Uganda to kill all gays with US congressionals' support

[Duckie]

Uganda considers death sentence for gay sex in bill before parliament

• Minimum penalty is life in jail, under anti-homosexuality bill
• US evangelists are main activists behind measure



As a gay Ugandan, Frank Mugisha has endured insults from strangers, hate messages on his phone, police harassment and being outed in a tabloid as one of the country's "top homos". That may soon seem like the good old days.

Life imprisonment is the minimum punishment for anyone convicted of having gay sex, under an anti-homosexuality bill currently before Uganda's parliament. If the accused person is HIV positive or a serial offender, or a "person of authority" over the other partner, or if the "victim" is under 18, a conviction will result in the death penalty.

Members of the public are obliged to report any homosexual activity to police with 24 hours or risk up to three years in jail – a scenario that human rights campaigners say will result in a witchhunt. Ugandans breaking the new law abroad will be subject to extradition requests.

"The bill is haunting us," said Mugisha, 25, chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, a coalition of local lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex groups that will all be banned under the law. "If this passes we will have to leave the country."

Human rights groups within and outside Uganda have condemned the proposed legislation, which is designed to strengthen colonial-era laws that already criminalise gay sex. The issue threatened to overshadow the Commonwealth heads of government meeting that ended in Trinidad and Tobagotoday, with the UK and Canada both expressing strong concerns. Ahead of the meeting Stephen Lewis, a former UN envoy on Aids in Africa, said the law "makes a mockery of Commonwealth principles" and has "a taste of fascism" about it.

But within Uganda deeply-rooted homophobia, aided by a US-linked evangelical campaign alleging that gay men are trying to "recruit" schoolchildren, and that homosexuality is a habit that can be "cured", has ensured widespread public support for the bill.

President Yoweri Museveni appeared to add his backing earlier this month, warning youths in Kampala that he had heard that "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.

"We used to say Mr and Mrs, but now it is Mr and Mr. What is that now?" he said. In a interview with the Guardian, James Nsaba Buturo, the minister of state for ethics and integrity, said the government was determined to pass the legislation, ideally before the end of 2009, even if meant withdrawing from international treaties and conventions such as the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and foregoing donor funding.

"We are talking about anal sex. Not even animals do that," Butoro said, adding that he was personally caring for six "former homosexuals" who had been traumatised by the experience. "We believe there are limits to human rights."

Homosexuality has always been a taboo subject in Uganda, and is considered by many to be an affront both to local culture and religion, which plays a strong role in family life. This negative stigma and the real threat of job loss means that no public personality has ever "come out".

Even local HIV campaigns – which have been heavily influenced by the evangelical church with a bias towards abstinence over condom use – have deliberately avoided targeting gay men for both prevention and access to treatment.

"This means many gay men here think Aids is a non-issue, which is so dangerous," said Mugisha, who together with a few colleagues, has risked arrest by agitating in recent years for a change in the HIV policy.

At the same time, some influential religious leaders have warned about the dangers of accepting liberal western attitudes towards homosexuality.

Both opponents and supporters agree that the impetus for the bill came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".

The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.

The seminar was organised by Stephen Langa, a Ugandan electrician turned pastor who runs the Family Life Network in Kampala and has been spreading the message that gays are targeting schoolchildren for "conversion". "They give money to children to recruit schoolmates – once you have two children, the whole school is gone," he said in an interview. Asked if there had been any court case to prove this was happening, he replied: "No, that's why this law is needed."

After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up.

Christopher Senyonjo, a retired Anglican bishop, said the bill would push Uganda towards being a police state. "This law is being influenced by some evangelicals abroad," he said. "There's a lack of understanding about homosexuality – it's not recruitment, it's orientation."

But among religious leaders of all faiths his is a rare voice. Langa, the pastor, said the only thing lacking in the legislation was a clause for "rehabilitation" of homosexuals, whom he "loves" and wants to help. Gay rights had the potential to destroy civilisation, as the west could soon find out, he said.

"As one parent told me: 'We would rather live in grass huts with our morality than in skyscrapers among homosexuals'."

And the more shady side: It turns out that a powerful group of washington elite fundamentalist christians of all varieties whose members include many congressmen, known as The Family, have been using faith-based funds and their own money to fund an anti-gay holocaust in Africa.

The Family is difficult to get information on because it's so powerful and secretive, but it most definitely exists (its anti-health care-reform advocacy just lost it part of its tax exemption). And people such as Representative Stupak (of the anti-abortion restrictions), many high ranking Republican senators, several Democratic Senators, SC Governor Mark Sanford, and many US presidents such as George HW Bush, Reagan, Ford, and also people like John Ashcroft, Strom Thurmond, the list goes on. Also, this isn't just some stupid conspiracy crap. It's a real organisation, actually registered, with loads of money and influence according to insiders, and numerous members have stated positive things about it.

Incidental Fact: The Family contributed several lawyers and large amounts of money to Prop 8 and Question 1. The lawyers arguing attempting to keep donations secret in Maine and Washington are Family members.

Incidental Fact: While not a known member, Pastor Rick Warren (the one who Obama invited to his inauguration, whereupon every single Uncle Tom said "Oh no, don't worry, it doesn't mean anything") has refused to condemn the mass execution of gays in Uganda when explicitly and verbally asked. Further, the US State Department has refused to take any action in regards to Uganda, even a verbal condemnation in private or public such as Stephen Harper or the UK gave. Indeed, Hilary Clinton even went out of her way to recently praise Uganda as a "model state" that other african ones should imitate.

Evil isn't limited to being a member of a secretive christian political organisation with high-powered, rich members that modeled itself explicitly on the Chinese Cultural Revolution and considers itself a secret insurgency for Christ. It just helps a lot.

The following is an opinion piece. Even if it isn't true, Evangelical rantings about gay recruitment and their hatred have rubbed off on Uganda and caused this law- that much is explicit according to the Guardian article. Whether they're actively trying is the question, and it appears to be yes:

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has taken at least 20 "missionary" trips overseas since he's been in office, allegedly paid for by U.S. taxpayers, using military transport. He is especially fond of Uganda, boasting that he has "adopted" the East African nation. In fact, he is so fond of Uganda, he has invited its leaders to become members of the not-so secret, secret society known as the Family in D.C., according to Jeff Sharlet, whose new book, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power" exposes just that.

