Box Turtle Bulletin

Pope’s “Gentleman” caught in gay prostitution ring

Timothy Kincaid

March 4th, 2010

Angelo Balducci is a Papal Gentlemen, a ceremonial usher of the household of Pope Benedict XVI. He’s also corrupt and “intrinsically evil”.

During an investigation into Balducci’s taking of bribes for public works projects, another vice was discovered (Guardian):

The Vatican was today rocked by a sex scandal reaching into Pope Benedict’s household after a chorister was sacked for allegedly procuring male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.

Angelo Balducci, a Gentleman of His Holiness, was caught by police on a wiretap allegedly negotiating with Thomas Chinedu Ehiem, a 29-year-old Vatican chorister, over the specific physical details of men he wanted brought to him. Transcripts in the possession of the Guardian suggest that numerous men may have been procured for Balducci, at least one of whom was studying for the priesthood.

The very idea of homosexual prostitution in the Vatican make me… yawn.

UK: we’re going to the chapel (or synogogue)

Timothy Kincaid

March 3rd, 2010

From the Times:

The House of Lords voted to lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in churches and other religious premises last night.

Peers voted by 95 to 21 – a majority of 74 – to lift the ban which previously prevented gays and lesbians from getting “married” in such places.

This amendment, which only applies to churches that endorse same-sex ceremonies, lifts one of the last distinctions between civil partnerships and marriage. The commons has yet to approve the change but that is fairly certain.

Startling discoveries about Lauren Ashley

Timothy Kincaid

February 26th, 2010

When the Pop Tart at Fox News first broke the story about how Lauren Ashley, the self-titled “Miss Beverly Hills”, opposed marriage equality, they played into her quest for that elusive minute and a half of fame.

Since then she’s been denounced by the city of Beverly Hills and pretty much anyone else with a blog and a sense of humor.

But now she has spoken with NBC Ch 4 to clarify that she does really mean that the Bible should be taken literally. And in the process sh revealed a number of exciting revelations to report.

There’s the discovery that Lauren seems not to be able to quote the scripture she “quoted” to Fox News. In fact, she doesn’t know much about it other than that it was “from Leviticus”.

There was the exciting news that in Christianity there is “forgiveness and receipt* from Jesus, himself” which gives new meaning to “be sure to keep your receipt.” But she was a bit stumped when asked, “if they get to know Jesus, can they remain gay?”

But perhaps the most startling revelation of all is that apparently, Lauren Ashley seems to only own one top!

UPDATE:

No, Timothy, no. Jesus doesn’t give a receipt, he gives mercy. Mercy.

Sigh. It was so much more fun when I thought she said ‘receipt’.

The great Lutheran schism that wasn’t

Timothy Kincaid

February 26th, 2010

When the Episcopal Church confirmed Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire even though Robinson was in a long-term committed relationship with a man, it resulted in a world-wide shake-up of the Anglican faith. Several congregations, including some with historical reverence, separated from the denomination. Three dioceses voted to leave the church, and legal battles have warred over church property. In total, the Episcopal schism included as many as 700 congregations and in excess of 100,000 congregants.

Internationally, this decision was catalyst for a split between more liberal Western members of the Anglicanism and the churches in the Global South. Primates in Africa and Asia, which have more congregants but are poorer and traditionally less influential have seen this as an opportunity to redefine the global power structure of the Anglican Communion and to redirect the flow of Anglican Christianity in a more conservative direction.

The Episcopal Church, and other western bodies of the union, have shown no inclination to rethink their liberal understanding of Christianity or to adopt anti-gay attitudes or rules that the Bishops of Nigeria and Uganda (among others) sought to dictate. But having had a taste of international prominence and influence, conservative African Anglican leaders are unlikely to “allow” Anglicans in the United States, Canada, or even the United Kingdom to set their own policies. It seems inevitable that the corporate structure of the third largest Christian community in the world will fracture.

So when the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the seventh largest denomination in the nation, came together in August of last year to consider several changes to the way in which the church would recognize gay Lutherans, some pointed to the Episcopal schism and warned of the same. And after the ELCA voted to adopt a new social position on sexuality that included as valid those who advocate for full civil marriage, changed their rules to allow gay partnered pastors, and authorized blessings of same-sex unions (all with significant majorities), dissenters warned of a great consequence that the church would have to pay.

Six months have passed since the denomination chose a more inclusive stance towards gay Lutherans. And while several local newspapers have carried stories about positions and actions of specific congregations, it has not been immediately clear to what extent the changes have impacted the body. But an article in the Washington Post has now provided the answer: not much.

Since August, congregations have not left the ELCA in huge numbers. The denomination has about 10,000 congregations, and in all 220 have taken at least one of two required votes to leave. So far, only 28 congregations have actually approved leaving, which requires two separate votes that each attain a two-thirds supermajority.

“Even if that number doubles or triples, it would still be less than 5 percent of the ELCA,” said Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul, Minn. synod. “So it’s not as though a schism has happened, where we’re a denomination split in half. Nothing on that magnitude is in the offing.”

So the great Lutheran schism exists more in the minds of those who are theologically anti-gay than in reality. Considering that Lutherans, on the whole, are less liberal on the grand scale of religious ideology than Episcopalians, this might come as a surprise to some.

But there are several reasons why the ELCA is not fracturing over the issue of homosexuality in the church.

First, there are far fewer ELCA member with sharp ideological differences but a long affiliation to the history of the denomination.

