Who they are

First, let us say what this document is not. It is not, as the NY Times described it, a situation in which “Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues“. Indeed, this is but a segment of Christian thought, claiming the mantle of Christian history and tradition but excluding broad segments of the faith.

One need only glance at the signatories to know the nature of the alliance. Present are some who are well known names in the political culture wars who have long striven to impose their religious views by force of law on the unbelievers: Dr. James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Gary Bauer, and Tony Perkins. Some are religious leaders who have been recently shifting their realm of influence away from faith towards secular domination: Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Albert Mohler, and Jonathan Falwell.

But this is not just broadly social conservatives. There is, instead, a concentration of those who focus on “opposing the homosexual agenda”. There are a few religious activists who seem dedicated and committed (obsessed, one might think) to fighting equality for gay people: Ken Hutcherson, Bishop Harry Jackson, and Jim Garlow. And then, inexplicably, some who are not religious leaders at all but social activists whose primary occupation is in seeking the political institutionalizing of inequality to gay people: Maggie Gallagher, Frank Schubert, and William Donohue.

Perhaps the most difficult to explain, and by far the most troubling name present, is The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, Primate, Anglican Church of Nigeria.

There is no explanation provided as to what relevance Akinola has on what is a uniquely American collection. But his participation is not accidental. And, as I will discuss momentarily, his is perhaps the key that explains the true nature of this manifesto.

This could be seen as nothing more that “the usual suspects”, a rehashing of the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition or any other of the loose groupings of religious authoritarians, were it not for one import inclusion. There are nine Catholic Archbishops who signed on to this document.

Ideologically as dissimilar as possible, these two Christian extremes – one whose doctrine is based in tradition, liturgy, and hierarchy, the other whose doctrine is based in reform, spirit-led worship, and direct divine revelation – have set aside ancient hostilities and theological beliefs that doubt the other’s right to be considered “Christian” and have now joined in a common purpose: denying your rights.

But as important as who is present, is who is absent.

Among the signatories I was unable to find any members of the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Friends (Quaker), Disciples of Christ, Unitarian Universalists or American Baptists. There was one United Methodist minister.

In short, a whole branch of Christianity, Mainline Christianity, was missing, including many who no doubt would agree with the goals of banning abortion and forbidding same-sex marriage. This exclusion is, I believe, integral to understanding the true purpose of this manifesto.

The agreed upon issues

While this alliance is one that does not reflect the face of Christianity, it also is not a declaration of a new-found position of agreement based on shared Christian teaching and ideology. There is no mention of shared faith in creeds or teachings, no virgin birth, no resurrection, no divine redemption.

Rather, this is a statement of political purpose by an alliance of socially conservative activist who oppose abortion and marriage equality. Indeed, although the document speaks in lofty terms of Christian tradition and religious freedom, the only commitments it makes are to oppose legal abortion (some day down the road) and the immediate attack on the ability of gay people to avail themselves of civil equality.

This is, in short a political alliance. It is a pact and a threat.

What it means

While on the face of it, this manifesto purports to be a rededication to fight two specific political issues, I think that this is but surface dressing for a deeper meaning.

This is not a war over civil marriage definition – nor, indeed, has that ever been the real motivation behind anti-gay marriage drives. Rather, this is a war over religious domination, a fight over who is “really a Christian” and an effort on the part of a long-suffering religious subset to spite those who have long had what they coveted.

Political power in the United States had long been in the hands of what is now called Mainline Christianity. Our presidents have included over a dozen Episcopalians (as is the National Cathedral), about ten Presbyterians, with most of the rest being Methodists, Unitarians, Disciples of Christ, and Quakers.

There has been exactly one Catholic. There have been four Baptists, of whom the two Southern Baptists were Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. There have been no Pentecostals and no members of mega-Churches. In fact, though some Republican presidents have been religious and conservative, there has never been a President of the United States that was both denominationally and ideologically within the fold represented by the signatories of this Manhattan Declaration.

And now they want theirs. And, not content at the rise of their own political power, they will not be happy unless they can diminish those denominations whom they seek to replace.

