Feet dragging on Uganda’s gay genocide bill

The past couple of weeks has seen an appalling state of affairs in the developed world, in response to Uganda’s planned bill which enables…

1. The incarceration of homosexuals, just for being gay.
2. The incarceration of people who don’t report homosexuals.
3. The extermination of incarcerated homosexuals found to be HIV positive.

I’m not being hyperbolic. This is what the proposed law sets out to achieve.

So you would think that this is a no-brainer. That international pressure would be well measured, but not timid. If you thought that, you would be wrong.

First, a little background.

This has been in the making for a long time now. Homophobic sentiment has been on the rise in Uganda – particularly that pushed by the Anglican Church of Uganda. Although they aren’t so bold about their position. For example…

“The Church of Uganda is studying the proposed “Anti-homosexuality bill” and, therefore, does not yet have an official position on the bill.”

(Canon Aaron Mwesigye – Prov. Secretary of the Church of Uganda, Nov 2009)

A bill that talks about the incarceration and execution of gays, and they don’t have an official position and refuse to have one drawn out of them. It must be so very hard for them.

I wonder how long they would take to release an official policy response if a bill enabling the execution of heterosexuals for being heterosexual, was being discussed. Would they drag their feet then?

The Church of Uganda has had a bee in its bonnet over gay people for a while now. Particularly the ordination of homosexuals – hence a boycott of a major Anglican conference last year, which perennial bigot Rick Warren was quick to support. Indeed, Rick Warren seems to have a strong association with homophobia in Uganda, as it seems have a number of waylaid US “faith based” aid projects.

On the genocide bill, Rick Warren has finally, after much avoidance, given a disingenuous condemnation – perhaps he is conflicted over his Purpose Driven Life rubbish that he’s been pushing in Uganda. If you’re in the mega-church business like Rick, you don’t want to alienate the clients flock gulls sheep or whatever.

And to think, atheists have been accused of being intolerant for complaining about Obama’s appointment of Rick Warren to give the inauguration at his inauguration. An appointment naively calculated to help bridge a divide between left and right-wing evangelicals, but ultimately enabling Warren’s long-standing bigotry.

And speaking of compromising your principles to extend your hand in good faith to people who won’t return the favour, it’s not just religion US style that has this problem

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, a man even Richard Dawkins has called saintly, has been morally compromised by this whole schism. Between his own, usually more inclusive views on gay rights, and the needs of real politik, he’s been doing quite the juggling act.

“While her long résumé as a beloved parish priest and skilled church administrator who has worked both north and south of the Mason-Dixon line is impressive, it’s Glasspool’s lesbianism that made her an international news item. Conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans, who oppose the ordination of women and homosexuals, wasted no time in denouncing Glasspool’s election. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said her election “raises serious questions” for the Anglican Communion and urged the Episcopalian bishops not to seat her for the sake of unity.”

(Jeanne Carstensen, 2009)

It’s hardly a Dawkinsian response, is it? Just look at what Dawkins had to say when The Pope invited the Anglican Church’s patriarchal homophobes back into the Catholic Church.

“What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders. The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity… a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite… Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury… How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.”

(Richard Dawkins, 2009)

Ouch. Y’know, if I were a little more light-headed, I’d be wondering if Dawkins and Williams (who do have an ongoing association) had a “Good Cop/Bad Cop” arrangement going on. “If you leave the Fellowship, I’m not going to be able to protect you from him. He’s outta control!” Maybe they should call him Williams’ Bulldog.

Wishful thinking perhaps. The Archbishop of Canterbury is doing a fine job getting his priorities wrong on this one.

And when you consider there are more than a few supporters of the bill campaigning in the US, it seems to be becoming increasingly apparent that a softly-softly approach isn’t going to work. We are dealing with a severely messed up policy, so messed up that would likely even make many-if-not-most right-wing evangelicals in the US quite uncomfortable, and we are talking about supporters that don’t want to engage in a meaningful, honest discourse – they’ll do what they want if they think they can get away with it.

There is a warning in all of this. Moderates who view harsh criticism as intolerance, who either embrace or at least court relativism, neuter their capacity to engage extreme, genuine intolerance. Even Rowan Williams doesn’t fall this far yet look how much trouble he’s having.

Are you one of those self-styled moderates?

Sure, call yourself a moderate atheist (aren’t most anyway?) or a moderate theist, but don’t whine that just because someone takes a stand or makes a strong criticism, it renders them an intolerant fundamentalist. That’s rubbish. Look to Uganda if you want to see intolerant fundamentalism in action.

And if you can’t do that, please at least stay out-of-the-way of the people who actually care about human rights, and stop enabling actual fundamentalist bigots. Don’t worry, you’ll be left in peace – the scary human rights people aren’t going to bother you.

Let us be the “Bad Cop” to your “Good Cop” if it makes you feel any better.

~ Bruce