual rape.

c. Lack of protection for the girls and women in the current law. Only focus on male homosexuality.

d. Lack of legislation against promotion and conspiracies to promote homosexuality.

Note: We have learnt that now the Penal Code was amended to cater for the gender imbalance in b above. (my emphasis)

Even Martin Ssempa acknowledges that there is no gender imbalance in the current Uganda Penal Code. That imbalance had been addressed in 2007. I informed Rev. Ssempa of that fact in November, 2009 via a link to a legal analysis of the bill. Ssempa was also aware that the AHB targeted consensual behavior via emails from a friend of his in the Ugandan Parliamentary research service, Charles Tuhaise.

When I first contacted Ssempa in October, 2009, he referred me to Tuhaise, believing he could help address my questions about the bill. Mr. Tuhaise made the purpose of the bill clear in a November 5 email to both Martin Ssempa and me. Addressing my concerns about the bill, Mr. Tuhaise wrote:

Pr. Ssempa and Mr Throckmorton,

I appreciate Pr. Ssempa copying me in on this conversation and hope Mr. Throckmorton too appreciates us sharing this conversation as brethren in Christ. I have read to the bottom of your conversation and have understood the key issues of contention, basically, that critics of Hon. Bahati’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill see it as disregarding the right of adults to engage in consensual sex. I think this is where Mr. Throckmorton is raising objection when he says that the issue at hand is not “child abuse”, which is justifiable.

I would like to clarify what the Bill says and why, because it seems to me Mr.Throckmorton either has not read the full text of the Bill (with its memorandum) or has not correctly interpreted its import. The Bill states its object as:

“to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (1) any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex; and (2) the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations in public institutions and other places through or with the support of any Government entity in Uganda or any governmental organisation inside or outside the country”.

The Bill’s specific objectives are to:

(a) provide for marrige in Uganda as that contracted only between a man and a woman;

(b) prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;

(c) prohibit ratfication of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act; and

(d) prohibit the licensing of organisations which promote homosexuality.

Even if I stop here, Mr.Throckmorton’s querry about “consenting adults” is answered. The Bill asserts that continued practice of homosexuality by anybody, including “consenting adults” constitutes a threat to the traditional family.

I’m a social scientist and know that this assertion is true, because behaviour spreads through social learning. All that behaviour needs to begin spreading like bushfire is any form of social or legal legitimacy. As science has proved, gay behaviour is not in the genes, it spreads through social learning and experimentation. Yet, the other aspect about behaviour is that once it is acquired, it is so difficult to unlearn – especially sexual behaviour that is associated with such powerful a reinforcer as “orgasm”. A young man who under peer influence experiments with homosexuality is risking fine-tuning his entire life in that direction, because the brain records such an experience, which then becomes a triger for sexual thoughts and feelings.

Mr. Tuhaise here confirms that the bill is not simply about child abuse and lays out his justification for keeping homosexuality criminal “for anybody.” Pastor Ssempa was also a recipient of the email and responded to both Mr. Tuhaise and me the next day calling Mr. Tuhaise’s views “a good reply to further your understanding.”

The AHB includes references to aggravated defilement as a duplication of the 2007 law but there is so much more to it. By making his narrative about a non-existent problem, Pastor Odor did not give his congregation the full picture. The problem is not just Martin Ssempa’s “offensive” methods or the way he says things, but it is with the proposals he helped to create and has supported for months. Toning down the rhetoric won’t change that.

To review the AHB, click here. Here is the full text with comments.

For all posts on the AHB, click here.

For my response to Martin Ssempa’s Line of Fire interview, click here. In this interview, he said the AHB was on the Ugandan Parliament website (not true) and that he would post it on his blog (has not done it).