Note the presence of the second signatory, Peter Akinola? He is the Nigerian Anglican who has been missionizing the United States in an effort to hurt the Episcopal Church. His inclusion is a very clear message sent to the EC that they are a target for the Catholic Church and the evangelical churches who will use whatever political power they may wield in the future to thwart her position in the nation.

This manifesto is, I believe, less a declaration of war on gay people and those with unplanned pregnancies than it is a declaration of war on other Christian faiths.

One absence that seems to confirm this alliance is a denomination that one might have expected to be quick to affirm its commitment to the right to life and protection of the family. But there are no representatives from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). The exclusion of this church, considered by most conservatives to be “NOT Christian”, suggest that this manifesto has less to do with social goals and more to do with Christian definition.

This manifesto says, in effect, “We are the Christians. We are the ‘heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word’, and we alone will speak for the faith.”

What the manifesto reveals

In addition to highlighting the division in the Christian body, there are also some clues as to future items on the agenda of this newly affirmed political alliance. Here is how I translate some of their declarations.

we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government … truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike

Only lip service will be paid to the shared objection to abortion. Little time, money, or political capital will be spent on this already lost goal. However, should opportunity ever swing in their direction, they will stop at nothing short of a full ban on all abortions without any consideration of rape, quality of life, or the life of the mother.

But absent the abortion issue, these allies have but one other shared issue: attacking you and your life.

Around the globe … take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS

The situations in Nigeria and Uganda are not accidental nor unrelated to the efforts of conservative Americans. Although virtually all of the spread of AIDS in Africa is related to heterosexuality, this will be an excuse to pass draconian laws seeking to repress, incarcerate, or execute gay men and women.

In addition to being a slam against the Episcopal Church, the inclusion of Akinola announces that pogroms against gay Africans will have the endorsement of both the Catholic Church and conservative evangelical churches.

We should not expect the calls for criminal prosecution of gay people to be limited to foreign soil. Should such a fervor be fostered internationally, it is unquestionable that this will lend support to efforts to reinstate or bolster oppression here.

It is no longer a matter of curiosity that the Catholic Church has not spoken out against the Kill Gays bill in Uganda. Nor had Dr. Mohler or Dr. Dobson. Nor, indeed, has any signatory of this document.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships … there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships … Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital … the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships

The Manhattan document does not in any place refer to same-sex relationships without simultaneously mentioning multiple-party relationships. This will no doubt translate to a new commitment on the part of the signatories to try and tie the two together in their political campaigns.

Frankly, I wish them godspeed in that decision. Americans have, I believe, moved beyond the point in which gay couples are viewed as identical to polygamists.

as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

This probably tells us nothing but the extent to which these people are self-righteous and truly deeply smarmy. They are willing, lovingly, to sacrifice your life and freedom and equality, not their own. Oh how loving. Oh how Christ-like.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

There are, as we all know, no requirements for any churches or ministers to act contrary to their faith. We have long since debunked their claims of oppression and shown them to be nothing more than a retraction of special privilege when the religious groups in question wanted to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate against gay taxpayers. There are no instances in their recitation in which religious groups were forced to compromise in any areas of faith in the administration of their own funds or time.

That is of no consequence. Liars lie. We expect the morally bankrupt to behave without integrity.

But what I think we can anticipate, based on their conclusion, is a concerted effort at political stuntery. A dedication to dishonesty. And an ongoing campaign of lies.

As a Christian, it distresses me to see the name of my faith and the mantle of its history usurped by those who have no respect for its greater principles but instead gleefully glom onto its darker bloody history. Rather than exalt in the liberties that have evolved from Christian thought, they seek to equate the faith with its most prejudicial, superstitious, exclusionary and dictatorial moments.

But perhaps something good may come of this.

It is possible that out of this declaration of war, the moderate and liberal branches of the faith may find common cause, if nothing else in defense of their own good name. Perhaps they will decide that they have a purpose and meaning in modern America and will let go of residual guilt and angst and take up the mantle of protector of the oppressed and champion of justice and mercy.

Let us hope and pray that they do.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to gay couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.

The court rejected an argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy but avoided declaring that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.

In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage but encouraged the Legislature to settle the issue. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Is that Scott Lively in the background of the picture?