Unlike the Episcopal Church, there is not one official historical organizational body for Lutherans. While ELCA is the largest Lutheran community, there are many others including the traditionally more conservative Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (the nation’s eighth largest denominational body). And the ELCA has only been in existence since 1988, when it was the result of a merger of three smaller Lutheran groups. And those who were somewhat similar in thought probably would not have merged at that time.

Secondly, leaving the ELCA is not administratively easy. It requires a two-thirds agreement of congregants in two votes separated by 90 days. It is not easy to keep a sense of anger whipped up for three months.

And Lutherans are not known as a divisive or confrontational bunch. The “oh, sure, you betcha” stereotypes are not without a basis. In more than one instance, church leadership got all fired up only do discover that the members just didn’t care that much.

Next, there is no unified schismatic organization to lobby for continued division.

Unlike the Episcopal offshoot, The Anglican Church in North America, those who left or are leaving the ELCA have a number of options with whom to affiliate. The Lutheran Core, which sought to be the anti-ELCA, moved too slowly to create their own new community and with so many Lutheran groups focused on the positive who are ready to welcome breakaways, it is less easy to organize around anger and discontent.

Finally, there is no sense of international outrage and thus no feeling of entitlement in breakaways or any sense that they are the “real” Lutherans.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is part of the Lutheran World Federation. But unlike the Anglican Church, Lutherans are more dominant in Northern Europe and have a much lesser presence in the developing world (other than Ethiopia, which seems to have been a religious anomaly for millennia). As the ‘official church’ of a number of Scandinavian countries, Lutherans in Sweden, and Norway, Denmark have long since become accustomed to ever more inclusive theology.

Going forward, other denominations may be well served by looking at the resulting situation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rather than that of the Episcopal Church. The Lutheran model is probably much closer in structure and international presence to most other mainline churches.

NOM latches onto “Miss Beverly Hills”

Timothy Kincaid

February 25th, 2010

Oh you saw coming, didn’t you? You just had to know that Maggie Gallagher would see the lovely Lauren Ashley, hear her opposition to marriage equality, and see an opportunity to create a new martyr. (Fox News)

And while the City of Beverly Hills is shunning the pageant princess, she has garnered strong support from the National Organization for Marriage.

“I’m not surprised that Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, opposes gay marriage — after all 45 percent of young Californians voted for Prop 8, as did 7 million Californians generally,” the organization’s president, Maggie Gallagher, told us. “But I have to say, I am impressed with her courage in coming forward and for speaking up for Carrie. The elected officials of city of Beverly Hills are not demonstrating tolerance or kindness by continuing the avalanche of hatred against supporters of Prop 8.”

Ah, such courage it took to fill out the paperwork, claim a city she doesn’t live in, call up a news reporter for a conservative network, and desperately beg for attention. Yeah, courage, un-huh.

But Maggie should be careful. The last time she latched onto a paragon of heterosexual-only virtue it turned out that she had her own sex tape. Who knows what this little delusional attention-starved girl has in her closet?

Religious Groups in UK beg for religious marriage freedom

Timothy Kincaid

February 23rd, 2010

Marriage equality is a freedom of religion issue. Currently, in most US states, the voters have acted under pressure from some religious entities to deny the rights of other religious entities to have their sacraments accorded the same respect and legal standing. Your Congregational Church or Reformed Synagogue may conduct holy vows and say sacred prayers that have been a part of their faith for centuries, but socially conservative Christian denominations have convinced civil government that they, and only they, get to determine what is defined as marriage.

In the United Kingdom, things are both better and worse. Better, because the civil government does allow for civil partnerships that are in most ways identical to marriage. And better because most of the citizenry sees these unions as being weddings.

But the UK is worse in that civil partnerships cannot take place in premises that are either designed for, or are in use mainly for, religious purposes. And they cannot include language that is sacramental and churches are barred from offering blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

That is an unequivocal violation of the religious freedoms of those churches which wish to sanctify, solemnize, and bless the union of their same-sex parishioners. And three have come forward to protest.

In July of last year we informed you that the Quakers (the Society of Friends) in Britain formally requested that the government change the law to allow them to worship in accordance with their faith. And last month Liberal Judaism joined the Quakers and the Unitarians when Baroness Neuberger, president of Liberal Judaism, called for a change in the law to allow civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in synagogues.

Now these minority religions have received the backing of some powerful allies. A number of leaders in the Church of England have issued a letter in which they call for religious freedom.

Sir, The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises.

And in their call for religious freedom, these Englishmen turn for moral authority to a most curious document:

To deny people of faith the opportunity of registering the most important promise of their lives in their willing church or synagogue, according to its liturgy, is plainly discriminatory. In the US it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise . . . of religion.

The wording of the First Amendment is clear to our friends across the pond; a powerful religion cannot usurp the spiritual independence of smaller communities. Let’s hope that American jurists and political leaders can come to find the obvious meaning in our Constitution.

Lisa Miller is now officially a fugitive

Timothy Kincaid

February 23rd, 2010

On January 1, Miller was to meet Janet Jenkins, with whom her civil union has been terminated, to turn over custody of their daughter Isabella. A court in Vermont, where they were civilly united and where they resided together, had ordered visitation rights to Jenkins and, after years of refusal by Miller, determined that the only way to keep both mothers in Isabella’s life was to reassign primary custody to Jenkins. But Miller went into hiding and hasn’t been seen by her neighbors since September, and the last public communication from Miller was in December, when she passed a message to her supporters though ex-gay leader Debbie Thurman.

