Behind the Christian Right’s Onslaught in Africa
BeaverFever @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:48 am
$1:
It’s Not Just Uganda: Behind the Christian Right’s Onslaught in Africa
For years now, evangelical activists from the United States have been speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on antigay legislation all over Africa.
By Nathalie Baptiste, April 2, 2014.
Foreign Policy In Focus
In Uganda, being gay can now earn you a lifetime in prison.
Last month, the East African country was again thrust into the international spotlight after President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a draconian bill that criminalized homosexuality. The high profile, on-and-off battle over the so-called “kill the gays” bill has drawn headlines for years as the most extreme example in a wave of antigay legislation on the continent. But homophobia in Africa is not merely an African problem.
As the gay rights movement has gained traction in the United States, the more virulently homophobic ideologies of the religious right have been pushed further out of the mainstream and into fringe territory. But as their influence has waned at home, right-wing evangelists from the United States have been flexing their sanctimonious muscles influencing policymakers in Africa.
For years now, evangelical activists from the United States have been injecting themselves into African politics, speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on antigay legislation on the continent. The influence of these groups has been well documented in Uganda. The now-defunct Exodus International, for example, sent Don Schmierer, a board member, to Uganda in 2009 to speak at a conference alongside Scott Lively, a pastor who was later sued by a Ugandan gay rights group for his role in promoting human rights violations against LGBTQ people. The two participated in a disturbing anti-gay conference, where speakers blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, among other abhorrent acts. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a hard-right Christian group that is active in U.S. politics as well, similarly supported anti-gay laws in Uganda. At the peak of controversy over the “kill the gays” bill, Perkins praised the Ugandan president for “leading his nation to repentance.”
But such groups aren’t just active in Uganda. They have promoted antigay legislation in Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, just to name a few other places. The support ranges from popular agitation and sideline cheerleading to outright intervention.
In 2010, for example, when Zimbabwe began the process of drafting a new constitution, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)—a Christian law firm founded by evangelist Pat Robertson—launched a Zimbabwean counterpart called the African Centre for Law and Justice. The outpost trained lawyers for the express purpose of putting a Christian stamp on the draft of the new constitution.
The African Centre joined forces with the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe (EFZ), an indigenous organization, to promote constitutional language affirming that Zimbabwe is a Christian nation and ensuring that homosexuality remained illegal. These and other hardline views are outlined in a pamphlet distributed by the EFZ and ACLJ. Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of ACLJ, announced that his organization would lobby for Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in political and religious circles in the event of any controversy over the provisions, despite the fact that the Zimbabwean president has been sanctioned by the United States and the European Union for violating human rights. Last year, Zimbabwe’s new constitution, which includes a ban on gay marriage, was approved by an overwhelming popular vote.
ACLJ’s Kenyan-based offshoot, the East African Center for Law and Justice (EACLJ), made an effort to lobby against Kenya’s progressive new constitution as well. In April 2010, a report on the group’s website called homosexuality “unacceptable” and “foreign” and called for the Kenyan constitution to clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus closing the door on future laws that could attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. In this case the ECLJ was unsuccessful, and the new constitution was approved without any language regarding same-sex marriage.
Pat Robertson’s entanglements in Africa go well beyond Zimbabwe and Kenya.
In 1960, Robertson created The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), which broadcasts through cable and satellite to over 200 countries. Robertson is a co-host on the 700 Club, arguably CBN’s most popular show. From his perch on the show, Roberts has made a seemingly endless variety of inflammatory remarks about LGBTQ people and just about everyone else that does not fall in line with his own religious thinking.
In the United States, Robertson’s vitriol can be brushed aside as the antiquated ravings of a fringe figure. Not so in much of Africa. A survey conducted in 2010 found that 74 million people in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, had watched at least one CBN show in the previous year. That’s a remarkable reach considering Nigeria is home to over 80 million Christians.