Why yes, it is Scott Lively, second to the left, standing next to Gary Cass.The full picture is below. Click on it to enlarge and see for yourself.

Rick Scarborough speaking, with Gary Cass and Scott Lively behind him at left.

Scott Lively is the author of the Pink Swastika, in which he charges that the Nazi movement was, at its core, a homosexual movement, and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While speaking at the anti-gay conference in Kampala, he blamed the Rwandan genocide on “butch” gay men.

And that’s barely the tip of the iceberg. He is associated with not just one, not two, but three of just eleven organizations identified by the SPLC as a hate group (He co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, founded Abiding Truth Ministries, and he is now the leader of the School of Christian Activism). If that weren’t enough, he spoke at a banquet last winter for a fourth SPLC hate group, MassResistance. This man knows hate speech backwards and forwards. And if he can’t get arrested in Washington for violating a non-existent hate speech law, nobody can.

Conservative pastors rallied outside the Justice Department on Monday to test the limits of the newly expanded hate crimes law.

Calling the new law – which broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity – a clear threat to religious liberty, the group sought to defend their freedom to proclaim biblical truths.

They were certain that preaching against homosexuality is now illegal. And they were there to be martyrs for their faith.

But there were no arrests. No one had to join the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther King by writing from the jail cell to proclaim God’s glorious truth.

Police were present, just as they are at all such public demonstrations. But, as Dana Milbank of the Washington Post noted they had better things to do:

Anything other than sex “between a male and his wedded wife,” announced the Rev. Paul Blair, “is a perversion, and the Bible says that homosexuality is in fact an abomination.”

No arrest was made.

The Rev. Rick Scarborough, quoting Scripture, listed “homosexual offenders” along with thieves, drunkards, swindlers and idolators as those unwelcome in the kingdom of God. “To fail to call homosexuals to repent of their sin and come to Jesus is the highest form of cowardice and sin,” he said.

No charges were filed.

“Had people listened to our plea, there would be tens of thousands of people who had not died of a dreaded disease,” contributed the Rev. Jim Garlow. “This breaks our heart to see people die of AIDS.”

No hands were cuffed. In fact, the few cops in attendance were paying no attention to the speakers, instead talking among themselves and checking their BlackBerrys.

And, indeed, the cops were not interested because no crime was being committed. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act does not infringe on religious liberty or ban preaching against homosexuality or anything else they fear. The only time a minister need fear the law is if he is actively instigating violent attacks on gay people.

But this reality is wasted on these activists. Even though their bait drew no bite, they remain convinced that Christianity is being criminalized. (Citizenlink)

Gary Cass, president and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, said pastors who preach from the Bible could be held accountable if someone hears their sermon and then commits a crime against a gay-identified individual.

“It puts the burden on the minister to have to read the minds of the people that are listening to him and be able to predict the future,” he said. “It has a very chilling effect on the minister’s speech, because the safest thing is to just say nothing.”

And Janet Folger trumpeted her warning on WorldNetDaily

Unfortunately, it’s too late for our freedom of speech, as so-called “hate crimes” legislation already passed Congress and was signed by Barack Obama into law as a part of the defense budget. That is why I stood with pastors like Rick Scarborough of Vision America, Mat Staver and Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel, Oklahoma Pastor Paul Blair, San Diego Pastor Jim Garlow, Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, Bishop Earl Jackson of Stand America, and others on the steps of the Department of Justice yesterday afternoon speaking out against the law that has already laid the foundation for the Criminalization of Christianity, as I warned about in my book by that same title.

It can be difficult to understand exactly why these activists ignore the opinions of legal scholars who assure them that no such arrests will be made. It is odd that Christian voices calling for reason are ignored. It seems incomprehensible that a simple reading of the Constitution and the language of the law itself (which specifically excludes anti-gay preaching and teaching) would not assuage their fears.

But then something began to seem familiar.

You see, I’ve tried to have a conversation with a crystal methamphetamine addict who hadn’t slept in days. He explained why there was tinfoil over the windows and even the shower vent. He was worried that there might be a man hiding behind the stereo which was flush with the wall. Even though on a conscious level he knew and could sheepishly admit that his fears were baseless, the meth in his system compelled a paranoia which he simply could not ignore.

