Monday, May 3, 2010

SENDING THE OPPOSITE MESSAGE

Jim Naughton at The Lead links to an article in the New York Times about one of our own from the religious far-right, Lou Engel, who is in Uganda stirring up trouble against gays, as if the attitudes in the country are not already hostile enough to gay persons. The article is worth a read, surely.

However, I want to call attention to Jim Naughton's commentary in the post.

It is worth remembering that the suffering in the religious right's campaign to punish Western churches for their liberal attitudes on homosexuality has been borne almost exclusively by Africans. It is not gay Americans, or the leaders of mainline Protestant churches who suffer when prejudice against LGBT people is inflamed in Uganda, Nigeria or Rwanda. It is not American donors who suffer when leaders like Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda force priests and bishops to refuse donations that would have provided food, clean water, medicine in education to needy people. Comfortable African prelates and American donors are putting other people's lives at risk to make it clear how strenuously they oppose the West's growing acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships. The tactic is meant to communicate how throroughly they have rejected worldly wisdom and how intensely they cling to the Gospel. Unfortunately, it sends the opposite message.

"They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them."

(Matthew 23:4)

5 comments:

  1. On the one hand, the Ugandans claim that they are standing for their traditional culture, and resent Western attempts to dissuade them from this legislation. On the other hand, they are clearly being encouraged (and in some circumstances, influenced) in their anti-gay bigotry by Westerners.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rachael, there's certainly no logic there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And incredible denial, as the history of the Ugandan martyrs shows. Pages in the royal court, having converted to Christianity, refused to allow the king to sodomize them. Now, how can one claim his royal prerogative of buggery was not an indigenous African behavior I do not know. It was the imported faith that resisted traditional buggery. Plus ca change.... Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul, thanks for the reminder of the history of the martyrs of Uganda and the reason that some of them were put to death.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.