Robertson’s influence plays into an increasingly hostile political climate for gays in the country. Last January, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan signed into law the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which provides punishments of up to 14 years imprisonment for a gay marriage and up to 10 years for membership in or encouragement of gay clubs and organizations. The enactment of the law was followed by a wave of arrests of gay men—and widespread denouncement from the international community.
The religious right, however, doesn’t see Nigerian laws regarding homosexuality as a gross violation of human rights, but rather as protection of “traditional marriage.” In 2011, on the heels of the Nigerian Senate passing an earlier version of the anti-gay law, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would officially promote LGBTQ rights abroad as part of its development framework. In response, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute denounced the administration’s directive for putting “U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with religious freedom.”
MassResistance, a Massachusetts-based organization that bills itself as a “pro-family” activist group, praised Nigeria when the Nigerian House passed an earlier version of the bill that President Jonathan signed into law on January 7. In a statement, the group said that African nations are “feeling the brunt” of the gay rights movement, claiming that the “huge spread of AIDS” and the “breakdown in society caused by the homosexual movement seems to bring more general social destruction in African cultures than in the West.” Anti-gay laws in Nigeria have enjoyed unequivocal support from some hardline evangelical groups in the United States, with some going so far as to travel to Nigeria to spread anti-gay sentiment.
One such group is Family Watch International (FWI), another U.S.-based “pro-family” advocacy group. Formed in 1999 and headed by Sharon Slater, FWI boasts members and supporters from over 170 countries. In 2011, Slater was the keynote speaker at a meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association, where she touted her beliefs on homosexuality, telling delegates that they would no longer have religious freedom and homosexuals would prey on their children if they supported “fictitious sexual rights.” To Slater and her ilk, the rights of LGBTQ persons are imaginary.
FWI even wields influence within the United Nations. In early 2011, FWI co-hosted a “Global Family Policy Forum” in Phoenix, Arizona. Over the two-day event, FWI coached 26 UN staffers from 23 different countries in attendance on how to resist UN initiatives on gay rights. An FWI newsletter claimed that conference attendees were finally hearing scientific and clinical “evidence” that homosexuality was not genetically determined and could be cured by therapy.
To some, the belief that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured may seem too ridiculous to even entertain. But if the devout can’t win at home, they’ll take their message abroad. It’s up to the international community and African activists dedicated to human rights to put an end to this export of hate.
Nathalie Baptiste is a Haitian-American contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. She holds a BA and MA in International Studies and writes about Latin America and the Caribbean. You can follow her on Twitter at @nhbaptiste.
For years now, evangelical activists from the United States have been speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on antigay legislation all over Africa.
By Nathalie Baptiste, April 2, 2014.
Foreign Policy In Focus
In Uganda, being gay can now earn you a lifetime in prison.
Last month, the East African country was again thrust into the international spotlight after President Yoweri Museveni signed into law a draconian bill that criminalized homosexuality. The high profile, on-and-off battle over the so-called “kill the gays” bill has drawn headlines for years as the most extreme example in a wave of antigay legislation on the continent. But homophobia in Africa is not merely an African problem.
As the gay rights movement has gained traction in the United States, the more virulently homophobic ideologies of the religious right have been pushed further out of the mainstream and into fringe territory. But as their influence has waned at home, right-wing evangelists from the United States have been flexing their sanctimonious muscles influencing policymakers in Africa.
For years now, evangelical activists from the United States have been injecting themselves into African politics, speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on antigay legislation on the continent. The influence of these groups has been well documented in Uganda. The now-defunct Exodus International, for example, sent Don Schmierer, a board member, to Uganda in 2009 to speak at a conference alongside Scott Lively, a pastor who was later sued by a Ugandan gay rights group for his role in promoting human rights violations against LGBTQ people. The two participated in a disturbing anti-gay conference, where speakers blamed homosexuals for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, among other abhorrent acts. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a hard-right Christian group that is active in U.S. politics as well, similarly supported anti-gay laws in Uganda. At the peak of controversy over the “kill the gays” bill, Perkins praised the Ugandan president for “leading his nation to repentance.”