Last Tuesday, Judge Harrison of Bedford County Virginia’s Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court chose not to issue an arrest warrant for Lisa Miller. He determined that it could not be proven that Miller was aware of the court order to transfer custody, so he would reward her disrespect for the judicial system by refusing to press criminal charges against her. He scheduled another hearing for May 19.

It is clear that Miller is fully aware of her responsibility to turn over Isabella and to think otherwise requires an amazing suspension of disbelief. The story been covered by newspapers nationwide, and Miller was still in communication with her supporters after the November 20 order was announced. But Miller’s friends swore that they don’t know where she is and the judge chose to give credence to their testimony (I’ll let you decide for yourself whether the reputation of conservative Christians encourages you to trust them or to immediately assume that they are lying through their teeth).

In January, Judge Cohen, the Vermont judge who has been involved with the custody since the breakup, gave Miller’s supporters an additional 30 days to convince her to follow the law. Miller did not show up, so Judge Cohen has now found her in contempt. (WaPo)

Family Court Judge William Cohen found Lisa Miller of Forest, Va., in contempt of court during a hearing Tuesday and issued the arrest warrant.

Considering the entrenched homophobia in Virginia and the political power of Thomas Road Baptist Church, I am not hopeful that the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department will do much to recover Isabella. However, unless I am mistaken, this arrest warrant would allow bounty hunters and private investigators to initiate steps to rescue Isabella from a life on the run with the fugitive Lisa Miller.

ADF: not allowing anti-gay chaplains to dictate policy is unconstitutional

Timothy Kincaid

February 19th, 2010

One of the things I truly hate about political advocacy is the tendency of activists to veer towards hyperbole. The “what if” exceptions become the arguments of likelihood or commonality. The minor and slightly inconvenient are expressed in terms of extreme hardship or catastrophic abuse.

But sometimes claims and statements reach beyond rhetoric and oratorical posturing and jump straight to the irrational or the bizarre. And the claims made by the anti-gay legal advocacy group, Alliance Defense Fund, about the unconstitutionality of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military are an example.

On Wednesday, ADF issued a letter to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates stating their position:

… if Chaplains with beliefs that contradict the proposed policy [allowing service of openly gay men and women] are kept from roles that are likely to generate conflict – like preaching or counseling – then they, the faith groups they represent, and the soldiers whose religious beliefs they serve will all be marginalized. The military would effectively establish preferred religions or religious beliefs. This is a Constitutional offense that carries a very pragmatic consequence: just what will happen to recruiting efforts if Christians become second-class soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines.

Setting aside the atrocious grammar, misspellings and errors that are abundant in this letter, let’s look at the logic which ADF displayed. Here is their argument:

• Obama and Mullen seek to overturn a policy which “that prohibits open homosexual behavior while serving in the military.”
• To “affirm homosexual behavior” is to “for the first time in history espouse a military policy that is completely at odds with the morality expressed by many of its chaplains.” (emphasis in original)
• Chaplains have to “abide by applicable laws, and all applicable regulations, directives, and instructions of the Department of Defense and of the Military Department” and also they must represent “specific religious denominations, and are accountable in their ministries to those groups.” But because “orthodox Christianity” does not “affirm homosexual behavior”, then “chaplains with contrary religious beliefs will be forced to choose ‘to obey God or men.’”
• Chaplains would lose the right to deny sacraments, counsel their beliefs, or to preach in opposition to homosexual behavior. They would be forced to “allow soldiers openly engaged in homosexual behavior to lead worship services or serve in other lay leadership roles.”
• This would lead to soldiers being denied the right to worship: “If chaplains are limited in teaching and counseling on their beliefs, then the soldiers who share their faith and rely on their instruction will
  necessarily also suffer a diminished ability to freely exercise their faith.”

This is so nutty that I can’t help but wonder if they even really sent this; surely they know that it would be an embarrassment.

First, the policy has nothing to do with “homosexual behavior”. Anti-gay activists always term their opposition in language of “behavior”, seeking to link every gay issue to “wiggling a penis in excrement“. The way that they get around this military ban being on identity is to define the act of identifying oneself as gay as being “homosexual behavior”. And a change in policy to allow open service has nothing to do with “affirmation.” The military allows its personnel many freedoms that they never “affirm.”

And, as ADF well knows, chaplains are free to preach according to their faith, to counsel on whatever they believe is appropriate, and to encourage such standards of personal morality as they think are appropriate. Any chaplain would be free to tell a soldier, “I think you should give up homosexual sex” just as freely as he is able to tell him, “I think you should give up premarital sex”, or “I think you should give up drinking.” To claim otherwise is disingenuous.

Our military is religiously diverse. And chaplains have found ways to minister to those who disagree on a whole host of issues without having to choose ‘to obey God or men.’

No Catholic chaplain is required to offer sacraments to Wiccans. No Baptist chaplain is required to say the prayers at Seder. Lutheran chaplains need not discuss the truths found in the Book of Mormon, and Pentecostals need not hear confession. But yet they all find a way to meet the spiritual needs – and often just the need for a sympathetic ear and comforting counsel – of folks whom their doctrines declare to be godless sinners dangling over the fires of hell.

It is an insult to chaplains to assume that they can work with Muslims and atheists and newly-converted pacifists, can counsel agnostics and Greek Orthodox and Reform Jews, can worship with Quakers and Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists all without losing their religious freedoms, but if a gay person is in the camp then it all goes out the window.

