Spark In Darkness

The New York Times has finally blinked and realised that Uganda has this little kill-gays bill being planned. It even blinked twice and realised *gasp* American religious conservatives are some of the primary instigators of this genocidal bill while those of us tracking Christian love towards homosexuals are less than surprised.

Of course those religious bigots are shocked - SHOCKED - that their innocent words be used to justify the massacre of homosexuals. They are stunned that it could ever come to this! WHO COULD POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN?!

Who could have known that accusing gays of recruiting children could lead to this?

Who could have known that accusing gays of preying on teenagers could lead to this?

Who could have known that calling the gay rights movement an evil institution could lead to this?

As Box turtle bulletin very clearly states (and his reporting on the Ugandan bill has been by far and away the best I've found anywhere) this is beyond bullshit. They knew, they were warned and there was no way in hell that anyone with half a brain could not have seen the damage they were doing.

These men have blood on their hands and are morally guilty of the deaths that will come of this law. They are due nothing but disgust and revulsion - and if there were truly sorry or horrified by the pain and deaths they are causing they would travel to Uganda now and try to fix the evil they have caused.

But they have not - and until then the lies these evil men spout are worth nothing

Because, y’know, I think you’re an intelligent man. I also think you’re an aware man. And when you were first chosen you were tipped to be liberal. I get that “liberal” from an organised religion point of view is certainly different from what I consider liberal, but I kind of hoped it would mean more than “yes you can toast marshmallows on the fires we use to burn people” liberal.

But he has finally spoken about the Uganda bill. FINALLY. As I said Here I’m not overly impressed by a condemnation that is so late in the day - but at least it’s something.

Except I cannot imagine him “condemning” this bill in a worst way. Seriously - it’s awful. It has multiple fails on multiple levels.

Let us look at it

Fail the First
It’s in the damn Telegraph. Yes, I know I know not everyone haters the paper as much as I do. But it’s a paper that, quite frankly, doesn’t give a damn about gay people in Uganda or anywhere. He may as well have spoken to the bloody Daily Mail. And if you actually go to the Torygraph’s website you’ll find his statement isn’t even on the first page (X factor? Yeah we have that. A bishop praising the Taliban, yeah we have that). It took me quite a while to find it - not helped by the fact that the title doesn’t even mention Uganda. But there’s a good reason for that.

Fail the Second
The title of the piece is: “Dr Rowan Williams: taking a break from Canterbury travails” What? This is him speaking out about a Ugandan genocide bill?

No, it isn’t. It’s a general interview. A very rambly, chatty interview. It starts by talking about the English countryside. Then we talk about *SHOCK* the Lesbian Bishop in the US, the Lambleth Conference and then FINALLY we get to Uganda and his statement which I’ll get to in a moment. Then we move on again.

So, his condemnation of Uganda? Is a paragraph, a brief reference, an aside in a long and rather tiresome interview.

Fail the Third - THE BIG ONE
Rowan Williams Statement. Let me quote it:

“Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades,” says Dr Williams. “Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers.” He adds that the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty but, tellingly, he notes that its archbishop, Henry Orombi, who boycotted the Lambeth Conference last year, “has not taken a position on this bill”.

The death penalty is a terrible thing and I fully agree with opposing it in all incidences. But is he saying that if the death penalty were removed and if religious leaders were immunity for the reporting clause then he’d be HAPPY with this law? Are these 2 REALLY the only parts of the law he has a problem with?

How about this “Criminalising homosexuality is WRONG!”? Hey, how’s that for a statement, Rowan? Not “the death penalty is wrong” (which I agree with) or “making it hard for religious leaders to tend their flocks is wrong.” How about a simple “punishing homosexuals is wrong.”? How about a simple “this entire law is wrong.”?

Because THIS statement makes me think you agree with it in principle - you just think it’s a little too harsh. I’m really feeling the Christian love.