But such groups aren’t just active in Uganda. They have promoted antigay legislation in Kenya, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe, just to name a few other places. The support ranges from popular agitation and sideline cheerleading to outright intervention.
In 2010, for example, when Zimbabwe began the process of drafting a new constitution, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)—a Christian law firm founded by evangelist Pat Robertson—launched a Zimbabwean counterpart called the African Centre for Law and Justice. The outpost trained lawyers for the express purpose of putting a Christian stamp on the draft of the new constitution.
The African Centre joined forces with the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe (EFZ), an indigenous organization, to promote constitutional language affirming that Zimbabwe is a Christian nation and ensuring that homosexuality remained illegal. These and other hardline views are outlined in a pamphlet distributed by the EFZ and ACLJ. Jordan Sekulow, the executive director of ACLJ, announced that his organization would lobby for Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe in political and religious circles in the event of any controversy over the provisions, despite the fact that the Zimbabwean president has been sanctioned by the United States and the European Union for violating human rights. Last year, Zimbabwe’s new constitution, which includes a ban on gay marriage, was approved by an overwhelming popular vote.
ACLJ’s Kenyan-based offshoot, the East African Center for Law and Justice (EACLJ), made an effort to lobby against Kenya’s progressive new constitution as well. In April 2010, a report on the group’s website called homosexuality “unacceptable” and “foreign” and called for the Kenyan constitution to clearly define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus closing the door on future laws that could attempt to legalize same-sex marriage. In this case the ECLJ was unsuccessful, and the new constitution was approved without any language regarding same-sex marriage.
Pat Robertson’s entanglements in Africa go well beyond Zimbabwe and Kenya.
In 1960, Robertson created The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), which broadcasts through cable and satellite to over 200 countries. Robertson is a co-host on the 700 Club, arguably CBN’s most popular show. From his perch on the show, Roberts has made a seemingly endless variety of inflammatory remarks about LGBTQ people and just about everyone else that does not fall in line with his own religious thinking.
In the United States, Robertson’s vitriol can be brushed aside as the antiquated ravings of a fringe figure. Not so in much of Africa. A survey conducted in 2010 found that 74 million people in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, had watched at least one CBN show in the previous year. That’s a remarkable reach considering Nigeria is home to over 80 million Christians.
Robertson’s influence plays into an increasingly hostile political climate for gays in the country. Last January, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan signed into law the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which provides punishments of up to 14 years imprisonment for a gay marriage and up to 10 years for membership in or encouragement of gay clubs and organizations. The enactment of the law was followed by a wave of arrests of gay men—and widespread denouncement from the international community.
The religious right, however, doesn’t see Nigerian laws regarding homosexuality as a gross violation of human rights, but rather as protection of “traditional marriage.” In 2011, on the heels of the Nigerian Senate passing an earlier version of the anti-gay law, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would officially promote LGBTQ rights abroad as part of its development framework. In response, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute denounced the administration’s directive for putting “U.S. foreign policy on a collision course with religious freedom.”
MassResistance, a Massachusetts-based organization that bills itself as a “pro-family” activist group, praised Nigeria when the Nigerian House passed an earlier version of the bill that President Jonathan signed into law on January 7. In a statement, the group said that African nations are “feeling the brunt” of the gay rights movement, claiming that the “huge spread of AIDS” and the “breakdown in society caused by the homosexual movement seems to bring more general social destruction in African cultures than in the West.” Anti-gay laws in Nigeria have enjoyed unequivocal support from some hardline evangelical groups in the United States, with some going so far as to travel to Nigeria to spread anti-gay sentiment.
One such group is Family Watch International (FWI), another U.S.-based “pro-family” advocacy group. Formed in 1999 and headed by Sharon Slater, FWI boasts members and supporters from over 170 countries. In 2011, Slater was the keynote speaker at a meeting of the Nigerian Bar Association, where she touted her beliefs on homosexuality, telling delegates that they would no longer have religious freedom and homosexuals would prey on their children if they supported “fictitious sexual rights.” To Slater and her ilk, the rights of LGBTQ persons are imaginary.
