Now this is interesting.

“Sodomy” wasn’t a crime in Uganda until the British imperialists made it one in the late 19th century, as they did in most of their colonies.

I’m not saying that Uganda was a utopia for gays before then, but the criminalization of homosexuality (especially between two men) is most certainly an imposition of the values of Western colonists.

In 1930’s Western Europe homosexuality was the supposed domain of Jews and Bolsheviks, while Communist Europeans saw it as a vice of the Western aristocratic class. And in Victorian England, there was the famous case of the two schoolteachers accused of lesbianism by an Indian student, whose case was thrown out by a judge who felt that while lesbianism might be something that happens in dark, heathen India, two Englishwomen would never think to do such a thing.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that the Ugandan’s government’s rhetoric of homosexuality being a foreign phenomenon forced into Uganda by Western gay activists and roving pedophiles fits into a much older pattern of scapegoating and Othering gays by associating them with an oppressive or feared society.

And by the way, I have really have to admire the chutzpah of people like Lively railling at culturally imperialist Western forces meddling in the direction of Uganda’s culture and government while he… meddles in the direction of Uganda’s culture and government.

Thank you for the NCR article. A good read.

However, while the propositions may not have specifically addressed homosexuality, the NCR article seems to have the same interpretation as the LSN article of how the Synod’s positions reflect on this bill.

I agree that the bias is pervasive. Without doubt.

I’ve not noticed the factual errors that you have. But perhaps that is because I generally use them only as a source for stories that don’t have wide circulation. If I did comparative reading I might have noticed a greater error rate.

Nevertheless, I do commend them on having stories that I have difficulty finding on mainstream media or even gay media (though presented through the lens of raging anti-gay animus).

“But it is sad when an institution as old and influential as the Catholic Church, and one that is charged with doing good, seems to be siding with evil.”

It’s only sad if it’s unexpected. These days, it’s just business-as-usual (emphasis on the business).

Anti-gay bill in Uganda challenges Catholics to take a stand
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/anti-gay-bill-uganda-challenges-catholics-take-stand

Scott Lively seems to be taking pot-shots when ever some news source or blog allows him to do so. He did against Dr Throckmorton a while back on the PFOX blog, saying: “Warren Throckmorton Goes to the Dark Side.”
http://pfox-exgays.blogspot.com/2009/11/warren-throckmorton-grove-city-college.html

From the LifeSite article:

Last month at the Synod for Africa at the Vatican, bishops from all over the continent noted their grave concerns over the international anti-family pressure.

Summing up the discussions, the Cardinal Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana, Peter Turkson, said that the Synod had “described in various ways a ferocious onslaught on the family and the related fundamental institution of marriage from outside Africa and attributed it to diverse sources.” The bishops, he said, “vigorously denounced the ideology and international programs which are imposed on African countries under false pretexts or as conditions for development assistance.”

Read the Synod for Africa’s 57 Propositions; homosexuality is no where named in them and it is possible not even alluded to. Proposition 38: The Family, doesn’t even hint at homosexuality anywhere. Proposition 55 is about the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

"LifeSiteNews is generally well written (though biased) and informative and often will have stories that have not caught the attention of mainstream media, especially those which are international in scope."

Wow, I would have to disagree strongly with that statement.  I have found their stories to often be way beyond bias and at times filled with egregious errors.  What is worse, they do not respond at all to any requests for correction, even the most obvious.   They seem to be accountable to no one.  I honestly find their treatment here of Lively to be quite in line with their standard operating procedure. Of course, that doesn’t make it any more excusable

I challenge that statement. There are many lay voices of the RCC, and I have seen no “blessing” of LifeSite as any unofficial or official voice of anything except for its membership.

Yes, the Catholic Church has sided with evil on many occasions. Far too many occasions.

And yet it does not always do so. Often the church chooses instead to do good, help the poor, and be a champion for the oppressed.

So it is sad when we see it happen yet again.

I’m Irish, and will say that your last paragraph is merely absurd. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church sided with evil a long time ago.

TRiG.