Uganda’s Anti Homosexuality Bill
I’ve received a few emails asking me to make my position clear on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently going through their legislature. Let me be absolutely clear in case anybody doubts, I find the idea of introducing a death penalty for committing homosexual acts and imprisonment for simply self-identifying as gay completely abhorent. It is a completely unScriptural idea that being same-sex attracted is immoral in and of itself. Furthermore, if the aim of the Bill is to help those who are gay “come to their senses” (as I have heard some try to defend it), how can any effective pastoral care actually be offered if the moment someone confesses to their pastor, that pastor is under a legal obligation to hand them over to the authorities?
If you want to know more then visit and join the Facebook group set up to help apply pressure on the Uganda parliament. I’m pleased to see that this group has managed to create a very broad coalition to work against this legislation.
So how would you persuade Anglican Mainstream that they should make a public stance on this issue and join that broad public coalition?
The people behind Anglican Mainstream read this site and others. They know what’s going on.
Which isn’t quite the question you were asked, minister :)
Looking at AM’s site just now, there’s nothing on the proposed Ugandan legislation (looking over entries from today back to Oct 28th). Do you think AM will respond in any way?
in friendship, Blair
I would think that AM will get round to *publicly* responding, but given their very good links to the top of the hierarchy of the Church of Uganda, I would expect them to *publicly* respond only when they can do so effectively and with maximum impact.
Absence of evidence (of a response) isn’t evidence of absence. Let the reader understand.
Reader understands – thank you. And point taken; I was not trying to demonise AM by implication, but felt that the question was worth asking.
in friendship, Blair
The Anglican Mainstream has known about the crisis in Uganda since March (!), and it has known about the developing legislation for almost as long.
The bill is expected to be enacted in just two months, and the snowball of hate in the Church of Uganda has now risen to such a level that it will be impossible to stop the bill entirely.
Even if the death-penalty provision is dropped, other provisions of the bill would remain: Those which prohibit discussion of the human rights of LGBT Ugandans, imprison families and pastors of LGBT persons, and prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
In this crisis, the silence of the A.M. equals death. As well as imprisonment for the families and pastors of LGBT Ugandans. And through all these months, it is becoming apparent that the A.M. approves of much if not all of the bill.
Mike Airhart makes a very serious point. AM is usually not slow in speaking on every conceivable aspect of homosexuality.
Many will have concluded that their silence speaks volumes – even that it suggests not only a washing of hands but (more uncharitably perhaps) even a secret delight in what is happening. Having left it so long, as Airhart says, the AM leadership will be judged by that silence now….and, when they decide to make it, the response they make will be gone over with the finest of toothcombs.
Anything short of a total condemnation will be dismissed by the gay and lesbian community as only another example of caiaphatic betrayal…..hardly Christian witness.
I’ve said it before on this site and I’ll say it again. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You might demand a response from AM but that doesn’t mean you’ll get one.
I think there has already been too much playing of politics with this issue. Attempts to demonise one party over this issue simply because they don’t come up with the exact response you want will ultimately backfire.
This isn’t about politics, Peter. This is about human lives. People from different sides should have no difficulty taking action, especially after eight months.
Your moral relativism and inaction speak loudly.
On the contrary Mike;
i) I have made it very clear where I stand on the issue of the wording of the Bill. You are simply ignoring or misrepresenting my position if you accuse me of either relativism or inaction.
ii) The “open letter” from Changing Attitude, its wording, its selective quoting from Lambeth ’98 1:10 and the pressure/guilt applied on conservative groups to co-sign was undoubtedly a political act.