You may have heard of the Family because of the book, which is currently a bestseller. Or you may have heard of the Family because of recent sex scandals involving members Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who is facing 37 ethics charges for abandoning his job to visit his mistress in Argentina.

But the Family is much more than sex scandals - it is large and powerful, with tentacles that reach every corner of the world. It's members include several high-ranking Congressmen such as Republicans Inhofe, Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA), Sen. John Thune (SD), Sen. Joe Pitts (PA), and several others. It is a bipartisan organization - Democratic members include Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Sen. Mark Pryor (AR), Rep. Bart Stupak (MI), co-author of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which would ban federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

Since 1953, the group has led the National Prayer Breakfast at the White House, which is attended by the President and his Cabinet, along with dignitaries from across the globe. The Family coined the term "prayer cell", which is an "invisible believing group" who get together and talk with world leaders about what God wants them to do in their leadership capacity.

According to Sharlet, Inhofe took David Bahati under his wing, making him a core member of the Family. Bahati is the author of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The Bill creates a new crime called "aggravated homosexuality" in Uganda and imposes automatic life imprisonment or the death penalty for its offense. "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined by the Bill as sex with a disabled person, having HIV/AIDS, use of drugs or alcohol that leads to gay sex, knowing a gay person and not reporting it, or speaking positively about same-sex marriage.

Bahati is head of the Family-sponsored Africa Leadership Forum,. It's likely the "Bahati Bill", as it is commonly known in Uganda, will become law, because of the Family's financial support, power, and influence in country. Sharlet says the Family has poured millions of dollars into the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality campaign, and considers Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni as the "key man" for the Family in Uganda. Sharlet says Museveni can go to Brownback or any other Family member if he wants money for arms or anything else, and stays at the Family-owned Cedars House when he's in D.C.

Sharlet, who lived with the Family in its C-Street House near Capitol Hill and became part of current leader Doug Coe's inner circle, told NPR the Family believes in "Elite Fundamentalism" - that is, that Jesus had one true message for a core group of the elite and powerful, another for those in a somewhat "outer circle," and the most common one known to the masses, who "couldn't handle the truth."

Sharlet says the group's founder, Abraham Vereide, claims God appeared to him one night in April 1935 and told him Christianity was focused on the wrong people - the poor, the suffering, the down and out - and told Vereide to be a missionary to and for the elite and powerful; thus, the Family is dedicated to the cultivation of "King Men" who are chosen by God to use his "tools", using King David as a model.

The Family's main tenet is, "Jesus didn't come to take sides, he came to take over." Sharlet says the core rhetoric of the Family is that Christ's message wasn't about love, mercy, or forgivness as most of us believe. It was about power. Coe was quoted as saying Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao understood this message. He was quick to admit these were evil men, but he said they understood power. Coe was labeled a fascist sympathizer after his remarks.

However, Sharlet is quick to point out, "Doug Coe is not a neo-Nazi, but he fetishizes strength, looking to build a fellowship of absolute strength. This happened in Somalia, which is now a haven for Al Qaeda, terrorism, and piracy, all of which the Family regards as 'God's plan'."

An article in today's Guardian UK by Xan Rice reveals that "ex-gay" U.S. Evangelists are the main activists behind Uganda's "Bahati Bill". Both opponents and supporters agree that the impetus for the bill came in March during a seminar in Kampala to "expose the truth behind homosexuality and the homosexual agenda".

The main speakers were three US evangelists: Scott Lively, Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge. Lively is a noted anti-gay activist and president of Defend the Family International, a conservative Christian association, while Schmierer is an author who works with "homosexual recovery groups". Brundidge is a "sexual reorientation coach" at the International Healing Foundation.

The seminar was organized by Stephen Langa, who runs the Family Life Network (sound familiar?) and has been spreading the message that gays are targeting schoolchildren. "They give money to children to recruit schoolmates – once you have two children, the whole school is gone," Langa said in an interview. Asked if there had been any court case to prove this was happening, he replied: "No, that's why this law is needed."

"After the conference Langa arranged for a petition signed by thousands of concerned parents to be delivered to parliament in April. Within a few months the bill had been drawn up," reports Rice.

It's unlikely at this point that anything can be done to stop Ugandan leaders from passing the Anti-Homosexuality Law. According to Rice's report, LGBT Ugandans are already making plans to leave the country.

But the involvement of the U.S.'s elected representatives and evangelists should not be ignored. Human Rights Watch has condemend the bill as threatening basic human liberties and human rights defenders in Uganda, as well as progress on the eradication of HIV/AIDS in the region.

This is a time for outrage. How could high-ranking U.S. leaders support such a clearly hate-filled piece of legislation? This is a scary revelation, and should be a call to action for American LGBT people against the Family and all it's multiple affiliates. Remember, our apathy empowers our enemies. What's happening now in Uganda is an early warning. These people honestly believe God and Jesus are guiding them in their quest for world domination, no matter what collateral damage is done in the process. Something must be done now to stop the cruel and inhumane practices of the Family.

The Ugandan Holocaust will happen with full knowing support of Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats and evangelical leaders, and will be funded by missionary money and faith-based initiative money, with the White House and State Department refusing to even speak a word lest they anger the architects of it.

It's America, so I guess nobody should be surprised.

[Highlord Laan]

Christ, we need to start killing stupid people over here. Don't knock it, if the brainless fundies really beleive in their faith, which comes with "treat others as you wish to be treated" than they want to be lined up and shot.

[Samuel]

I knew we were exporting our nuttiness abroad- the creationism campaign in Turkey and the anti-sex education ones were obvious. But this... I guess it was inevitable. Any idea about how to counter it- does Uganda depend on foreign trade to any large degree?

[Duckie]

Note this bill isn't unique: The "Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act of 2006" in Nigeria.

