And now Uganda wants to kill Gays.

[Drifterwood]

As to the Uganda issue, without some very heavy lifting by American Charismatic Christians, this issue would probably have never reached the stage where such laws are being debated in national legislatures (and not just Uganda). It's a perversion of the Christian message and ideal taken to a sociopathic level.

I agree. So what to do about it?

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Ugandans are nearly as hateful as people in civilized countrys. Stop buying their tea and coffee, and stop bending over backwards to be nice to their politcians spoilt kids attending expensive American schools.

 

[b.c.]

Homosexual persecution in Africa has been a long standing issue that is only now getting western attention. I've read articles on this months ago, and it's not just Uganda. Check this link:

Senegal: Dramatic escalation in homophobic persecution (opinion) - Norwegian Council for Africa

 

[Bbucko]

I agree. So what to do about it?

Given the built-in guarantees regarding religious freedom in the US Constitution, I'm not really sure that anything can be done, sadly. Any attempt at curtailing "missionary outreach" would probably be deemed unconstitutional.

You're also dealing with societies in Africa with far different notions of human sexuality than we have in the developed world: witness female genital mutilation as only the greatest extreme, though the notion that having sex with a virgin rids the body of HIV runs a close second.

International pressures, such as boycotts and the like, are also likely to have minimal effects at best, and given the long history of European colonialism throughout the continent will probably be seen as meddling at best and neo-imperialism at worst.

Probably the best single thing Western governments can do is offer a sort of evacuation and amnesty through various embassies and consulates as prosecuted minorities in their home countries. But don't hold your breath on that one.

 

[Bbucko]

I agree. So what to do about it?

On reflection I gotta point out the futility of any attempt to curb anti-gay violence in Uganda and elsewhere when, as an occupying force in Iraq, we seem unable to curtail such actions there.

 

[FRE]

Originally, African cultures had no problem with homosexuality. The homophobia was introduced by the colonial powers.

The situation may even be worse in Nigeria. There, Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola has been preaching against homosexuality. He may have very recently retired. He used to ride around an a chauffeur-driven Mercedes and hob knob with influential politicians. Under his influence, the Anglican Church in Nigeria became very homophobic and influenced the government to introduce extremely draconian laws. According to Akinola, there was no homosexuality in Africa until it was imported from the west. Of course that is a blatant lie, and he is almost certain to know it. Unfortunately, honesty is a virtue which is not highly valued among some politicians in the church.

Fulminating fundamentalist "Christians" from the U.S. have fanned the flames of homophobia in Africa. They have convinced Africans that there is a militant gay agendum to destroy opposite-sex marriage, convert children to homosexuality, etc. etc. This has practically terrorized many Africans, at least the ones who are gullible and easily led. More recently, some of the fundamentalists in the U.S. have made statements condemning the draconian opposition to homosexuality in Africa. However, may of us gay activists believe that those statements are mainly for public consumption in the U.S.

You may be aware of the controversy in the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Some years ago, the rt. rev. Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, became the bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. That induced a number of congregations to leave the Episcopal Church and align themselves with a new church associated with Anglican Churches in Africa. More recently, a lesbian became a bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles, an event strongly condemned by the various Anglican Churches in Africa, except for the one in the Union of South Africa, which supports equality for gay men and women. Retired archbishop Tutu in South Africa has been very outspoken in support of equality for gay men and women. There are other Anglican clergy in various african countries who have also supported equality, but their influence is limited.

The reason I am very familiar with this is that I am a member of Integrity, Inc., an organization for gay men and women in the Episcopal Church. In fact, when I lived in Minneapolis, I founded the local chapter there. Via e-mailed newsletters, we are continually informed about the situation in Africa.

 

[FRE]

This thread will provide more information:
Episcopal Life Online - PEOPLE

 

[Drifterwood]

This thread will provide more information:
Episcopal Life Online - PEOPLE

Is there any movement to disassociate these african churches from the anglican community? It is normally presented as something that people don't want to do, but IMO (not that it counts) there has to be a limit of what is acceptable christian practice, and wanting to kill people seems beyond that line to me.

 

[FRE]

Is there any movement to disassociate these african churches from the anglican community? It is normally presented as something that people don't want to do, but IMO (not that it counts) there has to be a limit of what is acceptable christian practice, and wanting to kill people seems beyond that line to me.

I don't know exactly where you are of what you have been following. The situation is rather complex. I'll try to explain a bit of it, but my explanation will be inadequate.