And finally, the ADF makes the outlandish assumption that the military must accommodate the anti-gay chaplains without any concern for pro-gay chaplains. They ignore the hundreds of chaplains from mainline Christianity or Judaism who believe in civil equality as a matter of the justice provisions of their faith.

Truly, they have it backwards. To establish military policy to accommodate the religious teachings of anti-gay chaplains while disdaining the religious teachings of others, would be an act of establishing religion. To say that we cannot allow gay people in the military because some chaplains are entitled to dictate the military’s official theology would be an unconscionable slur on the intents and purposes of the First Amendment.

Cardinal: Politicians Who Support Marriage Equality Are No Longer Catholic

Jim Burroway

February 17th, 2010

An Italian Cardinal has warned that politicians supporting same-sex marriage are committing “a publicly and gravely immoral act“:

“It’s impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right,” said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, reprinted a portion of a doctrinal note the cardinal released Feb. 14 concerning “Marriage and Homosexual Unions.” The note, which appeared in full on the archdiocese’s Web site, was aimed at helping enlighten Catholics in public office so that “they would not make choices that would publicly contradict their affiliation with the church,” he wrote.

His restriction would extend even to those who are called to enforce or follow such a law:

If a Catholic official were to ever implement or enforce such a law, “God forbid, we will, at the proper moment, give the necessary directives,” he wrote.

The Cardinal’s statements do not constitute official church teaching, but there has been a growing chorus of voices calling for the excommunication of Catholic politicians over a number of social issues.

Southern African Anglicans Denounce Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill

Jim Burroway

February 16th, 2010

Southern African bishops of the Anglican Communion met in Swaziland February 8-10 to discuss, among other things, Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The resulting statement forcefully denounces the bill, calling it “a gross violation of human rights,” and deplores “the violent language used against the gay community across Sub-Saharan Africa.” This marks a significant statement of opposition by religious leaders within Africa.

Click here to read the full statement.

Right-Wing Accuracy In Media: Abandoning freedom of speech and the press are a “natural reaction” to pro-gay “propagandizing”

Timothy Kincaid

February 11th, 2010

We recently gave Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid (no relation) the LaBarbera Award for his endorsement of Uganda’s Kill Gays bill. To be clear, Cliff doesn’t endorse the bill in some “revised” version; he endorses the execution of gay Ugandans.

In a follow up to his extremist blood-lust, Cliff Kincaid reiterates his support and condemns conservative Republicans who find it too extreme.

Conservatives were shocked to see Coburn, a conservative leader and medical doctor, jump into bed with Feingold and Franken and other liberals to attack Uganda’s legislative process and pro-family political leaders and activists.

Cliff’s article is riddled with inflammatory rhetoric and, at times, comical assertions. For example, he describes mid-19th Century despotic boy-king Mwanga as “a homosexual pedophile”, apparently not realizing that he was actually younger than all most of his victims, none of whom were young children. And he explained this bill in terms of Ugandans wishing to avoid what has happened in the US “in terms of disease and death brought on by the so-called sexual revolution”, never realizing that the AIDS prevalence in Uganda is at 5.4% amongst adults while in the United States it is less that 0.1%.

But what he says about the Church of Uganda’s activism on this issue is no laughing matter. We noted that the Church of Uganda’s call to “prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality” and to “prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle” was abhorrent to those who value freedom. However, Cliff said

The latter provision is an obvious means by which foreign-funded groups could be prohibited from propagandizing on Ugandan soil. It may not be consistent with Western notions of freedom of speech and press, but it represents a natural reaction to attempts by George Soros and his allies to change Ugandan laws in a pro-homosexual direction.

This is chilling language. It takes little imagination to see Cliff Kincaid and Accuracy in Media supporting the elimination of freedoms of speech and press in this nation were it justifiable by vilifying pro-homosexual propaganda.

Anglican Church of Uganda endorses a milder evil – do local Anglican Churches?

Timothy Kincaid

February 10th, 2010

The Episcopal Cafe has posted a copy of the press release issued by The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi , the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda (Anglican) which clarifies the church’s stance on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill (the Kill Gays bill) currently under consideration in that nation.

The Church of Uganda does not endorse the bill and believes that this particular piece of legislation is not needed. However, they do call for a piecemeal approach which would serve much the same purpose: increase official harassment and incarceration of gay Ugandans and deny basic civil rights. They are not clear as to whether they support life sentences.

Here are the four goals which the Anglicans in Uganda wish achieved:

We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to:

a) provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman;

b) prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family;

c) prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act;

d) prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.

The order of this list is interesting. One could imagine it as a scale by which intolerance and disrespect for human dignity could be measured in a society.

The first point could simply be a reflection of tradition, misunderstanding, and unnecessary fears. Prohibition and punishment of private sexual expression is an indication of animus, heterosexism, and religious hegemony. The rejection of international treaties and protocols is a sign of arrogance and a hostility to gay persons that verges on hatred.

But the Church of Uganda goes all the way to their fourth point – the rejection of freedoms of speech, assembly, or political diversity. They endorse totalitarianism and reject basic human rights and democratic ideals. This is an attitude that has been shared by every society that is held up as an example of excess, inhumanity, and abuse.

And it is “loopholes” which allow the sort of freedoms that a modern state values that Orambi finds in need of correcting.