The proposed bill calls for five years imprisonment for anyone who undergoes, "performs, witnesses, aids, or abets" a same-sex marriage. It would also prohibit any display of a "same-sex amorous relationship" and adoption of children by gays or lesbians.

It also requires reporting membership in or desire to form an LGBT Organisation or you face the same penalties as if you were gay yourself.

The recent health problems of the President seem to have disrailed it for now- but it gained 360-0 unanimous support in the lower house of Parliament, so it's a matter of time.

Not that it's any better in Nigeria for gays now- the northern half of the state is under Sharia. The southern half, run by Christians, 'merely' has 14 year imprisonment per act already. It's essentially life in prison given the obvious fact that you never stop being gay and a gay person has done a lot of acts already.

---

More information.

A new report documents the trend of evangelicals like Rick Warren exporting sexuality issues to Africa, whose clergy, in turn, support the minority antigay view in mainline denominations, weakening them. The author of the report speaks with RD at length about what he found.

A Ugandan MP has proposed creating an offence of “aggravated homosexuality” to be punishable by death. --BBC News, October 15

A new report released today details the role that US-based renewal church movements have played in mobilizing homophobic sentiment in at least three African countries. “Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches & Homophobia,” written by Rev. Kapya Kaoma for the progressive think tank Political Research Associates, was the result of a yearlong investigation into the relationship between conservative clergy on two continents, which has hastened divisions within denominations and has “restrict[ed] the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.”

Renewal groups and their neoconservative ally, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, have long sought to conservatize or split mainline American churches—frequently over gender or sexuality issues—and liberal scholars have traced many of the mainline schisms that have dominated headlines over the past several years to groundwork laid by the IRD and others.*

Increasingly, though, renewal movements have begun looking abroad for allies. Focusing on three mainline denominations under assault by these renewal movements (the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Church USA) in three African countries (Uganda, Nigeria, and Kenya), Kaoma has documented a clear trend of the US Christian right exporting its battles over social and sexuality issues to Africa. There, churches have been pressured to sever ties with mainline funders in exchange for conservative support, and have become recipients of a more fiercely anti-gay message than the US Christian right delivers at home.

As a result, Kaoma reports, a culture of vicious repression of gay rights has emerged, shaped by US evangelicals ranging from more “respectable” figures like Rick Warren, to fringe activists like Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively (author of anti-gay book The Pink Swastika, which suggests that Nazism was a gay plot).

In Africa, Kaoma finds, both types are freer with anti-gay statements, and both are considered equally representative of US evangelicaldom. Additionally, conservative evangelicals have been immensely successful in depicting the movement for gay equality as the neocolonialist agenda of an arrogant, imperial West that seeks to undermine African values. According to this equation, advances for gay rights in the United States are proof of a mounting gay threat to African culture, resulting in increased repression in countries like Uganda and Kenya. The consequences of these teachings and appeals to African sensitivity to colonialism are painfully clear today, just weeks after Uganda proposed legislation making homosexuality a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death.

One of the report’s more surprising findings is the reciprocity of this influence. Kaoma links the growing conservatism of African evangelical leaders with their increased influence over domestic church politics in the United States. The involvement of African clergy in US church schisms over the ordination of gay or female clerics, or the recognition of gay marriage, has become an impediment to the progress of LGBT rights in progressive, mainline denominations.

The shift in Christianity’s center of gravity to the global South has rendered African religious leaders a heavyweight voting bloc in mainline matters; supporting and legitimizing the conservative position of renewal groups, which would otherwise be a minority in US denominations. Social issues like gay rights may just be fodder for renewal groups seeking allies in Africa, suggests Kaoma, but the manipulation of that issue is stalling progress on LGBT civil rights at home while working to deadly effect in Africa.

Kaoma, an Anglican priest and doctoral candidate at Boston University, spoke with RD today, upon the report’s release:

This report describes growing anti-gay movements in African churches as a “proxy war” for US culture battles. Can you explain?

Since the ’90s, we’ve seen this shift from the American conservatives who are going to Africa, and they started spreading this anti-gay rhetoric across sub-Saharan Africa. We started getting a lot of statements from US evangelicals that homosexuality is wrong and that there is this Western agenda among gays to take over world. So it is coming from the West. Why is it a proxy war? In America, these politics have been going on for a long time—since the ’80s they have been used as a political tool to gain support in American churches.

But we saw a shift in the [tactics] to allow that war to be fought outside American soil: They’ve allowed Africans to get involved and fight on behalf of conservatives. You see [US evangelicals] going to Africa and making statements and having political access to leadership there, asking them to criminalize same-sex orientation. And now, when they do that, the Africans are benefiting the religious conservatives, because they’re helping them fight in America. But American conservatives are also benefiting African leaders in terms of giving them not just an ideological framework—the anti-LGBT arguments that have been used in America—but also providing them with legitimacy.

The second aspect is very interesting in a sense, because in addition to the ideological framework, they’re getting the religious leaders in Africa involved by telling them to misrepresent the progressive or mainline churches as evil—part and parcel of a gay agenda to take over the world—so you cannot deal with them. They say they’re going to partner with [African leaders and churches], if they can disassociate from mainline churches [in the United States], which are part of the gay agenda. So [the African churches] cut the relationship, and then the American conservatives take over financially.

That’s how the war is being fought. Thus, when the Africans come [to the United States] they have nothing to do with mainline churches; instead they side with American conservatives against mainline churches. And the mainline church in Africa is bigger and stronger than in America. So the conservatives are relying on the numbers of African leaders; they start fighting mainline church leadership using Africans to win the American battle, and come across as though they care about Africa.

Do these renewal church conservatives in America actually care about Africa?

They have some explaining to do: here conservatives came to fame because one of the governments, in a broadcast program, accused mainline churches of supporting terrorists in South Africa—in the struggle in Zimbabwe against the white minority, and against the apartheid government of South Africa. The mainline churches supported the people trying to overthrow these immoral regimes. The IRD said that they were supporting terrorists in Africa, so they didn’t have an interest in Africa then. [The mainline churches] managed to help Africans get their independence, but now the Christian right appears to have taken an interest in Africa because they want Africans to fight their wars.