Uganda Joint Christian Council recommendations to Parliament for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Recently Canyon Ridge Christian Church launched a defense of their partnership with Uganda’s Martin Ssempa. Despite the fact that Willow Creek Association expressed regret over their 2007 award to Ssempa for his AIDS work and Rick Warren’s condemnation of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Pastor Kevin Odor told his congregation a couple of Sundays ago that the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and Rev. Ssempa had been misrepresented by the media. The Canyon Ridge leadership seems to take encouragement that Martin Ssempa leads a coalition of clergy which recommended that the death penalty be dropped from the bill. However, Ssempa expressed no reservations about the death penalty when the bill was first introduced, saying he fully supported it. He has not explained why he changed his views.

Some of these recommendations were delivered to Rick Warren after he forcefully denounced the bill in December. I first saw this document in March after Martin Ssempa’s appearance on the Line of Fire show. I was told at that time by host Michael Brown that the document was not for public consumption and so I did not publish it. Now, a link to the first page of the recommendations is on the Canyon Ridge website. However, they failed to produce the entire document and so I thought it might be good to see clearly what has satisfied Canyon Ridge. Despite the length, I am publishing the whole thing after the break with commentary to follow.

To the uninitiated, these recommendations might look reasonable. However, without the actual bill, one might overlook that the UJCC did not make any recommendations about the part of the bill calling for life in prison for homosexual touching. Here is the section (S2) without any recommended changes:

2. The offence of homosexuality.

(1) A person commits the offence of homosexuality if-

(a) he penetrates the anus or mouth of another person of the same sex with his penis or any other sexual contraption;

(b) he or she uses any object or sexual contraption to penetrate or stimulate sexual organ of a person of the same sex;

(c) he or she touches another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

Please note that there is nothing in the proposed bill which specifies ages of the people involved or requires coercion to violate this section. Also, recall that the Introduction to the bill says this:

The object of this Bill is to establish a comprehensive consolidated legislation to protect the traditional family by prohibiting (i) any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex;

And then also keep in mind that touching (see subsection 2c) is defined as:

“touching” includes touching—

(a) with any part of the body;

(b) with anything else;

(c) through anything;

and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ, anus or mouth.

The plain language of Section 2 describes consensual relations. This was confirmed to me by Martin Ssempa’s colleague Charles Tuhaise, President of the National Association of Social Work – Uganda and Parliamentary researcher. The Uganda Joint Christian Council did not make any recommendations to change this section (Section 2). The UJCC recommends a change to the definitions section and then begins making recommendation to Section 3 (S.3) Aggravated Homosexuality. Based on what Canyon Ridge provided, a church goer would not get the full picture. See below for the full UJCC document.

Continue reading “Uganda Joint Christian Council recommendations to Parliament for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill”

Jeff Sharlet on The Economist’s report about Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

On July 1, The Economist published an article regarding Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Cleverly titled, Slain by the Spirit, the article offered some parts truth and some parts falsehood to craft a misleading narrative about the current status of the bill. For instance in a paragraph on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the writer said:

A Ugandan Pentecostal preacher, Martin Ssempa, for instance, has mined a rich seam of homophobia in Uganda to help build up his standing. He and other Pentecostals pushed for the tabling of an anti-homosexuality bill in the Ugandan parliament, which advocates spying on gays and proscribes imprisonment for sodomy.

This section is true. Martin Ssempa, Julius Oyet and Stephen Langa did push for the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, prior to the bill’s introduction. However, making the narrative misleading is the following sentence.

Earlier versions of the law called for the death penalty in some instances.

There is only one version of the bill. It has not been amended. This morning, I asked Parliamentary researcher, Charles Tuhaise, if there was any truth to the rumor that the bill had been amended. He said, “To the best of my knowledge, these rumours are unfounded.” Tuhaise further elaborated that “committees have no mandate to amend a Bill, but to present their proposals to the House in a report read by the Committee Chair.” The Anti-Homosexuality Bill is currently in committee and has not been scheduled for a second reading.

Further unraveling the Economist piece, journalist Jeff Sharlet offers additional facts and fresh reporting with this guest post.

