Christianity Today is carrying a story on the Ugandan Anglican Church’s position on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.  You can read about it here:

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2010/02/church_of_ugand.html

CT does not report that they oppose the death penalty, but do support vigorous opposition to protecting glbt people under international human rights standards. Their failure to explicitly object to the death penalty provisions should be more than a little disturbing.

But see here from a Ugandan source…

The country’s Anglicans yesterday added their voice against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Like the Catholics before them, the Church of Uganda officially rejected the Bill.

They proposed that instead of the death penalty for gays who seduce boys - as the Bill put forward by Ndorwa West David Bahati demands – the law should be changed to ensure that vulnerable boys are properly protected.

Archbishop Luke Orombi, in his first public comments on the controversial Bill, however said they do not recognise homosexuality as “a human right”.

and

However, the latest foray by Church of Uganda, which until last year played host and spiritual home for breakaway conformist American clerics/Anglicans disenchanted over acceptance of homosexuals in the Episcopal Church, deprives MP Bahati of the second biggest bloc after the Catholic Church here earlier raised objections to capital punishment embedded in the Bill.

I think that we would do well to gather more information before we jump on propaganda-style bandwagons demonizing the Church of Uganda in an attempt to promote an American ideological and political agenda.  I am sure that I would not completely agree with the Church of Uganda’s position on this issue were I to be fully familiar with it.  However, nor do I think it fair or constructive to misconstrue the Church of Uganda’s position nor to ignore the complexities of what is going on there.

FWIW, I think that the rejection of homosexuality as a “human right” is an eminently sound position.  The focus needs to be on human rights for persons who perceive themselves, or are perceived by others, as “homosexual”, and not on the “right” to engage in homosexual behavior.  One approach focuses on the right to engage in a particular behavior, the other approach focuses on the protection of actual persons. 

I also think that TEC’s relentless pushing of its sexuality agenda is a big part of the reason for why countries like Uganda are trying to create this sort of “firewall” to insulate their countries from perceived decadent Western liberal social bullying.

The Ugandan Monitor article contains not a single statement of opposition to the entire bill.  Rather it suggests amendments to a few sections, thankfully the one on execution while proposing that other sections be strengthened.

So overall they support the thrust of the bill, but do seem to back away from the most draconian measures.  That is some progress.

As for the call not to recognize homosexuality as a human right, I believe that is the next battlefield as religious groups seek a retrenchment on human rights.  In the end I suppose the world will have to decide whether religious views prevail or other social and scientific ones do.  If this becomes an issue in treaties it will be fascinating to watch.

Michael:  Science does not speak to what ought to be a human right.  If you suggest it does, then you are misusing science.  In the end, the world will need to decide what the purpose of “human rights” codes are - do they become an increasingly irrelevant “bully pulpit” political tool of the declining Western liberal elites to push for their special interests, or do they focus on basic human rights for actual people, and try not to foist Western liberal ideology on the rest of the world.

I for one am glad that ++Orombi and the Uganda Anglican Church has spoken against this bill.  Of course they will not regard homosexual behavior as a “right.”  They and many like me believe in healing and transformation of homosexual behavior as we have seen God do sovereign works of healing.  Included in the bill is a proper call for very still stiff penalties on those who sodomize children.  Surely we all agree on penalizing such predatory behavior do we not?  It is worth remembering the martyrs of Uganda - the saints of that Church who died rather than be sodomized by the king.  Archbishop Orombi believes in the Church’s ministry of opposing immorality, deviant behavior and of bringing healing where possible.  Bless him.

I agree with Ian and others who advocate for penalties for those who abuse children - as does the Bishop of NH. As to “rights,” I think governments need to be careful about making illegal sexual behavior of consenting adults.

James Wirrel - 09 February 2010 08:24 PM

Michael:  Science does not speak to what ought to be a human right.  If you suggest it does, then you are misusing science.  In the end, the world will need to decide what the purpose of “human rights” codes are - do they become an increasingly irrelevant “bully pulpit” political tool of the declining Western liberal elites to push for their special interests, or do they focus on basic human rights for actual people, and try not to foist Western liberal ideology on the rest of the world.