I am an evangelical myself, but [conservative evangelicals in the United States are] opposed to caring for the poor in their own backyard; now they want to care for the poor in Africa? There are people who need help here. So, do they care for Africa? Yes, but only if it works to their advantage—if they can use them to win their battle.

Can you describe the climate of growing homophobia in the African countries you investigated? Also, considering the way homosexuality is being framed as a Western imposition, can you describe the history of LGBT presence and rights in Africa?

LGBT issues and people have been in Africa since long before colonial time. In Uganda, for instance, the president is saying that homosexuality came from Europe and the West. But an old king of Uganda back in the 1880s was gay, a historical fact that no one disputes. We have that evidence to start with, but the first laws that we had against gays did come with the colonial government.

The moment that it took on a postcolonial face is when it became more aggressive. In Africa, we believe that a person is born to have kids and then die, and that’s the circle you go through. So if you’re born and don’t have a child, you are viewed as less of a human being. We have a variety of names for people who don’t have kids. So because gays and lesbians had families, there was a way for people to be hidden within marriages, and would appear to be normal, because we wanted to fulfill procreation.

But the growing homophobia started in the 1990s when we had strong evangelical interest in Africa from conservatives; evangelists were coming to Africa at a time when America was struggling with HIV/AIDS and LGBT issues. That language started to come in.

At the Lambeth Conference of 1998, African leaders were forced to confront issues of sexuality. When the Africans stood up, the climate was changed because then the [US] evangelicals, seeing an ally in African church leaders, were going to come to Africa.

Almost all those guys who went to Africa were so-called evangelicals and had access to African leaders. Rick Warren himself has access to political leaders in Uganda, Rwanda, and Kenya. And not a simple kind of access but direct access. Remember that when Warren was in Africa, he got involved in mainline politics and he said that this church is wrong. That is when he made the statement that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and it’s not necessarily a human right. And he has access to the president of Uganda, to the religious leaders of Uganda. People respect him so much, and then the government sings his slogan that gay rights aren’t a human rights issue.

Then there’s Scott Lively, he’s important. When he goes to Uganda, he’s not known as Scott Lively, but as an American evangelical. When Warren goes to Kenya, he’s not Warren, but an American evangelical. As long as they have a church title and stand for conservative politics, they have influence. The Africans don’t always have the resources to follow their statements so they say: this man of God says this is going on in the world. Or Scott Lively goes to the Uganda Anti-gay Conference, and the media says that an American evangelical says there’s a gay agenda.

What Warren did when he was in Kenya, he met with members of parliament. The same thing would happen with Lively in Uganda: he gets to meet with Ugandan parliamentarians. In four hours, he teaches them about the gay agenda [that’s seeking] to take over the world. When he leaves, at the follow-up meeting, parliament makes a statement saying thank you for this information, and now we know that there is a group of gays trying to take over the world, and it’s up to Uganda to fight. People are saying they’re going to go door to door to look for gays and root them out. They’ve heard that they’re being funded by US and European groups. In truth, my research shows that 90-95% of LGBT persons in Africa are extremely poor because they are discriminated against. But they are represented as people with lots of money, who are recruiting in schools, etc.

It’s important to know this context in Africa. Lively went to Africa in March [for the “Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda,” an anti-gay conference sponsored by the US-supported Ugandan group the Family Life Network], and on April 20, a new bill was drafted. It’s important to know the timing there. Members of parliament talked about the need for a new bill, and we knew that the new bill was being drafted, although it took a long time to come out—October. A lot of it had to do with Lively. If you read the text of the proceedings, some of the things in that bill are direct reflections of what Lively was saying in Uganda: that there is no scientific evidence, that this group is trying to take over world and destroy family values. There’s a lot of traditional family language, and it’s language that Lively brought to Uganda.

In the report, you provide examples of US conservatives “ghostwriting” or altering statements made by African leaders to make them appear more in line with US conservative criticism of mainline churches. Is there any response from the African leaders who have had their messages altered or reshaped in this way?

I don’t see the religious leaders even seeing that as a problem, because they want the support of American conservatives. We have two cases: the case of [Rev. Jerry] Kulah, [district superintendent of Monrovia, Liberia for the United Methodist Church]. The work he presented in 2007 and what the IRD came up with and sent out as a message from Africa are two different topics. Kulah wasn’t necessarily taking the language of attacking mainline churches, and they had to put that in. They used Kulah to say things that only an American would be concerned with. But Kulah thought they were promoting his document.

The other thing, regarding President Obama: do you remember when Gene Robinson was invited to be part of his [inauguration], there was a lot of outcry from the American conservatives? One thing that was interesting was that [Rev. David Runnion-Bareford] the leader of the Association for Church Renewal, wrote a letter to Obama saying this will be seen as an insult to Africa. Is he African? No. But does he speak for Africa? Yes. He’s an American writing and claiming this is what is happening. Did African leadership oppose that? No, because it gives them power. They want power. It’s like being promoted.

The moment you play to the politics of colonialism, you win, because Africans are very sensitive to that. That’s the [effective] thing about conservatives pointing to mainline churches as colonists. I still want them to explain why they supported the white regimes of South Africa and Zimbabwe, and supported wars that killed so many people. As long as they don’t do that, I still think for me as an African, it’s a big insult. To claim to love Africa, and support that—it’s a big insult to me.

Tell me about the spectrum of US conservatives involved in these issues in Africa. From so-called moderates like Rick Warren, to fringe figures like Scott Lively.

This is a problem. They know what to say in America. In America Warren says “I love gays.” In Africa, he says it’s not a natural way of life. Lively has said, “I can’t say this in America, but I can say it in Africa.” In America, people will hold him responsible, and in Africa, nobody will.**

The other thing I have concerns about, is when they meet with political leaders what do they talk about? What ideas are they promoting? The fact is, the American media is not there to report on what they say.