The strange moves of The Economist

Jeff Sharlet

The reverence with which so many upper-middle class Americans read The Economist has always puzzled me. There’s much to admire about the magazine, but it generally performs the same function as Newsweek, boiling down events into centrist conventional wisdom, facts be damned. A report in the July 3, 2010 issue, “The religious right in east Africa: Slain by the spirit,” is a case in point. I’ve been reporting on the religious right anti-gay movement in Uganda from here in the U.S. and from Kampala for nine months now, so I’m in a good position to see The Economist’s strange moves; I wonder what I’d make of the article that follows it, on Somalia’s elections, if I were as informed on that story. But one needn’t have expertise to debunk The Economist’s report; a Google search would do it, especially if you landed, as you likely would, on the well-documented blogs of gay activist Jim Burroway or evangelical scholar Warren Throckmorton.

The biggest error is The Economist’s declaration that the bill no longer calls for the death penalty. That’s propaganda put out by the bill’s defenders. In fact, as I learned by asking the bill’s author, Ugandan Member of Parliament David Bahati, it does. (I’ll be publishing those interviews in my forthcoming book, C Street.) Bahati acknowledges that the death penalty may drop out of the final version; but it hasn’t yet, and it’s dangerous for The Economist to say as much.

Just as dangerous — and puzzling — is The Economist’s contention that “support for the anti-homosexuality bill in the Ugandan parliament has fallen away after Mr. Ssempa and other preachers accused a rival Pentecostal, Robert Kayanja, of sodomy.” Does a plummy accent excuse Economist writers from fact checking? Ssempa and “other preachers” — most notably Rev. Michael Kyazze and Rev. Moses Solomon Male, both of whom I interviewed at length — accused Kayanja of sodomy months before the bill was introduced. Indeed, it was those accusations, and banner headline articles such as “Kayanja Reveals His Homo Secrets” in the April 29, 2009 edition of the wildly popular Red Pepper tabloid that helped drive popular support for the bill. I haven’t been in Kampala since May 2010, but when I was there, I did not meet a single person who wasn’t gay who didn’t support some variation of the bill.

What’s holding it back is international pressure, not the assertion of The Economist’s imaginary centrist norms. And that’s a more complicated story, since the international pressure does take an awfully pushy form — Germany’s offer of $148 million, for instance, if Uganda promises to shelve the bill, Sweden’s threat of an end to aid if Uganda doesn’t. And then there are the folks I write about in C Street, the American “followers of Jesus” who empowered the bill’s author, Bahati, in the first place. The passage of the bill would be a disaster for them, since they’re so intimately linked to it (Bahati is the secretary of the Ugandan branch of the organization, and its other chief backer in government, ethics minister James Nsaba Buturo, is chairman). Some of them, such as Senator Jim Inhofe and Senator Tom Coburn, both of Oklahoma, have been preaching the anti-gay gospel for so long and with such venom that it’s hard to take their disavowals seriously. Others, such as activist Bob Hunter, seem genuinely horrified by the bill. They’ve been putting quiet pressure on the Ugandan government, “behind-the-scenes,” as Hunter describes his work.

If such pressure can prevent the genocide that’s been proposed in Uganda — the bill’s backers describe it as a first step toward the eradication of homosexuality altogether — I think it’s justified. But democratic? Not exactly. Of course, it’s in response to the anti-democratic style that has long defined American and European relations with postcolonial Africa, the purchase of policies amenable to the West with foreign aid, with few questions about who actually benefits from those funds. Usually, those policies have to do with the extraction of resources, the location of military bases, or “coalitions” (the terrible bombing that just killed 74 in Kampala was in response to Uganda’s role as a proxy force for the U.S. in Somalia and its troops in Iraq). Sometimes, it has to do with what in the West are called “socal issues,” i.e., basic public health, such as the pressure put on Uganda by American politicians to de-emphasize condoms as a response to HIV. This time, the pressure is on over a bill that is murderous — in the service of a homophobia that all sides in this debate admit didn’t exist in Uganda before America’s exportation of its culture wars.

