Some ice may be breaking in Uganda. Box Turtle Bulletin links to an essay written by John Nagenda, a senior advisor to President Museveni, opposing the anti-homosexuality bill.
The colorfully written piece brings into focus the part of the bill that I think transcends any particular penalty: death, imprisonment or even misdemeanor fine. Its original sin is its naïve and vicious attempt to enforce purity - to create a Uganda free of "any form of sexual relations between persons of the same sex," and even "the promotion or recognition of such sexual relations," whether inside or outside the country. Its target is only a small minority, but it intends to be comprehensive. Every citizen is coerced into turning in suspected violators, or themselves facing prosecution.
To describe the bill, Nagenda invokes a word Americans will understand -- McCarthyism - and helpfully explains to his fellow Ugandans how witch-hunts occur. But he then offers an even more apt analogy: the Inquisition.
Christians of good conscience have powerful reasons to be hypersensitive about this. There should be no doubt, after the extensive investigative work Box Turtle Bulletin has done, that several American Christians had a formative role in the bill's inception. They have exported their misguided notions about homosexuality, and Ugandan politicians bought the goods, and placed them at the very heart of their new crusade.
The bill states, as a matter of law, that same-sex attraction "is not an innate and immutable characteristic." At the very least, that is a matter of controversy, and it is barely that to anyone who has seriously considered the issue. Only a fringe group of religious fanatics and deranged psychologists manqué insist, today, that homosexuals are just heterosexuals gone wrong, and should man up and marry a good opposite-sex partner.
Nevertheless, this merry band found in some Ugandan politicians the credulous audience lacking in America (at least among politicians who wish to be taken seriously), and the result is what would be expected when ignorant religious beliefs are married to political ambition. By asserting pseudoscience as an enforceable principle of law, the bill strips homosexuals of their very existence, turns them into nothing more than errant - and criminal - heterosexuals, and enlists all good citizens into the war against them.
This turns homosexuality into heresy. That is what American Christianists have been trying to do here - return us to the days when homosexuality was criminal, homosexuals were ashamed and silent, and heterosexuals could count on the police to enforce that shame and silence. Any citizen with a petty grievance or a niggling suspicion was empowered to press the levers of power. When rumors are evidence, people can destroy one another at will.
It doesn't take a lot to see how much damage that can cause, and has caused - particularly for anyone who's paid even the slightest attention to history. From the Crusades to the Inquisition to the Holocaust, the quest for purity inevitably brings out the worst in us, not the best.
Uganda can avoid learning that lesson the hard way. But they'll need to listen to better advice than America's traveling snake-oil salesmen are giving them. Nagenda's essay is a good sign that common sense may prevail.
16 Comments for “Common Sense in the Ugandan Crusade”
posted by Amicus on
When rumors are evidence, people can destroy one another at will.
=====
Look at this, those who often get perplexed how what looks like libel laws made there way into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights …
posted by Amicus on
*cough* “there way”=”their way”
posted by TS on
Good article. Very sensibly argued points. Just one thing you said is plain wrong.
“Nagendaâs essay is a good sign that common sense may prevail.”
No. Plop Aristotle in the middle of Africa, and you still get Africa. This bill will pass and enjoy wreaking havoc for many years to come.
posted by David Link on
TS, thanks. If Nagenda weren’t an adviser to the President, I’d have been even more qualified than I was with that queasy “may.” Perhaps it’s different in Ugandan presidential politics, but over here, few top advisers get to speak publicly without very explicit permission from the top dog. I confess I know pretty much nothing about Ugandan politics in general, so I might be quite wrong in that assumption, but I’ve found Jim Burroway and the BTB folks to be awfully reliable on this stuff, and I’m taking my guardedly optimistic cue from them.
We’ll see. In the meantime, I’m not taking my eyes off this.
posted by John on
You forgot the old Soviet Union where anybody could be a spy for the KGB, parents, children, neighbors, friends, relatives, anybody. Not to mention that the old USSR denied that they had any gays.