The Anglican Communion consists of a number of national churches, incuding the Episcopal Church in the U.S., various Anglican Churches in Africa, South America, Canada, and other areas. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury has considerable influence, he has no actual power over the various national churches. They are, in fact, independent, but recognize each other's priests, bishops, etc. Thus, an Anglican moving from Fiji to the U.S would automatically be considered to be a member of the Episcopal Church.

The various churches that are part of the Anglican Communion have never agreed on everything. Instead, differences in opinion have generally been accepted. That is also true to varying degrees in the various national churches. It makes sense; no thinking people will ever agree on everything and forcing them to pretend to agree on everything leads to dishonesty.

Every 10 years, there is the Lambeth Conference to which the Archbishop of Canterbury invites all the bishops and archbishops of all the national churches which are part of the Anglican Communion. They discuss things, issue documents, positions, etc., which are accepted to varying degrees. There was considerable controversy when the Episcopal Church in the U.S. agreed to ordain women to the priesthood. That has been totally rejected by some dioceses in the U.S., by some individual parishes, and by some of the national churches, but none of the national churches withdrew from the Anglican Communion because of it.

There has also been considerable disagreement regarding same-sex coupling. In general, the African churches have totally rejected it, even though some leaders in the rejecting churches support same-sex unions. The Anglican Church in South Africa supports same-sex unions, and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu has been very supportive. The non-supporting churches in South Africa want the Episcopal Church in the U.S. to be ejected from the Anglican Communion for supporting same-sex unions and became absolutely livid when the Diocese of Los Angles chose a partnered lesbian as a bishop. The African churches have threatened to withdraw from the Anglican Communion unless the Episcopal Church is ejected. Also, the African churches have created a schismatic diocese in the U.S. for parishes that have left the Episcopal Church over the issue.

One document approved by the decennial Lambeth Conference called for dialogue over the issue of homosexuality; the dialogue was to include gay persons. The churches of Africa refused to have anything to do with a dialogue and accuse the Episcopal Church of rushing things without any consultation. Yet, the Episcopal Church has been trying to address this issue since about 1975!!!!

So, you can get a rough idea of where things stand now. It's anyone's guess what will happen.

The real issue is how to understand the Bible. Some people seem to think that God dictated the Bible to a stenotypist who transferred it to a CD-ROM to ensure that every word in the Bible was directly from God. However, the idea that every word in the Bible is from God and that there are no errors is, historically speaking, quite recent and actually very radical. It was written over many centuries and has many different authors, some of whom are unknown. To attach the same weight to everything therein is total nonsense; one has to use considerable judgment and there will never total agreement, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Not_Punny]

I didn't know that "gay obsession" has taken over America and Europe -- nor did I know that we could no longer have children, nor that our families are unsustainable.

That priest is living in a bubble of completely false information!

 

[FRE]

I didn't know that "gay obsession" has taken over America and Europe -- nor did I know that we could no longer have children, nor that our families are unsustainable.

That priest is living in a bubble of completely false information!

I very much doubt that he is living in a "bubble of completely false information," although I could be mistaken. I strongly suspect that he knows full well that what he is saying is false and that he is creating a "bubble of false information" for his followers and others.

In any organization, whether it is a family, social club, corporation, or religious organization, there are people working together and there is politics. Thus, there is politics in churches. Some clergy (but not all) are more political than they are men of God and to them, honesty and integrity are virtues that are not especially important. These clergy will say or do anything to enhance their power. In developing countries, there are people who are not highly educated, have not learned to think critically, have not learned to think for themselves, and are easily led. There are also people who will take full advantage of that, and that is exactly what is happening in many African countries.

On the other hand, there are clergy who will put their own welfare on the line to fight for the truth. So, let us not paint all clergy with the same brush.

 

[Scot22]

I've cancelled my vacation to Uganda.They'll just have to survive without my Pounds sterling..
Bless them.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I don't know exactly where you are of what you have been following. The situation is rather complex. I'll try to explain a bit of it, but my explanation will be inadequate.

The Anglican Communion consists of a number of national churches, incuding the Episcopal Church in the U.S., various Anglican Churches in Africa, South America, Canada, and other areas. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury has considerable influence, he has no actual power over the various national churches. They are, in fact, independent, but recognize each other's priests, bishops, etc. Thus, an Anglican moving from Fiji to the U.S would automatically be considered to be a member of the Episcopal Church.