Kenneth Starr, he goes to Uganda, he’s going to have access to political leaders. That tells you that any people who hold these conservative ideologies have access to religious and political leaders and have avenues to advance their ideologies. [Warren and Lively] are different, and in America, I see them as different. When I saw [Lively] in Uganda, I thought, this guy is crazy, why is anyone listening to him? But in Africa, he is seen as a man of God, and an authority on this issue. In Africa, they are all part and parcel of US evangelicals.

Describe the reverse influence African churches are having on US church policy.

Before the United Methodist Church’s [UMC] general convention, the IRD and the Confessing Movement in the UMC went to Africa for what they called training Africans about the general convention; they gave them materials about the church in America, and how bad it has become. Those materials also told them that when you come to America, you need to vote for A, B, C, and D. And when the conference came, the Africans found that they had been given these lovely cell phones, and there was no charge, and the reason why was because they wanted them to vote a certain way. The Africans have become a powerhouse to change the direction of the American churches. They have to depend on Africa to bring change at home.

You will have a situation where an American might not say something, but Archbishop Akinola is free to say whatever he wants to say against LGBT persons in America, so he becomes a spokesperson. [US conservatives] say it’s not me saying it, it’s him. This is the same thing as Rick Warren’s strategy. He says I didn’t say that, my friends did. We say distance yourself from these friends, and he says I can’t do that.

As a result, as the mainline churches are moving forward on LGBT issues, the leadership is afraid of what Africa will say. But they should really be afraid of the renewal movement. They’ve stopped progress in the Protestant church because of Africa. But in Africa, America is also being used as an example of how the gays can take over the world. The criminalization of homosexuality, like the [proposed] law in Uganda, has taken hold because of what has been happening in America.

You quote a Methodist renewal leader encouraging conservatives to join mainline churches and “wait ten years” before reaping the benefits of their infiltration through strategic targeting of leadership roles. How long have conservative groups been sowing the field in Africa?

Oh, God. I think honestly, they put in a lot of infrastructure, like TV and radio, schools, Bible schools, and from the Reagan era there were missionaries going to Africa, primarily to stop the advance of Liberation Theology. And now we have a new wave of evangelicals who are part of that cause. I never took Liberation Theology because I went to evangelical school. They planted the seeds early. Unfortunately, they did it nicely. They built relationships from the late ’80s through to the ’90s, and by the time they said what their agenda was, they already had lots of bishops. It worked well in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda. And most of the bishops there were trained in evangelical schools. (They didn’t have such good infrastructure in Central Africa though.) They implanted that over time, it’s been going on for a long time, and now they’re reaping the benefits.

In your recommendations, you say that progressive religious communities must likewise take a longterm approach to gaining new allies in Africa. How can progressives make these alliances and define these conservative groups in a way that will expose them in Africa and at home?

In a conference of 100 people, I asked a question: can someone here tell me about a liberal Christian in America? What do they believe? The entire conference told me, we know about that. But when I asked what they know about Christian Right, they said they don’t know about the Christian Right at all. They don’t know, they think the right means the Bible, and the right thing to do.

What is needed is for us to explain what the right stands for. And when people are arguing for greater health care and help for people, the people who are opposed to that are on the right. The people who are opposed to working on global warming, and who support war—they are on the right. Africa isn’t like that. In Uganda, when Saddam Hussein was executed, the Pentecostals in Uganda stood up against that. They are opposed to capital punishment. But because they don’t know who’s standing for what, they think the Christian Right is their brother. As an evangelical, I can’t be associated with people like that. When we explain to people what the right stands for, many African evangelicals will say we can’t have anything to do with that.

The values of Africans and the Christian Right are different, but we share words, the words are similar. That’s where the right wins. When we talk about values and family, that appeals to an African. When we talk about evangelicals, it appeals to an African, but what they mean is totally different. So the progressives must start defining those on the right for Africa to understand.

The funding that goes to Africa is much more personal. For evangelicals, this money goes to bishops with personal contacts. And in Uganda, the person responsible for distributing that money is an American conservative. Do they really have an interest in Africa?

That’s how they want to be represented: as people who care about Africa. But what they’re really interested in is culture war, and they want to win that war. That’s their interest, and they’ll use Africans as well as they can. As an African, it’s insulting that people can use us as much as they want. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm burying you in links because I was in denial myself about how deep the rot goes. Organisations whose congressional representation exceeds the New Democrat Caucus (the senate equivalent of blue dogs, roughly) (the Family has at least a dozen senators in it) are aiding and abetting an anti-gay holocaust in Africa. Twice.

[Serafine666]

-snip-

Leaving other countries to their own devices is one thing; trying to influence them in a certain direction, especially in this type of moral direction, is horrible beyond expression.

On the flip side, Canada not having their emissions under control looks morally virtuous next to this; maybe the Commonwealth will forget to be mad at the Canadians when they fully wrap their heads around this.

It's America, so I guess nobody should be surprised.

Well, it is pretty surprising. The normal US method is to shove their nose into anything that offends our moral standards and start threatening the offender to make them conform. This is something new and worrisome.

[Shroom Man 777]

I don't want to believe this because, Jesus Christ, it's horrible. It's further prove of the hypocrisy inherent in many large segments of Western society and shows that no, the West's intervention in these goddamn parts of the world isn't benevolent but can actually be pretty fucking horrific. You think the kind of people who made the Holocaust possible are gone but they're still here, and they control the most powerful nation on Earth. God damn.

[Solauren]

First, let me say this: I find the idea of punishing someone for wanting to have consenting sex with another consenting partner, regardless of gender, reasonable emotional/mental age, or even species (as long as both are sentient and capable of language), deplorable, and disgusting in the extreme.

Now that I have said that, I'll approach this from a dispassionate angle.


I don't know why anyone is surprised by this. Quite frankly, this is politically brilliant.

Consider for a moment how international politics work. If a country is doing somethings other's dislike, they apply preasure to it to change. For example, Iran's current nuclear program. No one likes it, and the other countries of the world are trying to get them to stop. Unfortunately for them, Iran is rather isolationist, or at least selective, about who they trade with, and doesn't care if the other countries don't like them. In fact, they trade on that to keep their own populace in line. International 'peer preasure' doesn't work on them.