It’s not about purity. It’s about power. As we apparently did not learn from Nazi Germany oppression of one group of people generally leads to oppression of other groups. Don’t believe that Uganda will stop at oppressing gays. Unfortunately, there are too many governments seeking purity of one kind or another, including various elements of the United States.
posted by BobN on
“Nevertheless, this merry band found in some Ugandan politicians the credulous audience”
A good part of the reason so many Ugandans and other Africans support this law is that the message came along with money from the U.S. Dubya, to his credit, pushed a lot of money into the U.S. effort to fight AIDS. Unfortunately, he tied much of it to faith-based programs, so when Rick Warren and others went to Africa to help fight AIDS with taxpayer money, they brought along a lot of false messages. Anti-homosexuality was only one of them. The power of abstinence and religion was another.
posted by Quo on
David Link,
You suggest that it is beyond real dispute that homosexuality is an innate and immutable characteristic to anyone who has seriously considered the issue.
May I ask, when did you seriously consider the issue, and what evidence convinced you that this was the case? I’ve spent a great deal of time seriously considering the issue, and examining the arguments of both sides in the deabte. I find it extremely unlikely that homosexuality is innate.
posted by TS on
“I find it extremely unlikely that homosexuality is innate.”
Why this endless crap about innate and learned? Life on Earth is unlike anything else in the neighborhood because of DNA genomes, molecules that go to incredible lengths to replicate themselves. They do this by taking in other materials from the world around them and causing them to be reorganized. But the materials and conditions around them, in varying, greatly affect the outcome.
In order for a behavior to be truly “innate,” DNA would have to so inflexibly code for the behavior that it would be utterly maladaptive and quickly go extinct. If behavior were truly “environmental,” living things would be indistinguishable from rocks, water, and air, “behaving” only when other things ran into them.
So, like all behavior from respiration to calculus, human homosexuality is a behavior which the nervous system chooses to carry out on the basis of careful measurements of the environment put through circuits built in accordance with the plans of DNA.
(Before you puzzle too much over respiration, think of the basic respiratory choice made by a newborn’s nervous system to begin respiring independently.)
posted by TS on
and thanks for the reply, Mr. Link. I honestly don’t know much about the specific political lines in Uganda either… I merely assume the worst because it seems a safe assumption. It’s good that the power structure there at least recognizes the value of a wise man’s counsel. But on this particular occasion, there’s just nothing for them to gain by enlightened policy.
posted by BobN on
“I find it extremely unlikely that homosexuality is innate.”
Uh, don’t you mean “I find it extremely unlikely that sexuality is innate”?
Somehow, I bet you don’t look at it that way.
posted by Debrah on
All the research that has been done on homosexuality has been selectively trumpeted through the press in a carefully crafted form in order to shape public opinion in predictable ways.
The research itself means almost nothing for it is done in an attempt to shape public policy.
The research projects that would truly mean something are scarcely being done because they would all explicitly or tacitly lead to an end highly undesirable to “activists”.
A method or methods for preventing homosexuality or changing it with ever-increasing efficacy would lead to but one conclusion: homosexuality per se is not inherited.
Most of the research has been hastily and often sloppily done.
Even were it superb, the findings would still mean almost nothing.
To whatever extent this research has been good enough to generate valid conclusions at all, these conclusions are precisely the opposite of what is claimed in the press.
Unfortunately, anyone who is so inclined can easily offer the public partial truths which are seriously misleading.
This is so only in part because of an easily led or poorly educated press.
The major reason is really that the ideas being cooked beyond recognition once they leave the labs are inherently complex, even if originally formulated and presented properly.
There are no quick sound-bite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleâand will continue to mean little even if the quality of the research methods improve—so long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
posted by Debrah on
“I find it extremely unlikely that homosexuality is innate.”
***********************************
Yes, quite unlikely.
Like most human behavior, more likely a combination of nature and nurture.
One doesn’t think that the little (black) boys adopted by former Duke University official Frank Lombard whom it was reported he had systematically molested would not have grown up thinking they were also “gay”……
……after a lifetime of having been rimmed and penetrated, anally, by Lombard and his internet cam friends……had they not been (mercifully) freed from that brand of parenting?
Answer that one.
Any one of us might grow up to be gay under such circumstances.
Just as many children who are molested by their hetero parents often grow up shattered.
posted by TS on
Debrah, you wrote basically the same thing I did. So at least we agree on that. I’m still not a fan of your rude and polemical tone, though I guess I shouldn’t expect a higher standard of politeness out of the internet.
posted by Debrah on
TO “TS”–
Yes, our views on the topic are similar.