We affirm the need for a Bill in light of the existing loopholes in the current legislation, specifically sections 145-148 of the Penal Code Act (Cap 120), which do not explicitly address the other issues associated with homosexual practice such as procurement, recruitment and dissemination of literature.
…
As Parliament considers streamlining the existing legislation, we recommend that the following issues be taken into consideration:
…
2. Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.

Let us be clear. Anyone who believes in human rights, anyone who believes in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of thought, anyone who believes in freedom of religion, all will find the position of the Church of Uganda to be abhorrent.

Yet many Americans have attached their very religious identity to Archbishop Orambi and his anti-gay campaign. The congregations that broke away from the Episcopal Church over the place of gay people within the body of the church have formed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the only two bodies with which they have full communion are the Church of Nigeria and the Church of Uganda. Several of these congregations have declared that they are under the direct authority of Archbishop Orombi.

I doubt that these American churches endorse the abolition of the freedom of speech in America and I suspect that if cornered many would refuse to publicly endorse recriminalization of homosexuality. Yet, to date, neither the ACNA nor a single member church has spoken against the efforts of the Church of Uganda. None has expressed even the slightest discomfort about being publicly aligned with those who endorse human rights abuses.

While it is likely that this is because they are hesitant to appear in any way that can be construed to be tolerant of the “sinful act of homosexual behavior”, it is also possible that they simply have not been asked. It is likely that the local newspaper reporters in the cities in which these Anglican churches reside are unaware of the Orombi’s stance. And even if so, they are not likely to know that the Church of Uganda is only one of two churches which are in full communion with the Anglican Church in North America.

Perhaps it is time that they become informed. And perhaps it is time that these individual churches come face to face with what they have endorsed.

I invite our readers to go to the ACNA web site and find churches in their area. Then they can contact the reporter on the Religion beat for their local paper and inform them of the issue.

Please, please, do not editorialize in your contact. You don’t need to call the church names or point out hypocrisy or quote the Bible or denounce all religion or anything else which would cause the reporter to dismiss you as a crank. Nor should you start by writing a letter to the editor as this is far less effective than having a reporter cover the story.

Feel free to email them some variation of the following letter:

Dear Religion Reporter,

I wish to bring to your attention an international issue which has a strong local link. This matter is of great importance to many in the community and I hope that you would find this story to be worthy of your efforts.

As you may be aware, there is a bill in the legislature in Uganda which would call for the death penalty for some gay Ugandans and demand life imprisonment for the rest. The Church of Uganda, an Anglican church, does not support this bill (usually referred to as the “Kill the Gays Bill”), but has instead called for separate legislation that would do the following:

• prohibit and penalize homosexual behavior (along with “lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions”)
• ban any organizations that “promote homosexuality” as normal or as an alternative lifestyle
• make it illegal to advocate for gay people
• make it illegal to disseminate any material or literature that advocates for gay people
• declare that homosexual behavior is not a human right
• declare that advocating for gay people is not a human right

A copy of the press release can be found here.

You may also be aware that XXX Anglican Church on Main Street is a member of the Anglican Church in North America. This congregation was part of the Episcopal Church until they broke away from that denomination in part because of disagreement over the Episcopal Church’s level of acceptance of gay people in the body of the church.

The Church of Uganda is one of only two Anglican Churches in the world which are in full communion with the Anglican Church in North America (the other is the Church of Nigeria which has made similar statements.) The efforts of break-away Episcopal churches was supported by and influenced by the Ugandan and Nigerian archbishops.

I have not yet heard XXX Anglican Church’s position on these actions in Uganda. Neither they nor the Anglican Church in North American have issued a statement suggesting that their ecclesiastical partner is in any way in error. And as they broke from the Episcopal Church (Anglican Church in Canada) over the issue of homosexuality, I wonder whether their position may be the same as that of the Church of Uganda.

As a member of the Local City community, I have an interest in the religious beliefs of the local churches, one that I’m sure I share with many other residents.

I would very much like to know whether XXX Anglican Church supports the criminalization of homosexuality and the incarceration of gay men and women either in the United States (Canada) or Uganda. Do they share the Church of Uganda’s desire to ban the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of religion on issues of homosexuality? And finally, is XXX Anglican Church in any way troubled that their only ecclesiastical partners oppose human rights and other freedoms? Will they make a statement of disagreement or use their affiliation to work against any religious advocacy in foreign nations which they think is excessive or unChristian; or, alternately, are they content with the goals of the Church of Uganda?

I certainly don’t wish to tell you how to write a story, but for perspective and contrast I would find it interesting to hear the position of other local church leaders, including those who did not leave the Episcopal Church.

I do hope that you share my interest in this issue and consider this story to be worth inquiry and reporting.

Sincerely,

Box Turtle Reader

Please let us know who you contacted and whether they expressed interest in the story.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of the past year’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Did the Anglican Church of Uganda Endorse Criminalization With Death Penalty?

Jim Burroway

February 9th, 2010

See important updates below.

This is a very surprising turn of events, considering that just last fall the head of the Ugandan Anglican Church questioned the “need” for the death penalty in the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Now, Christianity Today reports that the Church of Uganda has endorsed the bill, but suggests the following amendments:

1. Ensure that the law protects the confidentiality of medical, pastoral and counseling relationships, including those that disclose homosexual practice in accordance with the relevant professional codes of ethics.
2. Language that strengthens the existing Penal Code to protect the boy child, especially from homosexual exploitation; to prohibit lesbianism, bestiality, and other sexual perversions; and to prohibit procurement of material and promotion of homosexuality as normal or as an alternative lifestyle, be adopted.
3. Ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.
4. Existing and future Educational materials and programmes on gender identity and sex education are in compliance with the values and the laws of Uganda.
5. The involvement of additional stakeholders in the evaluation of the gaps in the existing legislation, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, its Department of Immigration and other relevant departments.
6. The undertaking of a comprehensive legislative and literature review of all the laws and literature related to the subject at hand in order to identify the actual gaps in the existing legislations.