No, let's look at the United States.
In the US, there has been a steady, probably unstoppable, trend to allow full rights for same-sex individuals and couples. And the idiot-brigade in the US doesn't like this. Unfortunately, they include some well-off, powerful people.

People intelligent enough to know how to work the United States political system.

They know they can't change things from within. Instead, they'll do it from the outside.

First, they get some 'shit-hole' countries to pass anti-gay legislation. Uganda, others. Okay, fine. Now they have a international block to work with. They begin applying preasure to other countries to pass anti-gay legislation. Soon, a bunch of countries have anti-gay legislation, including a few that are major trade partners of the United States.

Now those countries threaten to cut ties with the United States unless it takes a more 'anti-gay stance', or at least lessen it's 'pro-gay stance'.

I mean, imagine the impact a bunch of countries with resources the United States needs went 'okay, either you stop granting same-sex couples rights, or we pull our trade', and did. Now add in a few countries that it would hurt if they pulled that. i.e China, a Unified African block, Saddi Arabia. The countries are not afraid because they can trade with each other.

What choice does the US have in that case? Either agree to terms, or have a trade shortage and economic fall-out.

Now, if imagine if this was pulled off while the Democrats were in power. Especially President Obama and his entire 'international good-will' efforts.



Do I think this will work? Probably not. Alot of countries that might pass laws like this, if they found out a foreign power or interest were behind it, would probably kill the bill when they found out, just to keep foreign hands out of the government.

However, to a religious member of the idiot-brigade in the United States, it's God's Will after all.....

[Serafine666]

First, let me say this: I find the idea of punishing someone for wanting to have consenting sex with another consenting partner, regardless of gender, reasonable emotional/mental age, or even species (as long as both are sentient and capable of language), deplorable, and disgusting in the extreme.
-snip-
However, to a religious member of the idiot-brigade in the United States, it's God's Will after all.....

Very interesting... it's like the theories I've heard about how the Illuminati assassinated JFK and installed Obama as president. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a cockamamie scheme someone might try to pull off but why try to obtain with bizarre maneuverings what you can already get with simple majority rule?

[Solauren]

First, let me say this: I find the idea of punishing someone for wanting to have consenting sex with another consenting partner, regardless of gender, reasonable emotional/mental age, or even species (as long as both are sentient and capable of language), deplorable, and disgusting in the extreme.
-snip-
However, to a religious member of the idiot-brigade in the United States, it's God's Will after all.....

Very interesting... it's like the theories I've heard about how the Illuminati assassinated JFK and installed Obama as president. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a cockamamie scheme someone might try to pull off but why try to obtain with bizarre maneuverings what you can already get with simple majority rule?

At this point, I don't think they'll ever get Majority Rule on Gay rights again (at least at the National level), and they probably know it.

And I don't think of this as a conspiracy, I think of it as political maneuvering. (And no, I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist. I'm aware of the more 'promenent' ones because they can make good creative writing material).

This is just one interuptation of what this 'Family' or whoever is trying to support this, is doing. Otherwise, unless they have something to gain I'm not aware of, (most of the Idiot-Brigade are very self-ish), I can't see why bother to do this.

[Serafina]

*snip*

Except that no one gives a shit about third-world countries.

No, let me elaborate on that: Third-world countries have virtrually no means to excpert "peer-pressure" - especially not towards the USA. They can not cut trade or anything, because they are dependant or foreign trade.
Even if you get a large block of countries together, there will be at least an equal number of more important countries with opposing oppinions.

Now, could this "Domino-theory" work in another way?
Perhaps, by being examples. Politicans (at least here, dont know about the US) LOVE to quote laws from other countries which are supposedly better. Mix that with some statistics about positive things (lower divorce rate, slower spread of HIV) and voila, you got yourself some "evicende".


Either way, this is BAD.
Even if we assume that there are no other motives that "righteousness" for this agenda - it still means that a lot of people in Uganda will suffer.
Gays (and the rest of the LBGT-community), of course, but i suspect that they will have some "with-hunts", too.

[Samuel]

I don't want to believe this because, Jesus Christ, it's horrible. It's further prove of the hypocrisy inherent in many large segments of Western society and shows that no, the West's intervention in these goddamn parts of the world isn't benevolent but can actually be pretty fucking horrific. You think the kind of people who made the Holocaust possible are gone but they're still here, and they control the most powerful nation on Earth. God damn.

Please- they don't want the Jews exterminated yet. They need them alive for judgement day!

Now those countries threaten to cut ties with the United States unless it takes a more 'anti-gay stance', or at least lessen it's 'pro-gay stance'.

Can you think of a time the US government would actually change internal policy in responce to international pressure? I can't. As for cutting ties land locked African countries are not exactly nations we care about. The most likely responce is "screw you".

It also requires reporting membership in or desire to form an LGBT Organisation or you face the same penalties as if you were gay yourself.

I find this funny in an insane sort of way. Not only is being gay illegal, not reporting homosexuals is illegal AND defending them is illegal. What better way to control the populance than to start a massive witch hunt and kill people you don't like? It is like they are trying to one-up Rwanda and show the proper way to conduct mass murder.

Well, it is pretty surprising. The normal US method is to shove their nose into anything that offends our moral standards and start threatening the offender to make them conform. This is something new and worrisome.

Actually the normal American method involves sending in the marines or backing a dictator. It is just that we are no longer messing with just economics. Of course before the Cold War we did get involved in other populations like the Phillipines.

Now, could this "Domino-theory" work in another way?
Perhaps, by being examples. Politicans (at least here, dont know about the US) LOVE to quote laws from other countries which are supposedly better. Mix that with some statistics about positive things (lower divorce rate, slower spread of HIV) and voila, you got yourself some "evicende".

Liberals only do that for Europe because they want the US to be more like them with the whole social safety net and cosmoplianism. I sincerly doubt anyone wants the US to be more like any country in Africa.