It does when it identifies what is part of one’s nature and not a choice.  And the Ugandan Church has in fact endorsed an amended version of this bill.  It is nonetheless unacceptable to criminalize the behavior of consenting adults.  Once again we have to remind everyone that sex with prepubescent and pubescent youth is not homosexuality but pedophilia and ehebophilia, both of which are most often committed by heterosexuals who prey on same and opposite gender children.  Science has illuminated those facts too, making the general presumption of this bill that all acts against male children “homosexuality” to be incorrect.  The continued equation of pedo and ephebo philias with homosexuality is actually harmful since it targets and blames the WRONG population.  Rome makes this same deliberate error in order to scapegoat gays while living in denial about its own systemic dysfunction.  Clearly Ugandan and American evangelicals continue to make the same error as well.

No wonder we progressives will never trust these groups to “read scripture plainly”.

Michael, that is not the way I am interpreting the Ugandan statement: http://chelmsfordanglicanmainstream.blogspot.com/2010/02/church-of-ugandas-position-on-anti.html

They seem to be in complete opposition to the new bill

That notwithstanding, the ideal situation would be one where necessary amendment is made to existing legislation to also enumerate other sexual offences such as lesbianism and bestiality. This would not require a fresh bill on homosexuality per se but rather an amendment to the existing provisions which would also change the title to something like “The Penal Code Unnatural Offences Amendment Bill.”

So they recommend scuttling the proposed bill and strengthening existing legislation in certain areas, such as protecting young boys and committing Uganda to not recognizing homosexuality as a human right.

So to say there is not “a single statement of opposition to the entire bill.  Rather it suggests amendments to a few sections, thankfully the one on execution while proposing that other sections be strengthened” is in error - I don’t know if the misunderstanding is yours or the Monitor’s.

Daniel: 

As to “rights,” I think governments need to be careful about making illegal sexual behavior of consenting adults.

There is a major difference between not criminalizing something and making the doing of it a “human right”.  Take smoking marijuana - you may or may not support decriminalizing this activity, but I doubt that you would want it enshrined as a “human right.”  I would also suggest to you, Daniel, that you DO indeed believe that government should make certain sexual behaviors of consenting adults illegal (incest, polygamy, etc.).  You might make the distinction on WHAT behaviors ought to be illegal, but I doubt you oppose all such legal standards.  For the record, I would oppose the criminalization of homosexual behavior, and I would strongly support the protection of basic human rights for those who perceive themselves or are perceived by others as homosexuals.

Michael:

[Science] does when it identifies what is part of one’s nature and not a choice.

No, Michael, science doesn’t.  Science might be able to tell us that proclivity to same-sex attraction is something a person is born with, but it can not tell us then tell us that we need to make such behavior a “human right.”  There are many proclivities which people are born with, yet which we do not make “human rights.”  The concept of what ought to be considered a human right is a political, social, ideological and religious discussion, not a scientific one.  Speaking from a theological perspective, we are all born corrupted - corrupted in different ways, but still corrupted - by sin.  It is theological idiocy to try to ignore this.  Thus to simply assert that just because we believe that we were “born a certain way” means that the Church or society ought to bless that aspect of ourselves carries no weight with me at all.  Speaking from a secular viewpoint, people can be born with all sorts of problematic behavioral tendencies.  The simple assertion that they were “born that way” does not speak at all to whether society must approve of that choice of behavior, let alone coerce all citizens to approve of it.

As to the Church of Uganda’s response to the specific Bill in question, the CofU’s official statement linked to by Scott, makes it clear that the CofU recommends that the Bill be dropped and a completely different Bill be introduced to deal with perceived loopholes in existing legislation.

James,

I often find that the responses to my posts seem to assume that I wrote something that I didn’t. All I wrote was that I though governments should be cautious about criminalizing any sexual practices of consenting adults. I do not think, as you seem to have assumed, that I would not want any practice criminalized. I only advised caution, chiefly because I criminalization of certain practices can become, at best, a meaningless gesture and, at worst, a diverting of law enforcement resources from serious crime. I would observe that neither incest nor polygamy is absolutely criminalized, but only denied legal recognition. The legal action taken against polygamists has largely been taken because of the ages of the wives and the use of coercion and the crime is rape and not polygamy.

Daniel

Daniel Weir’s comment on the intricacies of legislative reforms is well taken.

We have a major police effort in random breath testing (rbt) in Australia. The maximum breath and blood alcohol reading is set at .05. Last year NSW police conducted over 4 million rbt tests. They caught about 30,000 offenders. Given the exceptional readings of some drivers, it was a good thing to catch them. Victoria has introduced rbt for drugs with some success. But statistically, it is arguable that the amount of police time taken up by rbt for alcohol or drugs is out of balance with the actual results. The same issue arises with speeding. I should mention that in Australia we have only State and Federal police and not the many police jurisdictions characteristic of the US.