The various churches that are part of the Anglican Communion have never agreed on everything. Instead, differences in opinion have generally been accepted. That is also true to varying degrees in the various national churches. It makes sense; no thinking people will ever agree on everything and forcing them to pretend to agree on everything leads to dishonesty.

Every 10 years, there is the Lambeth Conference to which the Archbishop of Canterbury invites all the bishops and archbishops of all the national churches which are part of the Anglican Communion. They discuss things, issue documents, positions, etc., which are accepted to varying degrees. There was considerable controversy when the Episcopal Church in the U.S. agreed to ordain women to the priesthood. That has been totally rejected by some dioceses in the U.S., by some individual parishes, and by some of the national churches, but none of the national churches withdrew from the Anglican Communion because of it.

There has also been considerable disagreement regarding same-sex coupling. In general, the African churches have totally rejected it, even though some leaders in the rejecting churches support same-sex unions. The Anglican Church in South Africa supports same-sex unions, and retired archbishop Desmond Tutu has been very supportive. The non-supporting churches in South Africa want the Episcopal Church in the U.S. to be ejected from the Anglican Communion for supporting same-sex unions and became absolutely livid when the Diocese of Los Angles chose a partnered lesbian as a bishop. The African churches have threatened to withdraw from the Anglican Communion unless the Episcopal Church is ejected. Also, the African churches have created a schismatic diocese in the U.S. for parishes that have left the Episcopal Church over the issue.

One document approved by the decennial Lambeth Conference called for dialogue over the issue of homosexuality; the dialogue was to include gay persons. The churches of Africa refused to have anything to do with a dialogue and accuse the Episcopal Church of rushing things without any consultation. Yet, the Episcopal Church has been trying to address this issue since about 1975!!!!

So, you can get a rough idea of where things stand now. It's anyone's guess what will happen.

The real issue is how to understand the Bible. Some people seem to think that God dictated the Bible to a stenotypist who transferred it to a CD-ROM to ensure that every word in the Bible was directly from God. However, the idea that every word in the Bible is from God and that there are no errors is, historically speaking, quite recent and actually very radical. It was written over many centuries and has many different authors, some of whom are unknown. To attach the same weight to everything therein is total nonsense; one has to use considerable judgment and there will never total agreement, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think most of the extremely anti-gay churches in Uganda are actually Pentecostal not Anglican though so the outcome of the Lambeth Conference is somewhat moot.


As to Biblical literalism, it's not strictly speaking recent, even historically speaking, there have been Christian biblical literalists and those who believed the Bible was actually the word of god almost since the first recognisably Christian communities emerged, they always formed a very small minority and indeed were sometimes considered heretical by some of the larger sects, but the Reformation brought them out of the woodwork. Biblical literalism has played a major part in the development of Protestant theology since the 16th century.

 

[FRE]

I think most of the extremely anti-gay churches in Uganda are actually Pentecostal not Anglican though so the outcome of the Lambeth Conference is somewhat moot.


As to Biblical literalism, it's not strictly speaking recent, even historically speaking, there have been Christian biblical literalists and those who believed the Bible was actually the word of god almost since the first recognisably Christian communities emerged, they always formed a very small minority and indeed were sometimes considered heretical by some of the larger sects, but the Reformation brought them out of the woodwork. Biblical literalism has played a major part in the development of Protestant theology since the 16th century.

Probably I overstated my point regarding Biblical literalism. Probably, as you say, it's always been around, but in recent years it has become much more common. I wonder how many literalists are aware of the history of the Bible and that it wasn't 'til the fourth century that there was general agreement on which texts to include in the Bible.

Much of the OT is the history of the Hebrew people. As we know, when people write their history, they often, usually, or perhaps always, slant it to make themselves look as good as possible and to rationalize unacceptable behavior. Thus, the Hebrews rationalized their genocidal behavior by claiming that they were acting according to God's orders. And, some of what they claimed to be God's will was simply cultural. Not much has changed.

In some areas of Africa, girls are horribly sexually mutilated and the people claim that it is a requirement of Islam. During the first Persian Gulf War, I read the Koran to gain a better understanding of how people in that part of the world thought. I saw nothing in the Koran that would justify female genital mutilation. In fact, Islam actually endorses sexual pleasure for women within marriage. So the claim that Islam justifies the mutilation of girls is false. We see the same sort of thing in Christianity. Many of the claims that we must do certain things or not do certain things cannot be scripturally supported, even with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

What can be scripturally supported is the imperative to love and respect our fellow human beings, but that should be obvious without scriptural support.