In fact, this recommendation amounts to a tacit opinion that the draconian bill, even in its breathtaking scope and breadth, doesn’t go far enough as far as the Anglican Church in Uganda is concerned. It also represents a rift between the Ugandan Church and the Anglican Communion’s head, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who quietly and meekly condemned the proposed legislation in December.

A number of Conservative Anglican churches in the U.S. have sought to align themselves with the Anglican Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, in an ongoing schism taking place here in America. Those American parishes are now fully aligned with an overseer who is on record as being perfectly fine with unleashing a genocidal wave against LGBT people in Uganda.

Update: Uganda’s largest independent newspaper Daily Monitor has a different take from The Christian Post. The Monitor calls the Anglican statement a “rejection” of the bill. According to the Monitor, the statement calls for the bill’s withdrawal and existing laws modified to specifically address child exploitation and bestiality. Without access to the statement itself, it’s hard to know how to reconcile the two accounts. We’ll keep you posted as we learn more.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of the past year’s anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Ted Haggard clarifies his behavior

Timothy Kincaid

February 3rd, 2010

Writing to blogsite Phoenix Preacher, disgraced evangelical preacher Ted Haggard claims:

I am guilty of sin, but probably not the sins you think. Gayle’s book talks about the four lie detector tests I took all demonstrating that I had not had an affair with Mike Jones, had not had sexual contact with anyone in the church other than my wife or had ever groomed anyone in the church for sexual contact. I have never had a homosexual “affair” or “relationship” in my life. Mike Jones’ only lie detector test in November 2006 indicated deception, and he has since refused to take any more. All four of my lie detector tests demonstrated truthfulness.

In comments, he clarified:

I am guilty of sexual immorality and guilty of taking the drugs. I lied in two interviews: the ones during the crisis. But there have been no lies prior to (except my silence while hoping to heal this issue on my own) or after the letters were read to the church the first Sunday of November, 2006. Everything else has been precise, accurate, with an attempt to be biblical and not unnecessairly cause additional embarrassment to my wife and kids.

and

I went to Mike for a massage that ended up being sensual. He told me about drugs and I returned on several occasions to buy them and used them, then, by myself. Never with anyone else. That is what happened with Mike. There were, however, other one time occurances which is why I am guilty of sexual immorality but not of a three year drug induced affair with Mike Jones. Nor was there ever a desire, a plan, or any attempt for sexual contact with anyone in the church except my wife. All of these facts were validated via multiple lie detector tests

He was asked about homosexuality:

I don’t know if this is something you want to share on here…so I apologize in advance if this is off limits…but I’m asking because I have a brother…who I love very much and pray for regularly…who is homosexual. It’s such a tough issue. He grew up a PK and I don’t believe there is a more polarizing sin within “the church”…

Were you born attracted to the same sex?

Is the homosexual allegation part of the story that is correct or incorrect?

If you were born attracted to the same sex…how are you overcoming that desire?

And responded:

As for the questions about homosexuality — I just don’t know. My sin issues were in direct response to trauma in the 2nd grade, but I always had heterosexual orientation and have had a normal heterosexual relationship with my wife. The homosexual portions were my responsibility but were confusing because they were contrary to everything else in my life. Since going through EMDR (Trauma Resolution Therapy) in November of 2006, I have not had any unwanted intrusive thoughts or actions. It doesn’t mean I’m perfect, it’s just that I’ve been able to respond well to the byproduct of the trauma as a child.

And found time to note that while the church has not been universally supportive of him and his wife, others were kinder.

Today Rosie was kind to, helpful to, and supportive of my wife’s decision to love and forgive me. Think of that. While the religious crowd is here insisting on the details of my sin of years ago, Rosie is on nation wide radio encourageing Gayle in her decision to love and forgive me in obedience to Christ. We all have a lot to learn.

Ted Haggard is a complicated guy. And this experience has, I suspect, molded him into someone quite different than he was. I see a more nuanced view of the world and a less assertively confidant approach.

I very much doubt that Haggard’s attractions were caused by newly recollected childhood trauma or that EMDR will prove to have much long term effect. His discussion of “homosexual portions” being in conflict suggests that he continues to view homosexuality as a “lifestyle” or as having attributes sharply different from his desires to have a family and ministry. Nor does he seem to comprehend the idea of bisexuality as an orientation.

But I also do not doubt that he has attractions to his wife which can be adequately fulfilling for a newly humbled Ted Haggard. The experiences he has gone through in the past few years are probably strong incentive to value his relationship. However, I also suspect that any assumption that his same-sex attractions are healed will only open him up to further betrayal of his vows.

And while I am disappointed that he appears to have latched onto this childhood experience explanation, I do appreciate that he has not sought to extrapolate his story (as he believes it to be) onto all other same-sex attracted persons.

If the history of disgraced preachers is anything to go by, I suspect that Ted Haggard will at some point return to ministry in a diminished capacity, perhaps pastoring a smaller church and having a more localized television presence. And his experiences with the judgmentalism and self-righteousness of many in the Christian world will likely direct him more to focus on redemption and acceptance than on sin, punishment, condemnation, and rejection.