With him, there was a logical reason to explain his irrational thinking. It was chemically induced.

But why are these anti-gay activists convinced, against all evidence to the contrary, that preaching against homosexuality is now illegal? How do we explain their irrational thinking and baseless paranoia?

Surely they aren’t all meth-heads.

Right?

While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.

Written as it is by an organization which is does not affirm the dignity and worth of LGBT people to live their lives responsibly in freedom and self-determination, there is certainly much in this letter that merits criticism. Furthermore, the letter makes no recommendations except to “consider the influence this law will have” on the work of those who believe that the only valid option for LGBT people is to self-deny their own existence. The “influence” this law will have on LGBT people themselves, well that’s apparently inconsequential and not worthy of discussion.

Content-wise, there is almost nothing I can agree with. But then, this letter wasn’t written by an LGBT advocacy group, nor was it written on behalf or in defense of LGBT people. It was written by an organization who wants to make gay people straight – an already improbable task from a practical standpoint, soon to be made impossible by the legal impediments this law would impose. From that viewpoint, this letter makes their case well. 

Besides, the contents of this letter shouldn’t allow us to refrain from both acknowledging its importance and welcoming its tardy arrival. For more than eight months after Exodus board member Don Schmierer participated in a conference in Kampala which fanned the flames of hatred that brings us to where we are today, Exodus remained officially silent. This letter breaks that long and exasperating silence. The damage done by eight months of silence won’t be fixed by a single letter, but it’s a start in the right direction. And as first steps go, this is a very good first step.

But to really be meaningful, this letter needs to be followed up with more actions and statements. I have a suggestion: The Observer, The Independent and The Monitor, all independent Ugandan newspapers, have printed letters and op-ed columns criticizing the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act. I’m sure they’d be interested in the opinions of an American evangelical leader who presents himself as an expert in homosexuality and wants to approach the subject “with grace and truth.”

Will Exodus follow up with more action? Given the stonewalling we’ve seen to date, I’m not willing to place any bets. It seems to me as though they are looking for ways to do as little as possible, but just enough to inoculate themselves from criticism. This letter, by itself, is not an inoculation. Many more boosters will be needed. Eight months of silence is too long a trend to reverse in one shot. Besides, it’s not about criticism from us and other LGBT advocates that should be the issue. It’s the lives at stake in Uganda, lives made much more precarious following a certain conference last March.

BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda:
Nov 16: Exodus Sends Letter To Uganda President
Nov 14: Anglican’s Communion’s Tangled Connections To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Pogrom
Nov 11: Nigerian calls on Anglican Communion to oppose Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill
Nov 9: Uganda’s Most Wanted
Nov 9: Uganda’s “Kill Gays” bill is “Providing Leadership to the World”
Nov 9: More American Evangelical Ties To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Politicians
Nov 7: The “Biblical” Worldwide Anglican Communion
Nov 6: Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill
Nov 6: Uganda Women’s Group: “Kill the Gays”
Nov 2: Throckmorton Appeals to Ugandan Christians
Nov 2: US Reps Condemn Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Nov 2: Uganda Parliament Committee, Religious Leaders Weigh Death Penalty for LGBT People
Oct 28: Uganda Religious Leaders All Calling for Anti-Gay Bill… But Maybe Not Death
Oct 28: A Call for Christian Action in Uganda — A Time to Show the Love
Oct 23: Uganda Civil Rights Coalition Denounces Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 22: Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Put Off Until 2010
Oct 18: Take Action: Tell Uganda To Respect Human Rights And Dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 17: Uganda’s Daily Monitor: All Ugandans Should Fear Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 16: Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Oct 15: Human Rights Watch, Sexual Minorities Uganda Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 15: Here It Is: The Text of Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 14: Uganda Parliament Takes Up Anti-Gay Bill Adding Death Sentence and Bans on Free Speech”
Sep 15: Draft Anti-Gay Bill Circulating In Uganda
Jul 26: Uganda Parliament To Take Up Bill Banning LGBT Free Speech
Jul 6: Sports Figure Latest Victim Of Ugandan Anti-Gay Offensive
Jul 3: Uganda May Ban All LGBT Advocacy
Jun 1: Nazi Comparisons
May 14: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings”
May 4: Uganda Gays Arrested, Blackmail Attempts Reported
Apr 24: Uganda Anti-Gay Activists March, “Storm Parliament”
Apr 20: Alan Chambers Addresses Developments In Uganda
Apr 19: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing
Apr 17: Uganda Government Attacks Human Rights Groups for “Promoting Homosexuality”
Apr 10: Uganda Columnist: “Happy Easter …Irrespective of Sexual Orientation”
Apr 6: Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric
Apr 3: Uganda to Ban LGBT Advocacy?
Apr 2: Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests
Apr 2: Press Release from Ugandan LGBT Advocacy Group
Mar 31: Forced Outings Continue As Uganda LGBT Advocates Allege Oundo Is In It For The Money
Mar 31: Uganda Activist Cites Disbarred “Therapist” As Authority on Homosexuality
Mar 30: Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands
Mar 27: Videos Surface of Ugandan Activist Stirring Anti-Gay Fervor; Fears of Violence Grows
Mar 26: Ugandan Gov’t Poised to Take “Stern Action” Against Gays
Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign
Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement
Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda
Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate
Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal
Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing
Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert
Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference
Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference
Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus
Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference
Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence
Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors
Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”
Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site
Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference
Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two
Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five
Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy
Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference
Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference
Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists
Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