FWI even wields influence within the United Nations. In early 2011, FWI co-hosted a “Global Family Policy Forum” in Phoenix, Arizona. Over the two-day event, FWI coached 26 UN staffers from 23 different countries in attendance on how to resist UN initiatives on gay rights. An FWI newsletter claimed that conference attendees were finally hearing scientific and clinical “evidence” that homosexuality was not genetically determined and could be cured by therapy.
To some, the belief that homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured may seem too ridiculous to even entertain. But if the devout can’t win at home, they’ll take their message abroad. It’s up to the international community and African activists dedicated to human rights to put an end to this export of hate.
Nathalie Baptiste is a Haitian-American contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. She holds a BA and MA in International Studies and writes about Latin America and the Caribbean. You can follow her on Twitter at @nhbaptiste.
http://fpif.org/just-uganda-behind-chri ... ht-africa/
jj2424 @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:51 am
You still deserve the left Wing medal. Everything you post is left wing.
fifeboy @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:19 am
jj2424 jj2424:
You still deserve the left Wing medal. Everything you post is left wing.
How come you're nice to him but not to me?
martin14 @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:46 am
jj2424 jj2424:
You still deserve the left Wing medal. Everything you post is left wing.
One thing you'll never see BF post:
" Behind Islam's bloody murder, rape and rampage across Africa, we bring
you the total death tolls ".
Christian right onslaught, what a crock of fucking horseshit.
Wada @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:16 am
Can't refute the article so attack the poster. What else is new?
BartSimpson @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:18 am
The resistance to the gay agenda is growing and it's quite predictable that traditional societies like we see in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe would push back against this kind of thing. They rightly see the degeneracy of the Western gay agenda as an attack on their traditions, values, and cultures because the gays are proving in the West that their agenda IS an attack on traditions, values, and culture.
The defacto firing of the Mozilla CEO for supporting a traditional marriage law (an act of free speech) demonstrates the intolerance of the gays for anyone who resists their political agenda. Add to this the two gays suing to be married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage, the infamous wedding cake lawsuit, and etc. and it's clear that the gays are morphing their political activism into something more closely resembling the intolerance of the jihadis or the Klan.
Once again I'll say that the gays need to step back for a year or so, enjoy the victories they've had, and then come back and try again.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
In any case, if the gays keep up with their jihad against cultures that reject homosexuality then I am not going to shed a tear when someone finally strikes back at these lavender jihadis with something more potent than the threat of a prison sentence or a campaign donation.
Khar @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:48 am
$1:
In any case, if the gays keep up with their jihad against cultures that reject homosexuality then I am not going to shed a tear when someone finally strikes back at these lavender jihadis with something more potent than the threat of a prison sentence or a campaign donation.
Behold, a one-way street of liberty, where you get your liberty at the cost of other's. Personally, I wouldn't celebrate violence against any group, especially not in a fashion that would so drastically impact freedom of speech, since I value that.
Thanks for the continued confusing attempts to refer to Muslim and homosexual groups as being one and the same, or using terminology similarly against both of us. Given the use of violence against gays historically and into the modern day (often in the name of religion), I think we know exactly from which direction any form of "jihad" (an exaggeration in ANY use of the term here) is coming, thanks. Doing anything other than denouncing such tactics ("more potent than the threat of a prison sentence") does a disservice to your fellow Americans, especially since, if I understand your job correctly, you are supposed to be upholding and protecting rights and freedoms they all enjoy.
$1:
The resistance to the gay agenda is growing and it's quite predictable that traditional societies like we see in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe would push back against this kind of thing. They rightly see the degeneracy of the Western gay agenda as an attack on their traditions, values, and cultures because the gays are proving in the West that their agenda IS an attack on traditions, values, and culture.
Resistance to de-segregation, women's rights, and other civil liberties took time too. Eventually, people come around to the idea that liberty isn't a one way street, and other people deserve liberty too.