[Themightytom]

http://www.immihelp.com/gc/asylum.html

...
So the U.S. right wing hate gay people so much they are enabling them to come here for political asylum?

There should be a "100 greatest fails of man kind" as well as the current thread about the 100 best things we've done.

[Duckie]

The US actually usually denies asylum based on sexual orientation or gender identity even in the face of death or life imprisonment. I believe the policy may have been loosened recently, but I forget where I saw that. Some political blog.

[Shroom Man 777]

Actually, aren't the right wingers also the ones who dislike immigrants in general? Of course, the issue is with Mexicans and not "homosexual Africans who are seeking political asylum because we funded brutal homophobic regimes in their homelands" but the point still stands.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, aren't the right wingers also the ones who dislike immigrants in general? Of course, the issue is with Mexicans and not "homosexual Africans who are seeking political asylum because we funded brutal homophobic regimes in their homelands" but the point still stands.

Conservatives tend to treat the entire refugee system as a big scam, based on a lot of broad claims about masses of people coming here, sponging off our system, bring their families, living on welfare, and of course, having no real merit to their refugee claim.

[Serafine666]

Actually, aren't the right wingers also the ones who dislike immigrants in general? Of course, the issue is with Mexicans and not "homosexual Africans who are seeking political asylum because we funded brutal homophobic regimes in their homelands" but the point still stands.

I've never heard of the right-wingers hating on immigrants generally but they seem to get a little twitchy about people illegally crossing the border and staying. Factoids like a portion (any portion) or the US prison population being composed of illegals makes then even more twitchy.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, aren't the right wingers also the ones who dislike immigrants in general? Of course, the issue is with Mexicans and not "homosexual Africans who are seeking political asylum because we funded brutal homophobic regimes in their homelands" but the point still stands.

I've never heard of the right-wingers hating on immigrants generally but they seem to get a little twitchy about people illegally crossing the border and staying. Factoids like a portion (any portion) or the US prison population being composed of illegals makes then even more twitchy.

Oh come on, you can't honestly say you've never heard of right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. It's one of the most common political phenomena in western countries, even in Europe.

[Serafine666]

Oh come on, you can't honestly say you've never heard of right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. It's one of the most common political phenomena in western countries, even in Europe.

My last encounter with actual anti-immigrant sentiment, honestly, was in a history book discussing the "Molly Maguires" and "Know-Nothings" from 100 years ago or so. Anti-illegal sentiment is the type I run across all the time.

[Yona]

Conservatives tend to treat the entire refugee system as a big scam, based on a lot of broad claims about masses of people coming here, sponging off our system, bring their families, living on welfare, and of course, having no real merit to their refugee claim.

That's because they figure they would scam the system, just like they scam the financial system, therefore everyone else is scamming it too.

If you want to hear something truly frightening, buy or borrow a Short Wave Radio. The so called "Christian Right" have many very powerful transmitters that broadcast that same propaganda disguised as the "Word of God" to these same countries. They do it on varying frequencies at all hours of the day and night. Two of the most powerful are located in the Southern US. One in Tennessee, one in Florida. The rhetoric they spew as "God's Word" and the viewpoints they espouse on Government and Moral behavior are pretty radical. These same groups also conduct "missionary" work to these countries. They are constantly bombarded with this shit from all directions. It's no wonder they do these things. They've never been taught anything different.

It should surprise no one that they behave this way. It's the same behavior they preach here, and they have now taken over a major political party here. It's already aptly nicknamed for them. The G O P .

Where have we seen these tactics before ? Take your pick of groups. They've been used successfully all over the world by radicals in the name of "God".

[Darth Wong]

Oh come on, you can't honestly say you've never heard of right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment. It's one of the most common political phenomena in western countries, even in Europe.

My last encounter with actual anti-immigrant sentiment, honestly, was in a history book discussing the "Molly Maguires" and "Know-Nothings" from 100 years ago or so. Anti-illegal sentiment is the type I run across all the time.

That's just political double-talk, just like the way you never hear anyone say he dislikes a certain race, but you do hear him say that he dislikes a certain "culture". People who dislike "the other" have found politically acceptable ways to phrase it.

In America and Canada, people always say they're against illegal immigrants but not legal immigrants. However, I've found that if you start arguing with them, you soon find out that they also dislike the refugee system, they think the legal immigration process is too lax, they express vague concerns about "cultural assimilation", they fear "Islamicization", etc. Basically, they say everything except for "I hate dark-skinned immigrants", which would be too honest. Instead, they propose a battery of immigration-related arguments which, if they were all implemented, would have the effect of nearly shutting down non-white immigration.

[Serafina]

Actually, aren't the right wingers also the ones who dislike immigrants in general? Of course, the issue is with Mexicans and not "homosexual Africans who are seeking political asylum because we funded brutal homophobic regimes in their homelands" but the point still stands.

I've never heard of the right-wingers hating on immigrants generally but they seem to get a little twitchy about people illegally crossing the border and staying. Factoids like a portion (any portion) or the US prison population being composed of illegals makes then even more twitchy.

What the...show me ONE conversative politican that promotes immigration these days.
It happened during shortages of workforce - but since that a non-issue these days (with rare exceptions), most if not all converative politicans are against immigration.
And "against immigration" does not necessarily mean "waah, out with these evil immigrants" - it's mostly done by rigorous standards for immigration, errecting additional barriers etc.
But thats still an attitude against immigrants in general - since they view immigration not as a right, but an exceptionial privilege that should only be granted to view.

But let's not get sidetracked here.

[Serafine666]

That's just political double-talk, just like the way you never hear anyone say he dislikes a certain race, but you do hear him say that he dislikes a certain "culture". People who dislike "the other" have found politically acceptable ways to phrase it.

In America and Canada, people always say they're against illegal immigrants but not legal immigrants. However, I've found that if you start arguing with them, you soon find out that they also dislike the refugee system, they think the legal immigration process is too lax, they express vague concerns about "cultural assimilation", etc. Basically, they say everything except for "I hate dark-skinned immigrants", which would be too honest. Instead, they propose a battery of immigration-related arguments which, if they were all implemented, would have the effect of nearly shutting down non-white immigration.