Archbishop of York John Sentamu, the number two man in the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Church is the predominant Christian denomination in Uganda, making its voice an exceptionally important one as the bill is debated. One would think that with the draconian nature of this proposed legislation, a denunciation would be easy. But so far it hasn’t been forthcoming, save for some reservations about the death penalty. Other than that, the Anglican Church’s official spokesperson in Uganda has been largely supportive of the bill, while the worldwide Anglican Communion has remained silent. This despite public calls for a statement against the bill directed toward Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, head of the Anglican Union, as well as the Archbishop of York John Sentamu, who is the number two man in the Anglican Communion. Sentamu, who was born and raised in Uganda, has already vowed to remain silent on the Ugandan proposals now before Parliament.

Why stay silent in the face of such obvious evil? Good question, and it turns out the answer looks like a tale that one would only expect to find in the most outrageous soap operas.

Uganda megachurch pastor Robert Kayanja, younger brother of the Archbishop of York.

It turns out that Archbishop Semtamu is the older brother of a megachurch pastor by the name of Robert Kayanja. If that name rings a bell, it may be because we reported last May that Kayanja, a wealthy and powerful pastor of the Rubaga Miracle Center in Kampala, was accused of being gay by rival pastors led Solomon Male. Kayanja’s personal aide was allegedly kidnapped and tortured by armed men and held for five days, as his captors demanded that he make a video accusing Kayanja of sodomy. Kayanja accused another rival, Pastor Michael Kyazze of the Omega Healing Center of being behind the plot.

Pastor Martin Ssempa, who has been the recipient of US HIV/AIDS prevention funding and has past ties to American megachurch pastor Rick Warren, also played a prominent role in the accusations against Kayanja, as well as other well-known pastors in Uganda.

Police investigated Kayanja and found the charges baseless, although its unclear what role his donations for refurbishing police barracks or his close ties with Uganda President Yoweri Museveni may have played in the investigation. But at any rate, it appears that Kayanja is now officially in the clear, while Ssempa, Male and others were investigated for providing false accusations to police. A police report released last August called for Ssempa and the other false accusers to be brought up on criminal charges.

So does Kayanja’s brush with deadly-serious accusations of homosexuality explain the silence of the Archbishop of York, Kayanja’s brother, on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill? Or is it merely the same blatant hatred of LGBT people that infects much of Uganda’s religious community that is holding Archbishop Semantu’s tongue? And how does the silence of the Communion’s second in command affect the Archbishop of Canterbury’s refusal to address these life-and-death developments in one of the Church’s most active countries?

We can expect more false accusations and score settling should the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act become law, with its requirement that anyone who knows someone is gay report that individual to local police. We can also expect the Act to fuel further public vigilante campaigns against private Ugandan citizens similar to the one waged by the tabloid Red Pepper last April.

L-R: Unidentified woman, American holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, International Healing Foundation's Caleb Brundidge, Exodus International boardmember Don Schmierer, Family Life Network (Uganda)'s Stephen Langa, at the time of the March 2009 anti-gay conference in Uganda.

