Comments on: Uganda pastors task force video response to Rick Warren

By: anteros

anteros — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:52:05 +0000

gayuganda: Exactly! That “rape a virgin/kid to cure HIV” thing is prescribed by witchdoctors in South Africa. I’ve never heard of such a thing happening in Uganda. And all the reports I heard in South Africa were of heterosexual rape. And even if it were a problem in Uganda… this bill would not help solve that problem at all. Ssempa does this sort of thing deliberately… he does it all the time to excite the public into homophobic hysteria… he tricks people into believing that he has expertise or special knowledge on the subject, then asserts the following:

homosexuality = anal sex (taboo) = male rape = infections = evil = ungodly = unAfrican = western perversion = “recruitment” of kids into homosexuality = male prostitution

I hope he gets all the exposure he craves, that way people will see through his lies.

By: gayuganda

gayuganda — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:56:17 +0000

There is method to his lies. Sylvia Tamale, the law prof has been consistent in her challenge of this contention. I researched what she was saying, and got the facts. He is in contact with Tamale. And, if he wasnt, he would at least have asked a lawyer to research the facts. He has continued, persisted in saying the same thing.

But, it is not only this. For many of the things he says, Ssempa takes a bit of truth, and then magnifies it as a lie.

For example, when he talks about virgin rape as a cure for HIV, that has been reported. BUT it is reported in South Africa. Not in Uganda. He knows what he is talking about, but he twists the facts to fit his fantasies. And, he is charismatic, and tends to overwhelm a debate with his voice and his emotional appeal.

He lies. Consistently, constantly. I have come to expect it of him. But, many people believe the half truths that he sells as gospel.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:03:29 +0000

Personally, I think he’s lying. It’s a feeling I get. There’s method to it.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 06:00:36 +0000

gayuganda,
Thanks. Will check out the link in the morning. It’s just after official ‘New Years’ here and I just got home.

My current guess is that the amendments (one of which I quoted earlier) are common knowledge but that Ssempa is slipping past the truth by referring to–and quoting from–the old Penal Code and ignoring the amendments.

I’ve known people to play such games and then convince themselves that they aren’t really lying but, as Christians so often say, God sees the heart. If his intent is to deceive then he is deserving of God’s judgement AND that of his fellow believers. I detest ‘spin’ no matter which side is playing it.

Thanks for the link. Happy New Year to you and to all who visit here.

By: gayuganda

gayuganda — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 05:49:56 +0000

Eddy,

I started off writing that I dont have any references, then checked what I have and found, oh yes, I do have them, and, there is the sections 140 and 140something that you are talking about.

The Penal Code Act is here

Now, I am given to understand by Dr Tamale, a law prof at the University here, that this is the old Penal Code Act, and that there were ammendments to it. But, at least you can go through it and see what was before.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:17:29 +0000

Michael, I agree, they are not just opposed to child abuse, they are also opposed to any expression of homosexual behavior.

That’s my point. That’s what opponents of this Bill are opposed to, not punishing child molestors. It would not make any sense at all for nations, religious leaders and human rights organizations to oppose it so strongly if that were the case.

There are many other reasons to oppose the Bill, but I won’t repeat them here. Doctor Throckmorton and others have done a fine job of pointing out why this law is so onerous and why so many people from around are calling for it to be withdrawn.

By: PianoManKugie

PianoManKugie — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:07:43 +0000

Interesting. Brings into question what is healing and what is not, which touches on an entirely different subject, related to native american healing etc. My main concern is that if it is true indeed that there are shaman-like persons who tell HIV positive people to rape children to get healed, that they find those people who are telling people to do so, and put them in prison for life. Anyone who encourages child rape, and who is viewed as an authority and respected as such, is very dangerous indeed, and their free speech and freedom of practicing their religion end where the children’s safety begins.
About the age 18 cutoff:
Somewhere I read about a discussion of a scenario where both persons are under 18, say in highschool, then would they prosecute the “perpetrator” as an adult? Or even ages 19 and 17? Very messy, trying to discern the lines between consensual and manipulative and adolescence and experimentation between teenagers etc, as opposed to an adult abuser.
Michael, I agree, they are not just opposed to child abuse, they are also opposed to any expression of homosexual behavior. I am less for the death penalty than I used to be. John 8 “let him who is without sin cast the first stone” is sinking deeper into my mind.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:27:56 +0000

PianoMan–
Your comment led me to some googling. No hard results yet but I think if you google ‘Witchcraft act of 1957′ it will eventually lead to existing laws re witchcraft. At one time, it appears there was an appeal to modify that act to separate actual practitioners of witchcraft from those simply engaged in ‘the healing arts’.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:27:52 +0000

If that was truly all it was, I doubt that Rick Warren, Warren Throckmorton, The US State Department, US religious leaders, human rights groups, Australia, the European Union, Sweden, France and thousands of Christians and non-Christians around the globe would be upset about it.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:24:37 +0000

The bill goes way beyond child abuse or child abuse reporting. If that were the real intent of the law, it would not be necessary to mention the gender or orientation of the victim or perpetrator.

Ssempa quotes California statutes in an attempt to equate the two laws. I agree with the “elastic with the truth” and “misdirection at best” comments. It’s an anti-homosexuality bill, not a child abuse bill.