It is always confusing to me to see someone defend these countries from "Western gay agenda"s because it might harm the Western religions, values and cultures we imposed on them. Christianity is there because Europe dumped it there, it didn't just spring fully formed into the region 200 years ago. It's even more entertaining that left hanging there is the fact that the main driving force behind the power of the anti-gay lobby in these countries does tend to be, as the article points out, people of means in Western cultures imposing themselves there once more.
$1:
The defacto firing of the Mozilla CEO for supporting a traditional marriage law (an act of free speech) demonstrates the intolerance of the gays for anyone who resists their political agenda. Add to this the two gays suing to be married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage, the infamous wedding cake lawsuit, and etc. and it's clear that the gays are morphing their political activism into something more closely resembling the intolerance of the jihadis or the Klan.
De facto firing? Bart, not so long ago you told me that if gays wanted to change things, we should vote with our money. You might remember, it's from the same thread where you predicted the downfall of gay friendly companies while denouncing a slew of successful ones for supporting gay rights in the same breath. Of course, now that shareholders are speaking out against it, it must be an infringement on his free speech. Mind, he can say whatever he wants, but we don't have to pay him so he can turn around and put money into something we don't agree with, do we?
I'd also point out no one forced him from his position. He resigned. In part because the bad press of supporting poor legislation, sure, but it's not anyone else's fault that being anti-gay has grown drastically less popular as time goes forward.
There is a rather obvious line between "I can say whatever I want" and "there should be no backlash because of my opinions." I don't have to be happy and pay into some fund to help support the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither should you. Just because they have opinions doesn't mean you sit there and nod about it. Free speech can be met by free speech. People who are gay have just as much a right to question the values of a man leading a company as religious people do, and I remind you that is a key contention of the argument behind rejections of the new law forcing people to pay for birth control. Yeah, it sucks when you disagree with other people engaging in freedom of speech and so forth, but that doesn't mean they are horrible tyrant jihadis.
As for your other examples, westmanguy's criticism of you still stands here. It's the same post where your "suing the church" point is handled effectively. I handled your "infamous[ly misunderstood] wedding cake lawsuit" here. When you know the stories and context behind those examples it becomes a lot less dangerous, and if you choose to respond to these many threads you post denouncing gays, you may have noticed them. You tend to have time to respond to other people in them.
But please, go on and tell me how equality for gay people, a belief now held by the majority of people according to various polls in the United States, and which is now upheld by federal law there and in 17 states (not to mention numerous other countries), is such a radical and marginal belief that you can equate it to the Klan or to jihadis?
Yes, people don't want to be walked all over anymore and aren't quiet about it. The horror.
Those traditions, values and cultures you don't want lost have to be able to defend themselves; they were attacked because they were outmoded to behold an entire society to. Every step forward in civil rights legislation has been an attack on those traditions, values and cultures. The very formation of the USA was a rejection of such. Many of these African nations rejected the colonial overlords who gave them these traditions, values and cultures that Western actors now seek to enforce. An attack is not necessarily a bad thing. A poor tradition, a harmful value, a dated culture should not weather such attacks, where strong and good ones will.
That the fight against gay equality is withering says more about the validity of the stance than it does about the attackers of it.
$1:
Once again I'll say that the gays need to step back for a year or so, enjoy the victories they've had, and then come back and try again.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
... we're jihadis because we aren't waiting a year to try again?
Personally, I agree with civil rights luminaries in the past who have argued that you stick with fighting for those rights until the rights are equal. Considering the current tide of attempts to legislate anti-gay laws into effect, not just in the USA but abroad, it makes a lot of sense for the gay communities world-wide to not back off. Taking a year off this last one would have let a "kill the gays" law pass, at least two laws oriented towards blocking gays from the free market pass in Arizona and Kansas, stopped three states from striking down laws, stopped England/Wales and potentially Scotland from legalizing gay marriage, and would have left off pressure on Russia and numerous other countries for civil rights abuses against their locals.