OK. So what about the folks who actually ARE against illegal immigration but are perfectly fine with legal immigration?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

They know they can't change things from within. Instead, they'll do it from the outside.

First, they get some 'shit-hole' countries to pass anti-gay legislation. Uganda, others. Okay, fine. Now they have a international block to work with. They begin applying preasure to other countries to pass anti-gay legislation. Soon, a bunch of countries have anti-gay legislation, including a few that are major trade partners of the United States.

Now those countries threaten to cut ties with the United States unless it takes a more 'anti-gay stance', or at least lessen it's 'pro-gay stance'.

I have to disagree with this. I'm not saying the people who are doing this aren't evil fucks, but I don't believe they are some sort of block of conspiratorial masterminds. I just think it's more evidence of how desperate bigoted assholes are getting now that their power and influence is in heavy decline. They're not thinking about some decades-long master plan to bring the US back into their moral view with subtle manipulation of third-world countries. These are the same people who are convinced the Rapture's going to occur any second now, so why would something that takes twenty years to enact have any bearing on them? They already propose raping the environment since the Lord's going to make it all go 'poof' any day now.

They're just trying to earn God-points any way they know how. They're desperate because they know their influence in the US is on an unstoppable decline, so they reach out where they can. If they can't stop the US from becoming the new Sodom and Gomorrah, at the very least they can do their Christian duty and keep <insert random third-world shithole here> in line with God's values!

It doesn't make them any less a bunch of horrid, morally bankrupt fucknuts.

[Master of Ossus]

What the...show me ONE conversative politican that promotes immigration these days.

You mean like George W. Bush?

It happened during shortages of workforce - but since that a non-issue these days (with rare exceptions), most if not all converative politicans are against immigration.
And "against immigration" does not necessarily mean "waah, out with these evil immigrants" - it's mostly done by rigorous standards for immigration, errecting additional barriers etc.
But thats still an attitude against immigrants in general - since they view immigration not as a right, but an exceptionial privilege that should only be granted to view.

But let's not get sidetracked here.

That's precisely the opposite of the immigration policy that Bush tried to get through Congress during his presidency. It failed largely because of Democratic sentiment in favor of populist protectionism measures and anti-"illegal hiring" sentiment highlighted by John Kerry and others.

[Duckie]

In case you think this is just conservative democrats and evangelicals and republicans lining up to say absolutely nothing about the issue:

Stigma is anathema to effective public-health work, but that's never stopped homophobic crusaders from mucking up the fight against HIV/AIDS before. Now, just as the South African government is finally changing its tune on the matter, Uganda is emerging as the world's new problem country. The recipient of $287 million in PEPFAR funds last year, Uganda is also the site of a vicious campaign against homosexuality, which took a turn for the worse last month when the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" was introduced to Parliament. The bill threatens harsher punishments for actual or even perceived homosexual activity, which is already illegal under Ugandan law; convicted offenders could face the death penalty. "Promoting homosexuality" would also be illegal, as would a failure to report any of the above to police within 24 hours.

Even by regional standards, such penalties would be exceptionally harsh, especially since they would effectively criminalize the work of HIV/AIDS prevention efforts under the "promotion of homosexuality clause." The thinking behind them is just as disturbing, since this latest round of antigay fervor was kicked off at a conference held by by American missionary groups that went to proselytize about the twin evils of Nazism and homosexual behavior in Kampala earlier this year. Just to hammer home how far-out that is, this means the Ugandan government got its advice from the author of a book called The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, which claims the Nazi movement was "entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history." The result has been a vigilante campaign against the country's LGBT community, whereby gay detainees are tortured and tabloids publish the names, places of employment, addresses, and physical descriptions of gay-rights advocates under headlines that scream "TOP HOMOS IN UGANDA NAMED." It would seem the stuff of Orwellian parody, but it's real.

As the witchhunt in Kampala has heated up, so too have calls for U.S. policymakers to take a stand. In an article for the Los Angeles Times, TNR editor James Kirchick called for PEPFAR to withhold its funding for HIV/AIDS programming in Uganda unless its legislators abandon the legislation, which has been tabled for now. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK this week, PEPFAR chief Eric Goosby said he didn't have a dog in that fight:

I'm very concerned about any decision that any country—including our own—would make to target a group that's in the population, and that's always been in the population, by excluding them from a service or passes legislation that criminalizes their behavior. Every time you do that, you push the behavior underground. It never works. Rather than minimizing the spread of the virus, it actually amplifies it.

The U.S. policy is trying to work with governments to say exactly that. I think I would do more harm than good by connecting our resources to respond to the epidemic to making them dependent on a behavior that they're not willing to engage in on their own. My role is to be supportive and helpful to the patients who need these services. It is not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation. But I will engage them in conversation around my concern and knowledge of what this is going to do to that population, and our ability to stop the movement of the virus into the general population.

So, for all those who hoped that PEPFAR funding might be used as a hammer to pressure the Ugandan powers-that-be to abandon their crusade: no dice. The Obama era is the dialogue era; don't pick fights, but persuade through elegant theses. That said, since the moral argument clearly hasn't convinced the Ugandan authorities of the errors of their ways, one can only hope that Goosby's public-health argument will.

The Clinton flub wasn't a flub- the White House is literally committed to the idea of ignoring the Uganda situation to the point of continuing to pay it AIDS prevention money and foreign aid despite the fact it'll be, in a short time, executing any confirmed AIDS victim in addition to homosexuals using that very same money. Literally the same goddamn US dollars that flow in, because this is their new public health policy.

Missionary evangelicals and the like meanwhile know that this will never blow up for them for the same reason, so I suppose the Obama White House knows that just not making a fuss will make sure nobody in the media or the general public notices that they're funding anti-gay extermination. After all, if they cut off the funds, then the situation would get in the news, it'd happen anyway just using Uganda's own money, and the White House might have to take an uncomfortable public stand making statements defending gays that would anger conservatives. And lord knows we couldn't do that.