Ted Haggard is heeeeeealed

Timothy Kincaid

January 27th, 2010

Gayle Haggard told Today’s Meridith Viera that husband Ted no longer has compulsive gay thoughts or behavior. (msnbc)

Both Ted and Gayle say that their love life was always strong. Ted has said that he learned during therapy that he had been abused by an adult male when he was a child and he was acting out that experience as an adult.

In an appearance on “Oprah,” Ted said, “The biggest thing that’s helped me is therapy. Since that time, I have not had one compulsive thought or behavior.”

To Vieira, Gayle added, “In Ted’s case, he had had some experiences as a child that kept replaying themselves in his mind. Once he went to therapy he was able to identify that and was given the tools to deal with it. Because of that, he no longer has those compulsions. That’s not true for everybody. That’s his story.”

I marvel at people who discover memories during therapy. Especially those which fit so easily into the anti-gay mantra of “gays were all abused”.

And the magical healing of “compulsions”… well, I always worry for those folk. When you think that your natural attractions are simply compulsions from which you have recovered, you then have no skills for making appropriate decisions when you are tempted to sexually betray your wife.

Star Of Scientology’s Recruitment Video Leaves Church

Daniel Gonzales

January 26th, 2010

Actor Larry Anderson narrates the Church of Scientology’s 1996 film titled “Orientation” which is shown to virtually all first time visitors in church locations all around the world.  Easily the most infamous line of the film comes at it’s conclusion as spoken by Anderson himself:

“If you leave this room after seeing this film and walk out and never mention Scientology again, you are perfectly free to do so. It would be stupid. But you can do it. You can also dive off a bridge or blow your brains out. That is your choice. But, if you don’t walk out that way, if you continue with Scientology, we will be very happy with you. And you will be very happy with you.”

Here’s a clip of that video. That great line comes at the very end.

The St. Petersburg Times is reporting Anderson is leaving the church because:

He says the church failed to deliver the spiritual gains it promised.

He also wants his money back, nearly $120,000 he says he prepaid for services never taken. A church policy says parishioners can get repayments, but if they do, they cannot come back.

Eleven months ago, Anderson met with Scientology spokesman Tommy Davis to discuss his request for repayment. Anderson, 58, put a tape recorder on the table between them.

As for that tape, the St. Petersburg Times has posted audio here.  In those excerpts Anderson and church spokesman Tommy Davis openly discuss such controversial church practices as disconnection, Scientology’s fear of critics, confidential church doctrine, and corrupt church leader David Miscavige.  In audio segment 13 Anderson says something that really resonates with my ex-gay experience:

I was a spokesman for the church when I truly believed what I was saying.

I too spoke positively of the ex-gay movement while I was in therapy and I believed I was changing.  But later I came to realize it wasn’t so.  I wish I could say this problem of high profile defections is unique to Scientology but it does seem the ex-gay movement has this problem too with former leaders resigning and people used in publicity images changing their minds.

via XenuTV

Lutherans tells State Department that Uganda bill is “abhorrent injustice”

Timothy Kincaid

January 12th, 2010

The Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to express the church’s grave concern over the Proposed Anti-Homosexuality bill in Uganda.

Here is a portion of his letter:

The ELCA is gravely concerned that this measure, introduced last year by Ugandan member of parliament David Bahati, would, in certain cases, impose the death penalty for persons convicted of “aggravated homosexuality.” Enactment of this kind of legislation would be an abhorrent injustice and outside the norms and standards of internationally-recognized human rights.

For the ELCA such an action would be inconsistent with various aspects of our church’s social policy, such as the social statements, including “Death Penalty” (1991), “For Peace in God’s World” (1995), and “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust” (2009), as well as the 1993 Church Council action related to “harassment, assault, and discrimination due to sexual orientation,” all of which affirm the foundational human dignity of each person created in the image of God.

We welcome this strong witness.

Grassroots Adventists seek denunciation of draconian anti-gay bill from Uganda Adventist leader who endorsed it

Timothy Kincaid

January 11th, 2010

In response to objections made by members of their own church about the statements of endorsement from John Kakembo, the president of the Uganda Union Mission, the Seventh-day Adventist Church issued a tepid statement. They did not mention Kakembo by name, denounce the bill, or demand that he retract his endorsement.

This limited reaction has not been satisfactory to Adventists of good conscience. Spectum Magazine’s Alexander Carpenter has asked his fellow churchmembers to contact Kakembo directly and express what such statements do to their Christ-like witness and their religious liberty work.

Since I believe that letter writing campaigns like this should follow a bottom-up approach as outlined in Matthew 18:15-20, I would encourage folks to address their letters to John Kakembo at the Uganda Union Mission.

The quarterly magazine Adventist Today is joining the effort on their blog site and is encouraging readers to join Spectrum’s advocacy.

As this issue is of concern to all of good will irrespective of their personal views concerning the nature of homosexual orientation and the Adventist Church’s manner of relating to this community, Adventist Today appreciates that Alexander Carpenter has given us permission to post this as well.

In contrast, the weekly Adventist Review only reports the vague statement, choosing instead to emphasize that Kakembo only endorses the non-death penalty portions of the bill.