How Putin handles illegal invasions and systematic harms against his own people isn't relevant to a fight for liberty.
xerxes @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:04 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The resistance to the gay agenda is growing and it's quite predictable that traditional societies like we see in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe would push back against this kind of thing. They rightly see the degeneracy of the Western gay agenda as an attack on their traditions, values, and cultures because the gays are proving in the West that their agenda IS an attack on traditions, values, and culture.
The defacto firing of the Mozilla CEO for supporting a traditional marriage law (an act of free speech) demonstrates the intolerance of the gays for anyone who resists their political agenda. Add to this the two gays suing to be married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage, the infamous wedding cake lawsuit, and etc. and it's clear that the gays are morphing their political activism into something more closely resembling the intolerance of the jihadis or the Klan.
Once again I'll say that the gays need to step back for a year or so, enjoy the victories they've had, and then come back and try again.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
In any case, if the gays keep up with their jihad against cultures that reject homosexuality then I am not going to shed a tear when someone finally strikes back at these lavender jihadis with something more potent than the threat of a prison sentence or a campaign donation.
The defacto firing of the Mozilla CEO for supporting a traditional marriage law (an act of free speech) demonstrates the intolerance of the gays for anyone who resists their political agenda. Add to this the two gays suing to be married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage, the infamous wedding cake lawsuit, and etc. and it's clear that the gays are morphing their political activism into something more closely resembling the intolerance of the jihadis or the Klan.
Once again I'll say that the gays need to step back for a year or so, enjoy the victories they've had, and then come back and try again.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
In any case, if the gays keep up with their jihad against cultures that reject homosexuality then I am not going to shed a tear when someone finally strikes back at these lavender jihadis with something more potent than the threat of a prison sentence or a campaign donation.
And what agenda is that? The agenda to be treated like human beings both socially and under the law? How nefarious and pernicious!
And let's be clear here. The laws in places like Nigeria and Uganda aren't run if the mill laws that say gays can't get married and BS like that. The laws says they gays will be imprisioned and/or killed.
BartSimpson @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:08 am
Khar,
The gay rights movement lost me when they went from asking for tolerance to demanding and enforcing unqualified acceptance and approval. At this point the militant gays are just bullies to me and I loathe bullies.
I also loathe the hypocrisy of the muliticultural-diversity crowd that insists on imposing the cultural imperialism of Western liberal gay rights on long-established cultures and societies that reject such things. Just because we've turned our societies upside down in the past forty years doesn't mean everyone else in the world has to or should.
It's also predictable that some societies would choose to fight back against Western liberal intolerance as the threat to their societies that it is.
As to what constitutes a 'fight for liberty' I'd say that the right of people to self determination is itself an exercise in liberty.
Seriously, you should be more tolerant of other cultures. 
Khar @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:27 am
The gay rights movement never had you. You have leaped from excuse to excuse and from issue to issue claiming that gays are a problem for everything from the military to harming children on through. The pretense of "militant gays" is a recent thing that has developed as an excuse not to listen to the vocal, sane majority. It's easier to hate the (apparently "lavender") archetype than it is to accept the existence of rights and freedoms that should extend to all in a society, but don't.
Every movement has a handful of people who are more extreme than the rest. All of them. Inclusive of civil rights movements. Yes, the gay community have those who are incredibly ardent in their stance. No, they are not the only gay people. No, they do not represent people as a whole. No, you have not been forced to engage with any "militant gay" on CKA. Your lack of engagement is entirely through your will, and not through the existence (or lack of existence) of anyone else on here. Your continued choice to avoid responding to the vast majority of responses to your anti-gay threads is also not the result of any militancy. The demands of the movements are not extreme and are broadly supported by the majority of the people in your country. 50+% of your country are not "militant gays." Even then, being militant about upholding liberty is not something I expected a negative reaction from yourself on.
Further, frankly, the majority of nations in the world have turned themselves upside down, in large part because a lot of old colonial nations were trying to find the roots of their old values and cultures or ways to go forward without walking in step with a European power. The actions taken by these evangelicals to enforce an anti-gay stance, to reinforce a culture we thrust upon them, is exactly the same kind of actions you are so quick the denounce. Western pressure to assault gays in other countries should not be tolerated, and wasn't. Hence the response, inclusive of sanctions against places seeking to harm their own citizens in the names of such laws.