Meanwhile, the largest components of worldwide Christianity remain silent, while others actively stoke the hatred and antagonisms fueling this year’s anti-gay pogrom. Active American participants in this current campaign have included Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, Holocaust Revisionist Scott Lively, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Brundidge, who kicked off the latest spasm with a three-day anti-gay conference held in Kampala last March. The College of Prayer’s Fred Hartly has direct ties to the two Members of Parliament who are cosponsoring the proposed bill. And the U.S based shadow Christian group known as “The Family” or “The Fellowship” has identified Uganda President Museveni as “their man in Uganda.” I’m not one for wild conspiracy theories, but watching all of this unfold is simply breathtaking. And with the Anglican Communion’s continued silence on the issue, they are becoming complicit in this bloody web as well.

[Hat tip: Gay Uganda]

BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda:
Nov 14: Anglican’s Communion’s Tangled Connections To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Pogrom
Nov 11: Nigerian calls on Anglican Communion to oppose Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill
Nov 9: Uganda’s Most Wanted
Nov 9: Uganda’s “Kill Gays” bill is “Providing Leadership to the World”
Nov 9: More American Evangelical Ties To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Politicians
Nov 7: The “Biblical” Worldwide Anglican Communion
Nov 6: Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill
Nov 6: Uganda Women’s Group: “Kill the Gays”
Nov 2: Throckmorton Appeals to Ugandan Christians
Nov 2: US Reps Condemn Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Nov 2: Uganda Parliament Committee, Religious Leaders Weigh Death Penalty for LGBT People
Oct 28: Uganda Religious Leaders All Calling for Anti-Gay Bill… But Maybe Not Death
Oct 28: A Call for Christian Action in Uganda — A Time to Show the Love
Oct 23: Uganda Civil Rights Coalition Denounces Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 22: Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Put Off Until 2010
Oct 18: Take Action: Tell Uganda To Respect Human Rights And Dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 17: Uganda’s Daily Monitor: All Ugandans Should Fear Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 16: Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Oct 15: Human Rights Watch, Sexual Minorities Uganda Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 15: Here It Is: The Text of Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 14: Uganda Parliament Takes Up Anti-Gay Bill Adding Death Sentence and Bans on Free Speech”
Sep 15: Draft Anti-Gay Bill Circulating In Uganda
Jul 26: Uganda Parliament To Take Up Bill Banning LGBT Free Speech
Jul 6: Sports Figure Latest Victim Of Ugandan Anti-Gay Offensive
Jul 3: Uganda May Ban All LGBT Advocacy
Jun 1: Nazi Comparisons
May 14: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings”
May 4: Uganda Gays Arrested, Blackmail Attempts Reported
Apr 24: Uganda Anti-Gay Activists March, “Storm Parliament”
Apr 20: Alan Chambers Addresses Developments In Uganda
Apr 19: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing
Apr 17: Uganda Government Attacks Human Rights Groups for “Promoting Homosexuality”
Apr 10: Uganda Columnist: “Happy Easter …Irrespective of Sexual Orientation”
Apr 6: Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric
Apr 3: Uganda to Ban LGBT Advocacy?
Apr 2: Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests
Apr 2: Press Release from Ugandan LGBT Advocacy Group
Mar 31: Forced Outings Continue As Uganda LGBT Advocates Allege Oundo Is In It For The Money
Mar 31: Uganda Activist Cites Disbarred “Therapist” As Authority on Homosexuality
Mar 30: Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands
Mar 27: Videos Surface of Ugandan Activist Stirring Anti-Gay Fervor; Fears of Violence Grows
Mar 26: Ugandan Gov’t Poised to Take “Stern Action” Against Gays
Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign
Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement
Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda
Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate
Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal
Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing
Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert
Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference
Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference
Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus
Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference
Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence
Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors
Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”
Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site
Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference
Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two
Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five
Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy
Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference
Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference
Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists
Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

Other denunciations were more conventional. The American Family Association of Michigan’s Gary Glenn sputtered that the Church’s position was “grossly ignorant.” The Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg charged that the Church was “bend[ing] over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way.” Peter LaBarbera wailed that the church’s stance may mark “the ‘official’ split of the American pro-family movement against homosexuality into two camps,” with only one camp holding fast to unadulterated, no-holds-barred, anti-gay warfare — the only stance he finds acceptable. LaBarbera also worries:

If churches back “gay rights” (and the LDS is hardly the first), is there some truth to the idea that those of us who remain opposed to ALL aspects of the “GLBT agenda” are “bigots” or somehow extreme in our worldview?