And I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see such an array of opinions on this forum.
Most people attempting to set themselves up as a distinct “group”…..spending valuable time touting themselves as a “minority”…..are most often found wallowing inside a debilitating groupthink.
“I’m still not a fan of your rude and polemical tone, though I guess I shouldn’t expect a higher standard of politeness out of the internet.”
*****************************************
Sorry you feel that way; however, I have seen no objections at all from you and others when detractors on this forum pick up a pseudonym and level some of the sleaziest logorrhea one will find anywhere.
You should know that my dialogue does not change from internet into real, everyday life.
That’s the beauty of being above-board instead of hiding in the wings….only to emerge with the cowardly shield of a pseudonym.
But rest assured, I can be as charming as anyone you will ever meet when the topic calls.
But this is a serious issue, no? At least you guys seem to believe that is the case.
Let me make a suggestion.
When talking with me, just pretend you are talking to another man…..because that is the brand of debate you will get from me.
If some wish to discuss body parts and delve into that Pandora’s Box, we’ll do that; however, do not confuse me with the women in your own families.
You can talk to your mothers or your sisters or anyone else that way, but gross misogyny—(and I have never read misogyny worse than what comes from some gay men)—will not work with me.
I don’t abide it from hetero men and I certainly will not abide it from gay men.
Some of us have put much effort into NOT having children and NOT going through the physical erosiveness of birthing babies. When you are lucky enough to have inherited good genes from two very physically attractive parents, you have a smooth ride inside the gene pool.
So gay men should understand that their gross misogyny about female body parts as a debating tool will be met with the same brand of enthusiasm their hetero counterparts would receive.
And fellows, let me just add…….if you did have a firm set of t!ts and a “vag” (as the sleazy “Patrick” mentioned long ago)……it would make things ever so much healthier for you, physically.
posted by Bobby on
“One doesn’t think that the little (black) boys adopted by former Duke University official Frank Lombard whom it was reported he had systematically molested would not have grown up thinking they were also “gay”……”
—I read about that case online, the conservative blogosphere is going crazy because the mainstream media isn’t covering that story the way the Duke Lacrosse “rape” story was covered. Townhall had a article about Lombard’s Amazon Wish List, it is very upsetting.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/07/06/frank_lombard%E2%80%99s_wish_list
“Any one of us might grow up to be gay under such circumstances.”
—Well, he could become a straight homophobe. After all, women who are abused don’t necesarily become lesbians.
posted by Debrah on
“…..women who are abused don’t necesarily become lesbians.”
**************************
I didn’t say that they did. I said that they often grow up shattered.
Many women who have been molested by their fathers from childhood on….grow up with myriad psychological problems.
They either hate men and have phobias about sex or they become very promiscuous and masochistic as they turn their hatred onto themselves.
I don’t read the Townhall fora and most of the conservative blogs; however, I can understand their interest in this gross dichotomy of coverage as it relates to Duke University.
Mind-numbing.
Wonder why the very loud black lesbian blogger who is right there in the same town has not explored this topic?
In the past I have defended her against those who used the fact that she and her partner are both grossly overweight and she is also rather silly with all the daily gossip; however, you cannot miss the irony in how gay bloggers have run from this very relevant case.
It destroys credibility and the media always comply with the cover-up for fear of being called “homophobic”.
LOL!!!
What a bizarre world when you have to run from reality……all the while imploring other people to take you seriously about SSM.
On a related matter, months ago the nut case Debra Lafave was in the news for having had sex with a young boy who was her student.
There was a report subsequent to that one about a black man who did the same thing to one of his students.
Some commenters on the forum tried to bring race into the discussion….implying that this happens a lot among blacks and Hispanics.
To which I immediately took every utterance from these people to task.
I reminded them that the people most often in the news for molesting their students have been white women….and most of them cooled it.
You have to call out those who are the culprits.
I wouldn’t think of not illuminating a perpetrator of a crime because they might share some “category” of life with me.
The Frank Lombard case should have been illuminated on all the gay blogs and he should have been castigated as anyone else would have been.
But no……it’s always a dodge.
Loony, that.