Nor, in a modern era, are the countries of the world so ready to step aside and allow for wide breaches in the liberties and protections of human rights. You yourself have repeatedly denounced Venezuela and China, have demanded we take actions like sanctions to stop nations from harming their citizens or others. There is widespread condemnation of religious violence, of ethnic cleansing, and of brutality against citizens. I will not apologize for my own stance that human rights need to be protected and that things like the "kill the gays" bill were obvious, extreme breaches of human rights. Nor is pushing for things "more potent than the threat of a prison sentence" acceptable in any sense of the term for a group of people simply existing.
As for subjugation of other rights to the one of "self-determination," then you should first a) agree the evangelicals should go back to the failing fight to oppress their fellow citizens in their own countries and b) should get around to respecting those self-determined rights developed in their countries they are supposed to be upholding, like free speech, which far too many people (as I have pointed out) are all too willing to abandon when they decide they disagree. As it stands now, what you suggest is that the West sending one message is fine (that of "gays are bad"), but sending the other message is a bad thing. Personally, I think discourse is a good thing.
Seriously, you should be more tolerant of ideas, rights, liberty and freedoms. I'll be more tolerant of cultures when they follow the rights and freedoms most of these nations are supposed to be upholding and are not being co-opted by a Western culture in the first place. The majority of multicultural arguments come with obvious caveats as to the extent such multiculturalism exists in local law. Pluralism in democracies is generally a good thing, in my opinion.
BartSimpson @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:42 am
Sorry, chum, I'm just not going to get on the bandwagon with you on this.
BeaverFever @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:39 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Sorry, chum, I'm just not going to get on the bandwagon with you on this.
Out of half-baked illogical arguments already? You're slipping, Bart.
BartSimpson @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:47 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Sorry, chum, I'm just not going to get on the bandwagon with you on this.
Out of half-baked illogical arguments already? You're slipping, Bart.
No, I'm just being courteous to Khar and not having him waste any more time or effort trying to sway me to his point of view.
Zipperfish @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:17 pm
Frankly I do find the gay rights lobby to be getting pretty annoying. Much like the gun lobby. They should get together with each other and compare why regular folks find them annoying. Generally speaking, leave the kids out of it, keep in mind that you may find gays/guns great and good for you, but the rest of us don't really have the need to celebrate gays/guns.
sandorski @ Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:22 pm
Khar Khar:
$1:
In any case, if the gays keep up with their jihad against cultures that reject homosexuality then I am not going to shed a tear when someone finally strikes back at these lavender jihadis with something more potent than the threat of a prison sentence or a campaign donation.
Behold, a one-way street of liberty, where you get your liberty at the cost of other's. Personally, I wouldn't celebrate violence against any group, especially not in a fashion that would so drastically impact freedom of speech, since I value that.
Thanks for the continued confusing attempts to refer to Muslim and homosexual groups as being one and the same, or using terminology similarly against both of us. Given the use of violence against gays historically and into the modern day (often in the name of religion), I think we know exactly from which direction any form of "jihad" (an exaggeration in ANY use of the term here) is coming, thanks. Doing anything other than denouncing such tactics ("more potent than the threat of a prison sentence") does a disservice to your fellow Americans, especially since, if I understand your job correctly, you are supposed to be upholding and protecting rights and freedoms they all enjoy.
$1:
The resistance to the gay agenda is growing and it's quite predictable that traditional societies like we see in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe would push back against this kind of thing. They rightly see the degeneracy of the Western gay agenda as an attack on their traditions, values, and cultures because the gays are proving in the West that their agenda IS an attack on traditions, values, and culture.
Resistance to de-segregation, women's rights, and other civil liberties took time too. Eventually, people come around to the idea that liberty isn't a one way street, and other people deserve liberty too.