The balance between voluntary social restraint by citizens as a result of a social consensus about morality and behaviour and enforced restraint imposed by legislation and then handed to agencies is increasingly uncertain. There seems a general agreement that the kinds of social restraint that Christians believe in are not widely endorsed by modern society and perhaps never have been. Christian emphasis over the past 150 years on legislative restraints on behaviour seems increasingly ineffective.

There is worldwide a massive increase in child abuse. Legislation is abundant and many government and non-government agencies work daily to help children. But invariably we learn that the resources provided by government cannot keep pace with the increasing demand for child assistance.

Moral issues at all levels of society, not least with governments and legislators, are increasingly confused. Nowhere is this clearer, may I suggest, than in the current debate over homosexuality. What was once a simple issue based primarily on OT Jewish values is, with increasing psychological and other evidence, not quite as simple today. In the same way, the gender issue is argued on different grounds today that the patriarchal models of the OT or church traditions.

I think someone in the current CofE Synod debate on women bishops has mentioned that if we substituted ‘black’ or ‘French’ for ‘female’ in church discussions we would see undeniable evidence of prejudice and bias. The same seems to apply to many discussions of sexual preference.

I guess we come back to motes and beams in another of our Lord’s counsels.

James:

  In addition to what science may teach about homosexuality which you might contest; science also has done some studies on who abuses children and teens and who does not.  The blanket equation of pedophilia and ephebophilia with homosexuality is simply unfounded.
  As for human rights, we say we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the right of association; a right to privacy in our own homes, etc.  Some are inalienable rights, others added to the Constitution to further protect people from governments.  Glbt share those rights here and we would presume our goal would be to see that extended worldwide.  Criminalizing “provclivities” that people exercise in a mutual and consenting fashion and in the privacy of their homes seems over the top.  It comes from the error of belief that somehow other people’s private behavior corrodes mine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am responsible for my behavior and no one else, and despite the fact that you disagree with me on many things, your disagreement does not corrode my capability to be an adult and hold a differing position quite comfortably.

But we can, as a world wide civilization declare a human right of whatever we please to.

Michael Russell - 11 February 2010 11:32 AM

Criminalizing “proclivities” that people exercise in a mutual and consenting fashion and in the privacy of their homes seems over the top.  It comes from the error of belief that somehow other people’s private behavior corrodes mine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am responsible for my behavior and no one else, and despite the fact that you disagree with me on many things, your disagreement does not corrode my capability to be an adult and hold a differing position quite comfortably.

Michael, I think little of this is true. Humans are not such pure and integrated beings that they can wall off the “private” from the public, and never mind that “private” in this case refers to an interaction of two people.

Just for clarification, Charles, are you suggesting that private behavior does indeed have an impact in the public sphere beyond simply what others may think of it?

Charles Wingate - 11 February 2010 02:44 PM

Michael Russell - 11 February 2010 11:32 AM

Criminalizing “proclivities” that people exercise in a mutual and consenting fashion and in the privacy of their homes seems over the top.  It comes from the error of belief that somehow other people’s private behavior corrodes mine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I am responsible for my behavior and no one else, and despite the fact that you disagree with me on many things, your disagreement does not corrode my capability to be an adult and hold a differing position quite comfortably.

Michael, I think little of this is true. Humans are not such pure and integrated beings that they can wall off the “private” from the public, and never mind that “private” in this case refers to an interaction of two people.

We may not yet be “pure and Integrated” but we are not in eighth grade any more either.  An adult, among other things, is a person who has achieved sufficient independence, confidence and self control to walk a path without having to use others as crutches or co-dependents.  Certainly you believe that a married couple act privately and in private, and whatever public impact that has is as a result of other people projecting beliefs or expectations upon them. But in the end, there is only you to hold accountable for your own choices, neither the devil not anyone else makes you do it.  If your happiness or personal satisfaction is dependent on controlling what others think or do in private, you will never be a happy person.  A moralist, after all, is a person who has anxiety that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

Michael, I’m not entirely sure that the only public impact of private behavior is from others’ projections.  If one is not careful, that line of argument begins to sound like keeping information secret because of “national security”...