Not so, according to The Economist which sniffs disapprovingly at the tacky Pentecostals. “The influence of the American Christian Right is often overstated,” it declares (true, but it’s still enormous).”Then there is the question of class… The cabal of civil servants, soldiers and businessmen who dominate the golf and social clubs of Nairobi and Kampala… are mostly Anglican and Roman Catholic and are unlikely to be swayed by the casting out of demons.” There is indeed a class issue, but it’s not as simple as that. The bill’s main backers, Bahati and Buturo, are Anglican, and their extremely anti-gay pastor is Archbishop Luke Orombi, linked to Falls Church Episcopal, one of the upper crustiest churches in America. Bahati and Buturo (both elites in every sense) both told me they believe in demons and connect them to homosexuality. If that doesn’t square with the Church of England familiar to Economist writers, perhaps they’d better do some more reporting before they declare that all is essentially well with the good men of golf clubs in charge.

CORRECTION – 7/20/10:

In “The Economist’s Strange Moves,” I made a clumsy move, myself, identifying Falls Church (Anglican) as an Episcopal congregation. It was, when I visited in 2002. But my friend the Rev. Michael Pipkin, Priest-in-Charge of the current Falls Church (Episcopal), writes:

“three and a half years ago The Falls Church abandoned The Episcopal Church, attaching themselves to the Anglican Church of Nigeria over issues of Biblical Authority and Sexuality… in the process, they kicked out several of their members who wished to remain Episcopalian, and thus my congregation, The Falls Church (Episcopal) continued on in exile (worshipping across the street in a Presbyterian Church, waiting for a major property dispute to settle). They are currently referring to themselves (somewhat inaccurately) as The Falls Church (Anglican), though the Archbishop of Canterbury and other “Anglican” groups have not recognized them.”

I recognize the irony of my mistake in a piece taking The Economist to task for its lack of fact checking. Sorry, Falls Churches. But the two main points stand unaltered: 1. The Economist’s suggestion that Anglicans don’t engage in spiritual war as culture war is absurd; 2. I was just writing a quickie blog post; The Economist is a major international magazine, and should have gotten it right the first time.

Ok, now I’ve made my correction. How about yours, Economist?

(End of article – My comments resume in italics below)

Thanks to Jeff for allowing me to post his reaction to the Economist article and this insight into the religious background of the backers of the bill. I should note that on some of the issues here, I have no settled opinion (e.g., Falls Church Episcopal) but agree with Jeff that the Economist article is irresponsible in suggesting that the death penalty has been removed from the bill. When I visited the National Prayer’s Breakfast’s African suite in February, several Ugandan backers of the bill told me that the death penalty would be removed when Parliament resumed session in the Spring. They mocked my concerns over it saying that the bill would be amended and that the bill would be softened. However, nothing has changed.

The focus on the death penalty is unfortunate. While the existance of the death penalty in the bill gets attention, exaggerated rumors of it’s removal lull bystanders into a sense that the situation is improving and all is well. Canyon Ridge Christian Church is a prominent illustration. Because Martin Ssempa says he no longer supports the inclusion of the death penalty, they view him now as if he never supported it, even though he did. Also, by touting Ssempa’s confusing stance as justification for maintaining their support for him, they imply that 20 years in a non-existent rehab facility is reasonable and humane improvement.

While I have no personal experience with Falls Church Episcopal, I should note that it, like Canyon Ridge Christian Church is a Willow Creek Association member church. Given the relationship between Luke Orombi and many American Episcopal churches, some of which are Willow Creek Association members, it becomes even more important that the WCA take a position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The public position would not be to try to influence a foreign government. Providing leadership to member churches would be sufficient.

Prior posts by Jeff Sharlet:

The Fellowship (AKA The Family) opposes Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

David Bahati: Lou Engle expressed support for Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Nevada Public Radio covers Canyon Ridge – Uganda connection

At 9:30 am pacific time (12:30pm here), a segment will air on KNPR, Las Vegas regarding the relationship between Canyon Ridge Christian Church and Martin Ssempa. The guest on the show is Derek Washington, President of the Stonewall Democrats of Southern Nevada. A hint of the content is here:

We talk with Democratic activist Derek Washington who thinks the Canyon Ridge congregation is unaware of the extreme positions taken by its missionary partner.