It is always confusing to me to see someone defend these countries from "Western gay agenda"s because it might harm the Western religions, values and cultures we imposed on them. Christianity is there because Europe dumped it there, it didn't just spring fully formed into the region 200 years ago. It's even more entertaining that left hanging there is the fact that the main driving force behind the power of the anti-gay lobby in these countries does tend to be, as the article points out, people of means in Western cultures imposing themselves there once more.
$1:
The defacto firing of the Mozilla CEO for supporting a traditional marriage law (an act of free speech) demonstrates the intolerance of the gays for anyone who resists their political agenda. Add to this the two gays suing to be married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage, the infamous wedding cake lawsuit, and etc. and it's clear that the gays are morphing their political activism into something more closely resembling the intolerance of the jihadis or the Klan.
De facto firing? Bart, not so long ago you told me that if gays wanted to change things, we should vote with our money. You might remember, it's from the same thread where you predicted the downfall of gay friendly companies while denouncing a slew of successful ones for supporting gay rights in the same breath. Of course, now that shareholders are speaking out against it, it must be an infringement on his free speech. Mind, he can say whatever he wants, but we don't have to pay him so he can turn around and put money into something we don't agree with, do we?
I'd also point out no one forced him from his position. He resigned. In part because the bad press of supporting poor legislation, sure, but it's not anyone else's fault that being anti-gay has grown drastically less popular as time goes forward.
There is a rather obvious line between "I can say whatever I want" and "there should be no backlash because of my opinions." I don't have to be happy and pay into some fund to help support the Westboro Baptist Church, and neither should you. Just because they have opinions doesn't mean you sit there and nod about it. Free speech can be met by free speech. People who are gay have just as much a right to question the values of a man leading a company as religious people do, and I remind you that is a key contention of the argument behind rejections of the new law forcing people to pay for birth control. Yeah, it sucks when you disagree with other people engaging in freedom of speech and so forth, but that doesn't mean they are horrible tyrant jihadis.
As for your other examples, westmanguy's criticism of you still stands here. It's the same post where your "suing the church" point is handled effectively. I handled your "infamous[ly misunderstood] wedding cake lawsuit" here. When you know the stories and context behind those examples it becomes a lot less dangerous, and if you choose to respond to these many threads you post denouncing gays, you may have noticed them. You tend to have time to respond to other people in them.
But please, go on and tell me how equality for gay people, a belief now held by the majority of people according to various polls in the United States, and which is now upheld by federal law there and in 17 states (not to mention numerous other countries), is such a radical and marginal belief that you can equate it to the Klan or to jihadis?
Yes, people don't want to be walked all over anymore and aren't quiet about it. The horror.
Those traditions, values and cultures you don't want lost have to be able to defend themselves; they were attacked because they were outmoded to behold an entire society to. Every step forward in civil rights legislation has been an attack on those traditions, values and cultures. The very formation of the USA was a rejection of such. Many of these African nations rejected the colonial overlords who gave them these traditions, values and cultures that Western actors now seek to enforce. An attack is not necessarily a bad thing. A poor tradition, a harmful value, a dated culture should not weather such attacks, where strong and good ones will.
That the fight against gay equality is withering says more about the validity of the stance than it does about the attackers of it.
$1:
Once again I'll say that the gays need to step back for a year or so, enjoy the victories they've had, and then come back and try again.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
Hell, even Putin seems to be following that strategy and he's a dictator.
... we're jihadis because we aren't waiting a year to try again?
Personally, I agree with civil rights luminaries in the past who have argued that you stick with fighting for those rights until the rights are equal. Considering the current tide of attempts to legislate anti-gay laws into effect, not just in the USA but abroad, it makes a lot of sense for the gay communities world-wide to not back off. Taking a year off this last one would have let a "kill the gays" law pass, at least two laws oriented towards blocking gays from the free market pass in Arizona and Kansas, stopped three states from striking down laws, stopped England/Wales and potentially Scotland from legalizing gay marriage, and would have left off pressure on Russia and numerous other countries for civil rights abuses against their locals.
How Putin handles illegal invasions and systematic harms against his own people isn't relevant to a fight for liberty.
Hear hear!
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")