However, unless we are to succumb to cultural relativism, the proposed legislation cannot simply be ignored given its apparent support from a leading government minister, its incompatibility with Anglican teaching, its undermining of Anglican ministry and mission, and the danger it represents to many Anglicans and others in Uganda who are likely to face prosecution should it become law. We need therefore to:
*
Pray for David Bahati (the Bill’s sponsor) and the Minister for Ethics and Integrity (who is so supportive of it), for all those who will be involved in any Parliamentary discussion of it (due now in January 2010) and able to amend or defeat it, for all those who now feel even further threatened simply by its publication, and for all those in the Ugandan Church seeking to be faithful witnesses and salt and light in their country.
* Seek to understand more about what is happening and the wider context in Uganda eg most of us in this country would not know the answer to many, if any, of the following questions: (1) how likely is this to become law in its present form, what sort of amendments are realistically possibly, and what will happen if it does enter the statute book?, (2) how does it compare in terms of stringency and penalties to existing legislation in relation to other (hetero)sexual conduct viewed as wrong?, (3) what are the real social and criminal problems which it is a misguided attempt to address and how can they be better addressed? eg has there been a rise in sexual abuse of minors?, (4) is there any reason other than homophobic prejudice and scapegoating as to why the bill and signficant political leaders are particularly targeting homosexual people?, (5) how widespread are the attitudes the bill represents within Ugandan church and society and how can the Christians there and elsewhere in the Communion best reform that culture and its laws?, (6) how is the Church of Uganda ministering to GLBT people?, (7) what are the real threats to marriage and family life in Uganda that this bill claims to be responding to?
As a general rule I am opposed to legislating religious morality where other people’s rights are not infringed upon. But even if I weren’t, by any reasonable measure this bill is way over the top with harsh jail sentences (or worse) mandated. The private behavior of consenting adults is no business of the government. Let’s stick to converting sinners through prayer, preaching and example as opposed to prison or the gallows.
Under the mercy,
John
Obviously, as written this is a terrible law. It is based on profound ignorance, cruel in its intent, and oppressive in its punishments. Fulcrum is to be congratulated on its position.
We are all shaped by our history and the history of the early church in Uganda includes the resistance of young men in the royal court to homosexual rape by the king. I am aware of the arguments made by those who support consensual homosexual behavior by adults and wish to distinguish that from the kind of sexual abuse perpetrated than in Uganda – and more recently in the church in the United States – but we are also shaped by our history.
A very emotionally charged expose (fatally flawed?) for the open advocacy of homosex from the watchdogs of the new othopraxy. We now know God was wrong to oppose this behaviour from the beginning. What was he thinking? Heaven forbid that steps should be taken to prevent aggravated assault. And this “open advocacy” is all supported in by Lambeth 1.10. The Communion has gone off the cliff and into free fall. However, there may still be some who are not into Gay Pride parades.
I think Fulcrum has done an admirable job and has asked all the right questions, except for one. Why has ++Henry remained silent on this matter? Obviously another bishop has spoken out against it. And while Fulcrum correctly points out that no Church has endorsed the legislation, by not speaking out ++Orombi is passively supporting the bill.
[blockquote]private behavior of consenting adults[/blockquote]
This argument always amuses me.
It is as if “the private behavior of consenting adults” (namely Adam and Eve) are of no concern to the rest of the human race.
By this strange argument, the German courts had no business bringing the adult man to trial who had murdered and eaten another adult man, who had consented to be killed and eaten.
And, for that matter, Bernie Madoff should be released. After all his victims had consented to buy into his Ponzi scheme.
[b]No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.[/b] (John Donne [i]Meditation XVII[/i])
Re # 6
Septuagenarian
Those are rather silly arguments (I am being restrained in that characterization). First libertarian philosophy historically excludes a right to suicide and slavery (even when entered by consent). Secondly, none of Bernie Madoff’s investor’s consented to be a part of a ponzi scheme. They consented to be a part of a an investment fund. Madoff’s investment firm made representations to its clients which were patently false. That’s fraud. There is no consent in fraud.
If you wish to lobby for a theocracy with policemen spying in people’s bedrooms be my guest. But please employ some form of argument that would not reduce a third grader to dismissive laughter.
I for one have no desire to live in a Protestant Evangelical version of Iran.
In ICXC
John
Numbers 1, 2 and 7. While I too have no desire to live in any “Protestant Evangelical Version of Iran” (no. 7), nor do I relish legislating religious morality (no. 1), nor imposing harsh penalties (no. 2), I am nevertheless conflicted on how to protect my young family members, and family members to come, from those in our culture who would propagate, say, homosexual practices and force them down our collective throat. I take it that you strongly oppose legislation that touches upon curbing homosexual practice. So, I am wondering how you go about protecting your families from the same?
Good point, Richard Hoover. Surrounded by pagans, how do we stay Christian?
How did the Jews in exile do it? The answer is many of them didn’t. Only a few thousand returned to Judea. And they only had to hold out seventy years.
Of course a faithful remnant stayed behind. Some of them still live in Bagdad, or at least did up until the fall of Saddam.
Will we have to congregate in ghettos to protect our faith?
One thing for sure, the road to the death of Christianity is smoothed by the paving stones of compromise with the prevailing culture.
Like BR (No. 9), I acknowledge the legitimacy of your concern, Richard. But I suggest that your training and example to your children will protect them against the evils of a low secular culture far more effectively than enlisting government mechanisms to punish those who do not share your values. A government with that kind of power can easily turn on you.
Dear NoVAScout (and Br_er Rabbit)– I see your point. However, while I do my best by taking the route of “training and example,” as you suggest, the dangers posed by “low secular culture” count heavily, nevertheless.
For one thing, my grandchildren undergo social brain washing every day in the public schools. If I could, I would replace many of the norms/values foisted on them with less controlling and less home-invasive ones (never mind Christian values, at this late stage of the game!). No, for all our efforts to lead by “training and example,” yours and mine, I don’t think we can abdicate the governmental arena where the champions of low culture– secular and religious– are taking over.
Finally, from Ad Orientem and Senior Priest, who railed against Uganda’s proposed anti-homosexuality bill, on the grounds that it was too cruel, to invasive, I have yet to receive a response to my question: how do they go about protecting their family young from today’s low secular culture, with its attention paid, say, to homosexuality as just another and acceptable life style?
NoVaScout,
A follow-up remark, in summary: the “government mechanisms” of which you speak are in the hands of those who oppose both my views and yours (if I have assumed correctly from your contribution). These people have power and they are turning on us already, as you say you fear from government. Again, I can’t see abdicating anything to them, only doing everything in my power to eliminate them from elected positions. Best.