Increasingly, the answer to LaBarbara’s question is self-evident. If someone opposes ALL aspects (as LaBarbera emphatically stipulates) of recognizing the humanity of any people — whoever they may be — then yes, they are bigots and extremists. That’s pretty much the definition. There’s no other way to put it. And whenever a major denomination like the LDS church can frame a question like this through its actions with such stark clarity, we all benefit.

• Peter LaBarbera hailed Carrie Prejean as one who “sought to please God rather than politically-correct man.”
• Randy Thomasson gushed that she “is the #1 voice in America educating people that there is a war against free speech and against marriage.”
• Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily called Prejean “an example for all believers torn between conformity to the world’s standards and honoring God’s standards.”
• The National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher signed her up as spokesperson for the organization, saying she was, “very proud of [Carrie] and look forward to cheering from the sidelines about all the important things she will accomplish and all the people she will inspire to speak truth to power.”
• Brian Brown boasted that “She’s a young woman of great beauty who chose truth over the glittering tiara that Hollywood offers… her values are in the right place.”

I guess that “right place” must be her chicha, if her 30 nude photos and eight sex tapes are any indication:

On one tape Carrie is wearing just a flowing white blouse as she touches her own body in an alluring manner.  Carrie can be heard moaning on a few of the tapes.

In her newly released book Carrie wrote, “God gave us our bodies, and it’s perfectly right that we use them in ways where we can give glory to God by making our bodies, our temples of the Holy Spirit, strong and fast.”

An example of Prejean “giving glory to God” may be coming to a porn site near you. She may need to pursue that career option more fully now that her book tour has been canceled.

A statement by a coalition of West Lafayette rights groups, Pride Lafayette and the Purdue Queer Student Union said it supports free speech.

“Supporting free speech does not mean that there are no consequences for such statements,” the statement said. “While it’s clear that all individuals have the right to print anything they wish regardless of the lack of value or research, it’s also true that statements in print (or in this case online) should be rejected and called out when they damage a segment of the community.”

But, as appears to be a growing attitude among anti-gay activists, Chapman believe that freedom of speech exempts their speech from criticism. He, and other anti-gay professors around the country, see this exposure of his attitudes as “censorship” and Chapman as a victim.

Jonathan Katz, a St. Louis-based Washington University professor, enraged many on that campus by his “defense of homophobia” on his personal blog and said Chapman is a victim.

“You see here bullying and an attempt at censorship by a pressure group that is afraid of speech that disagrees with its position,” Katz said. “Bullying dissenters by calling for their dismissal is routine. If people let themselves be dissuaded by bullying from exercising their right of free speech, then that right will atrophy, and we will lose it.”

And like many anti-gay activists, Chapman appears to see his attack on “homosexuality” to be unassociated with any actual gay persons. He’s just attacking “a lifestyle”, not those who “live that lifestyle”, you see.

Yet gay people are about as receptive to vile denunciations of a homosexual lifestyle as Latinos are to a stereotyped attack on “the Latino lifestyle” or Greeks are to calls to deny spending on those who live “the Greek lifestyle” in favor of those who adhere to traditional non-Greek standards. Such careful phrasing only creates a distinction without a difference.

Just as denunciations of “people who wear yarmulkes” is no different from antisemitism, so too does “condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle” in the terms used by Chapman equate to anti-gay ranting.

But Chapman pretends that his opinions, just being opinions you know, should not reflect on him and should have caused no concern at all.

Chapman said he was surprised at the backlash his blog had caused in the pages of the daily campus newspaper, which has run several letters calling for his job. Hearing rumors of a student protest, he said he wished the matter would simply go away.

Well that’s the funny thing about an unprovoked attack on your students. They aren’t much inclined to laugh it off or let it “simply go away”.