My guess is that Derek Washington is correct that the CRCC congregation is largely unaware of the issues involved. The local media there has for some reason not covered this local connection to an ongoing international news story persisting for about 10 months.

UPDATE: In addition to Derek Washington, the show featured a member of Canyon Ridge, Tyler Egeland who said the membership probably does not know much about the controversy. He also said that Ssempa has close ties to Southern Nevada (I believe his wife’s parents live in Las Vegas) and the church feels a close relationship to Ssempa. Egeland also said that the church’s brand of Christianity is at odds with how Ssempa is conducting his work in Uganda.

Derek Washington believes that the church has been hoodwinked. Washington believes that the people of Canyon Ridge are great people but that they have believed Ssempa’s attestations of good intentions but the leadership. Money is giving to church and then given to someone who advocates death and prison for gays.

Tyler Egeland agrees with Washington that Ssempa needs to apologize and turn away from his prior views.

According to the host of the show, the pastors at CRCC said they would be happy to participate and then backed out.

According to someone on the broadcast, Pastor Odor did mention this issue to the church. I would like to know what he said.

Derek Washington does not want people to leave Canyon Ridge but he wants Canyon Ridge to break ties to Ssempa.

Watch for the audio at the website and give the segment a listen. It is an intriguing show. On balance, I would say that the callers and the ministers of CRCC still do not understand the role that Martin Ssempa has played in this bill. They portray Ssempa as having a change of heart. If he has, he has never said so. He acquiesced to a change from the death penalty to 20 years in rehab for aggravated homosexuality but there is no documentation of any change in views on life in prison for consensual acts. He defended the death penalty to me in emails and on video on his Facebook page. He showed extreme porn about what “homosexuals do in private” when he must know that most homosexuals do not do such things in private.

One other observation. Tyler Egeland said that Canyon Ridge has denounced Ssempa’s extreme rhetoric, but I can find no indication of that. None of the emails I have from the staff indicate they have condemned the porn shows or any of his rhetoric.

UPDATE: As commenter andy pointed out, guest on this show Derek Washington attributed a murder in Uganda to anti-gay rhetoric. This story has turned out to be questionable and at least part of it was a false report. In any event, the murder is under investigation and cannot be attributed to Rev. Ssempa or any specific antigay faction.

Southern Nevada Health District severs ties with Canyon Ridge Christian Church

Short on time, but thought this was important to post. Southern Nevada Health District severed ties with Canyon Ridge Christian Church over their support for Martin Ssempa. Here is the letter:

July 9, 2010

Pastor Kevin Odor

6200 W. Lone Mountain Road

Las Vegas, NV 89130

Dear Pastor Odor:

It has been brought to the attention of the Southern Nevada Health District that Canyon Ridge Christian Church has an ongoing partnership with Pastor Martin Ssempa, the controversial Ugandan pastor. Pastor Ssempa’s support of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would criminally penalize homosexuals, is in direct conflict with the overarching public health goals of the health district. It is with regret that I feel compelled to dissolve the health district’s relationship with your church as long as you continue this partnership.

One of the central tenets of public health is to provide services without judgment. We also apply this principle in working with our various partners. However, we are profoundly concerned about your partnership with Pastor Ssempa as it contradicts this central tenet in that it amounts to tacit approval of activities that violate the basic human rights that should be afforded to all Ugandans.

It is my understanding that your church has been a valuable partner and it is unfortunate that we will be unable to continue to work together as community partners. Please be assured our staff will be available to offer testing when requested by one of the independent groups that use your facility for meetings, such as Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous.

In closing, I would urge you and your congregation to revisit your continued support of Pastor Ssempa. I believe both of our mission’s will be better accomplished through the support of programs and activities that promote tolerance and acceptance.

I would be happy to discuss our decision with you further if you have additional questions.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Sands, DO, MPH

Chief Health Officer