The pending Ugandan legislation that would imprison for life or execute people who violate that country’s anti-homosexuality laws would be a “terrible violation of the human rights of an already persecuted minority,” Episcopal Church House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson has said.
Anderson was responding to a Nov. 16 request that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Archbishop Henri Orombi of Uganda and she speak out against the legislation. Anderson is the first to issue a statement.
Homosexuality in Uganda currently carries a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. If passed, the bill would extend prison sentences for homosexuals up to and including life imprisonment and introduce the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” which includes assault against people under the age of 18 and those with disabilities.
I think it is both telling and tragic that the Province of Uganda (American churches) has not spoken in opposition to this barbaric legislation.
Regardless of one’s beliefs about the morality of same sex relationships, this legislation is in every way opposed to the Gospel and to standards of Christian justice.
Here is an opportunity to live out the frequent admonition to love the sinner and hate the sin. The silence on this issue amongst reasserters speaks volumes.
As opposed to the sharia punishment for homosexuality?
As opposed to both, I would think. Outside of some caves in Waziristan, I would doubt very much that Sharia law is being considered for implementation in Uganda.
NoVA Scout:
Why do you “doubt very much that Sharia law is being considered for implementation in Uganda”?
Considering the history of Uganda I would expect that those who advocate Sharia law are as active in Uganda as they are in neighboring African countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Uganda
“According to the National Census 2002 12.1% of Ugandas adhere to Islam.[1] While Muslims today appear to be experiencing some degree of discrimination, they were in the seventies the most favoured group under the rule of President Idi Amin, himself a Muslim, under whose government the number of Muslims had significantly grown”.
Archangelica . . . why do you suppose it is that reasserters are silent on this issue [and I certainly have been].
Although I have very clear reasons for my silence . . . and zero interest in explaining them to revisionists since I don’t care what they think of me . . . I am mildly curious as to why *you* think people like me are being stone cold silent.
There are, of course, several options. One option is that I am a bigoted neanderthal hater.
But what other options might there be?
There are times when those who are ignorant of the dangers faced by Christians in Uganda should be silent and pray that Christians in the midst of the danger there can stay in a position to act kindly and according to their conscience even if they don’t agree with TEC’s agenda.
My comment addressed No. 2, the implication of which was this legislation was relatively acceptable, given the contrasting option of the application of Sharia law. I consider that a false dichotomy. In Uganda, unlike some other areas of Africa, Muslims do not have sufficient political power to impose Sharia through a legislative process. So my personal view is that this punitive measure cannot be justified because it might oppress homosexuals less than would application of a Sharia code. I did, however, acknowledge that there are no doubt Muslim fanatics somewhere that are contemplating the imposition of Sharia in Uganda, as well as in Iowa City. But I don’t think that much informs the discussion of an appropriate Christian response to this kind of brutal and cruel legislation.
Re your latter comment, is it your position that this legislation is made necessary by “dangers faced by Christians in Uganda” or that opposing the legislation exposes our brothers and sisters to additional danger?
As to other comments, it is not possible to know what the reasons for silence in the face of such a measure might be. The range of motives for silence is quite broad. Some of those motives are less understandable than others. If someone who is silent offers a rationale, then one can voice a reaction. Otherwise one can only address the silence. I hope that it is not the case that those who classify themselves as “reasserters” are of one view on this issue, as is implied by Comment 5. I see no reason why a “reasserter” orientation would lead to a uniform decision not to speak out against this kind of governmental abuse, but I am sure that there may be many individual reasons (for example, a homosexual reasserter living in Uganda would have my complete understanding if he or she were reluctant to express a view).
RE: “As to other comments, it is not possible to know what the reasons for silence in the face of such a measure might be.”
Very true — I was merely asking Archangelica what his surmises were out of curiosity.
RE: ” I hope that it is not the case that those who classify themselves as “reasserters†are of one view on this issue, as is implied by Comment 5.”
Well actually it was first implied by Comment 1, as in “The silence on this issue amongst reasserters speaks volumes.”
I merely followed up on his statement.
For after all, there are either reasons that are based on the poor character and sin of reasserters . . . or reasons based on something other than poor character and sin.
If I wished to comment on legislation in Uganda (from the safety of the United States) the most I could comment on is my belief that Christians in Uganda will support legislation and actions that treat everyone decently and with justice as Christians usually do.
I don’t think it is wise to use special interest groups like â€Integrity†(and the House of Deputies) to pressure Christians in Uganda to support behaviors that they consider destructive and sinful. This kind of political pressure really makes matters more dangerous for everyone.
I could not tell from the post or comments that anyone is “using special interest groups to pressure Christians in Uganda to support behaviors that they consider destructive and sinful.” I thought the point of the issue is opposing the legislation, not forcing Christians to support behaviors that are contrary to their faith. Do you have contrary information?