Even if the death penalty were removed, the bill would:

• expand the definitions for homosexual acts, making conviction easier. Current law requires evidence of penetration. The new law would expand the definition of homosexual activity to”touch(ing) another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.” Touching itself is defined as “touching—(a) with any part of the body; (b) with anything else; (c) through anything; and in particular includes touching amounting to penetration of any sexual organ. anus or mouth.”
• affirm Uganda’s lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality.
• define a new crime of “aggravated homosexuality” for those who engage in sex with someone under the age of 18, who are HIV-positive, who is a “repeat offender” (so broadly defined as to include anyone who has had a relationship with more than one person, or who had sex with the same person more than once), or who had sex with a disabled person (consensual or not). The penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” is death by hanging imprisonment for life.
• require anyone arrested on suspicion of homosexuality to undergo HIV testing to determine the individual’s qualification for prosecution of “aggravated homosexuality.”
• criminalize “attempted homosexuality” with imprisonment of seven years.
• criminalize “promoting” homosexuality with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years. This overly-broad provision would criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda . It could also be used against anyone extending counseling or otherwise aiding gay people. It would also criminalize any attempt to repeal or modify the law in the future, as those moves could also be seen as “promoting” homosexuality.
• Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment.
• add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.
• label landlords and hotel owners as proprietors of “brothels” and penalizes them with five to seven years imprisonment for renting to LGBT people.
• add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.
• void all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

Adventists of good will can sincerely differ about the manner in which to interpret and apply scripture. One need not find homosexual behavior to be a morally acceptable option for one’s own life to oppose criminalization, oppression, and discrimination.

If you are an Adventist who finds the above proposal abhorrent, are shocked that the president of the Uganda Union Mission would endorse these provisions, and are ashamed that your church has been unwilling to vociferously and aggressively work against this bill, I encourage you to let your voice be heard.

(I’d STRONGLY advise others not to participate in this process as it could be counter-productive)

Seventh-day Aventists update their statement on the Ugandan legislation

Timothy Kincaid

January 8th, 2010

Yesterday we noted that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Uganda had endorsed the Anti-Homosexuality bill which, in its current form, would incarcerate for life any gay person that touched another and which had death penalty provisions, including for “repeat offenders”, a very broadly defined category.

We also noted that the response of the church in America to having this brought to their attention was woefully vague. It could have meant most anything, including their endorsement of the bill. Today they have a new statement:

Church leadership noted with concern some statements reportedly made by the Uganda Union Mission Executive Director in connection with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill under consideration in Uganda. These views do not reflect the values of the Church as expressed in published statements on same sex conduct.

Seventh-day Adventists continue to affirm the equal dignity and rights of every person as articulated in the relevant international human rights declarations and Covenants.

–Rajmund Dabrowski, Communication Director

While this is more informative, it is far from an unequivocal opposition to this piece of legislation. And considering that many other Christian voices – including those who do not need to reverse public statements of endorsement – have been clear in their opposition, I think that the church does a disservice to itself by speaking in generalities.

It would well serve the integrity of the church to clearly state that they, as a body, oppose the criminalization of non-coercive same-sex behavior and support the rights of gay persons to live in freedom.

If, indeed, that is what they mean.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.

Adventist magazine draws attention to Uganda’s Kill Gays bill

Timothy Kincaid

January 7th, 2010

Spectrum is “a journal established to encourage Seventh-day Adventist participation in the discussion of contemporary issues from a Christian viewpoint”. As such, it is uniquely qualified to discuss the recent statements coming from Seventh Day Adventist religious leaders in Uganda in support of the proposed Anti-Homosexuality bill.

Spectrum’s Alexander Carpenter has written an online commentary expressing concern about the bill and the way in which support for it is contradictory to church policy.

Given this attempt to mix church and state, it is particularly troubling that the highest ranking Adventist leader in Uganda would support this law.

Furthermore, the law states that,

Where the offender is a corporate body or a business or an association or a non-governmental organization, on conviction its certificate of registration shall be cancelled and the director or proprietor or promoter shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.

Thus, if, as has happened in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a church administrator turns out to be gay, John Kakembo’s support for this bill could actually threaten the work of the church in Uganda.

Given the parameters outlined in the Working Policy of the church, John Kakembo’s common cause on the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 lies outside our religious liberty principles, breaks church policy, and is opposite the goal of following Christ in helping, not jailing, the least of these.

In response, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has issued the following statement:

The church has made official statements on the issue of homosexuality. These continue to be our expressed position. Our inquiries with the Uganda Union indicate that not all that is being reported or interpreted in the media coverage is factual.

Our office has taken steps to inform the Uganda Union president’s office about the officially articulated position of the church regarding homosexuality. There will be on-going communication with the East-Central Africa Division and the church administration in Uganda.

I am uncertain what the church means by “not all that is being reported or interpreted in the media coverage is factual”. If that indicates that the church leader in Uganda, John Kakembo, has been falsely claimed as a supporter of the bill, then I am encouraged.

If, however, it indicates that the church is dismissive of public criticism of the bill, then that is most distressing. And sadly, while the statement of church principles does mention compassion and value, the only principles stated consist of condemnation of homosexuality and same-sex relationships and do not clearly articulate a position on criminalization of gay persons.

It is difficult to determine from this vague statement whether the Seventh-day Adventist Church opposes the bill or if it stands in the unique position of being the only denomination in the West to publicly endorse the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality.

I would encourage the church, and all Adventists, to read the language of the bill and issue a statement strongly condemning it as contrary to the teachings of Christ. Until it does so, the only position on record is that of Kakembo’s announcement of Seventh-day Adventist endorsement and of the Church’s refusal to refute that endorsement.

Click here to see BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda.