Africa's Anti-Gay Laws Spark Accusations and Denials in US

[TotallyOz]

Anti-gay laws sweeping through East Africa have sparked a debate in the United States about the possible influence of American evangelical leaders and lawmakers with strong ties in that region. U.S. activists are also shedding new light on the risks that gays face in East Africa.

 

In his book called The Family, American journalist Jeff Sharlet criticizes a group of influential American Christian leaders and conservative lawmakers with close ties to politicians in East Africa.

 

He accuses them of treating some of the countries they deal with as social and political experiments.

 

"It has become sort of a Frankenstein's monster and is the family going to take responsibility for the empowerment they have given to some of these politicians?," asked Jeff Sharlet.

 

In his book, Sharlet specifically refers to politicians in Uganda proposing an anti-gay law that would criminalize homosexuality. The law, which could be passed within weeks despite international condemnation, includes possible punishment by death.

 

Anti-gay laws were recently passed in Burundi, are being discussed in Rwanda, and could soon be expanded in Kenya and Tanzania.

 

The American group Sharlet calls The Family is also known as The Fellowship. It organizes an annual National Prayer Breakfast with the U.S. president and foreign guests, but besides that activity shuns publicity and does not openly list its members.

 

But Sharlet says more American reporters are looking into the group and its alleged ties to Africa. These include helping African politicians with money so they can push socially conservative agendas.

 

"We see reporters in Iowa, in Pennsylvania, and in Oklahoma, going to their elected representatives who have a link to this whole thing and saying 'tell us about the link'," he said. "They are not accusing them of anything, they are saying, 'You have a relationship with the Ugandan government, what is the nature of that relationship? And, are you going to use that influence to oppose this legislation that seems to be supported by some of your allies?'"

 

Religious leaders like Rick Warren have also been under the microscope. He is the senior pastor of the California-based Saddleback church, which is active in both Uganda and Rwanda.

 

After being questioned about his role by U.S. media, Warren issued a video message on the Internet, denying his support for the law in Uganda.

 

"As an American pastor, it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it is my role to speak out on moral issues and it is my role to shepherd other pastors who look to me for guidance, and it is my role to correct lies and errors and false reports when others associate my name with a law that I had nothing to do with, [and which] I completely oppose and I vigorously condemn," said Rick Warren. "I am referring to the pending law under consideration by the Ugandan parliament, known as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill."

 

Rwanda's parliament is also working to pass a law which would criminalize homosexuality but Warren has yet to address his church's role in that matter. In 2005, he called Rwanda a "purpose driven nation." Warren went with dozens of American evangelicals to hold meetings with government ministers, lawmakers and donate materials to churches across Rwanda.

 

Several American lawmakers who have been linked to the Fellowship, like Nevada Senator John Ensign have called the Ugandan law proposal "outrageous". But others like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, who went to Uganda in 2004, have said they do not know enough about the bill to comment.

 

The executive director of the U.S.-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, Cary Alan Johnson, welcomes some of the questions now being asked.

 

"It is a debate that has to happen and we are glad it is happening," said Cary Alan Johnson. "Rwanda and Uganda are both countries with deeply spiritual people and as of late we have understood that some of the more conservative elements in the United States have been funding the most violent and homophobic discourses about homosexuality."

 

Johnson says those seeking to push an agenda should understand the consequences of their actions. He warns anti-gay laws could worsen already high HIV levels in east Africa.

 

"The impact of these laws on HIV prevention is extremely worrisome to us," he said. "Laws we are talking about in Uganda, Rwanda, will make it impossible for groups to do HIV education that targets men who have sex with men or that targets bisexual people and we know that there is a strong impact of HIV on this community and on society in general."

 

Lisa Laurel Weinberg, from the Massachusetts Lutheran Social Services Human Rights Protection Project, says the situation is already very difficult. In her other job as an asylum attorney, she recently helped a young Ugandan woman win asylum to the United States. The woman's apartment had been raided by police while she was inside with her girlfriend.

 

"The police broke in and brought them to the police station and raped them in what is called a corrective rape," said Lisa Laurel Weinberg. "It is when males of authority try and correct lesbianism through rape."

 

But Weinberg warns trying to fight the new laws from the outside is very complicated.

 

"I got an e-mail yesterday that said be really careful and check with Ugandans before you do any advocacy from the West, because us imposing our values, they are really sensitive to the whole colonialism history, so that the email cautioned be careful what you do and let it come from them," she said.

 

Some prominent politicians and journalists in East Africa have called homosexuality the "white man's disease." Pro-gay groups in the region, which are mostly underground, say they are becoming increasingly afraid to ask for help, and believe outside interference could worsen the persecution they face.

 

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/human-rights/Africas-Anti-Gay-Laws-Spark-Accusations-and-Denials-in-US-79853182.html

[Guest GaySacGuy]

Rachel Maddow, from MSNBC, has been following this story closely for sometime. I download here daily show by podcast here in Ubon.

 

The "Family" has there own house/apartment in Washington D.C., and some of these Senators and Representatives have been living here for years. This is a group that will curl your toes...anti gay, anti women's rights, "pro life", etc.

 

The only bit of good news is the the Ugandan person that signs there laws (president???) has said now that he will veto the "kill the gays" bill if it reaches his desk.

 

This bill even has prison sentences for anyone that knows of a gay person, and doesn't notify authorities.

[Guest fountainhall]

There are many good people from America and other countries operating around the world who work in a genuinely charitable way. Some are related to religious groups, but do not actively promote their own religious causes. I believe these people do a tremendous amount of good and deserve a lot of gratitude.

 

Throughout history, though, so-called missionaries from many countries, especially the United Kingdom (the "white man's burden" according to Kipling) and later America, have been culpable of influencing the peoples of other countries, often with disastrous results for the 'converts'. Now it seems that American "men of God" (whatever that means) have upped the stakes by deliberately influencing governments with potentially far more disastrous results. Some of these MOG (OMG ) may be genuine and sincere in their intentions, even though they are almost invariably mistaken about the results of their actions. Others, though, are unquestionably motivated by power, influence and downright greed. These are dangerous individuals who help give America a bad name and are, in effect, promoting a new form of colonialism. To draw a rough kind of parallel, I put them in a class just below the Bin Laden's of this world. After all, their propagandizing affects vastly more lives than has Bin Laden (so far!).

 

It should be made a criminal offense for those who call themselves MOG (whatever God they claim to speak for) to operate in countries other than their own. Further, governments should be under some form of binding UN mandate that aid for developing countries is made 'without strings' of any kind, but particularly those with sinister economic and religious overtones.

[Guest GaySacGuy]

There are many good people from America and other countries operating around the world who work in a genuinely charitable way. Some are related to religious groups, but do not actively promote their own religious causes. I believe these people do a tremendous amount of good and deserve a lot of gratitude.

 

None of these "good people" are the far right "Conservative Christian Evangeliqust (sp)"

 

 

.

Further, governments should be under some form of binding UN mandate that aid for developing countries is made 'without strings' of any kind, but particularly those with sinister economic and religious overtones.

 

I don't agree with this point...I believe aid should have many strings attached! There should be restrictions on human rights along with many others as to how these countries can spend/use this aid.

[Guest fountainhall]

I believe aid should have many strings attached! There should be restrictions on human rights along with many others as to how these countries can spend/use this aid.

 

Admirable in principle - but how on earth do you monitor it? I do not believe it is possible - sadly. In effect, it's just hot air designed to appeal to the electorate of the US and other donor countries. Let's not forget that the west tends to deliver massive dollops of aid, most of which is designed not to help the poor or oppressed but to prop up its own strategic interests. While American politicians were trumpeting human rights, what horrors were happening to huge numbers in their puppet regimes in The Philippines under Marcos, Chile under Pinochet, Cambodia under Lon Nol - need I add more? And somewhere into this mix we have to drop Israel, a country which has nuclear bombs and which continuously ignores vastly more UN-backed resolutions than did Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Whilst I believe Israel is not in the same league as the others mentioned, I do consider its human rights record is pretty abysmal.

 

Let's look at the other side of the coin. The Israeli lobby in the US is probably the largest, most widespread, wealthiest and most influential. If you permit that lobby to operate and promote its agenda, what right have you to deny the religious right its lobbying operations and its agenda - loathsome though I consider these to be?

[Gaybutton]

Let's look at the other side of the coin. The Israeli lobby in the US is probably the largest, most widespread, wealthiest and most influential. If you permit that lobby to operate and promote its agenda, what right have you to deny the religious right its lobbying operations and its agenda - loathsome though I consider these to be?

I don't see how you equate the two. Israel is a country, not a religion, and certainly not the only country lobbying to promote its agenda.

[Guest fountainhall]

I don't see how you equate the two. Israel is a country, not a religion

 

The 'equation' relates to the right to lobby and promote an agenda - not specifically a country or religion.