In a “Where We Stand” editorial, Christianity Today urged readers to “Listen, then Speak.”
Overall, I am disappointed and puzzled by the editorial. The closest the writer gets to telling us where CT stands is near the end of the article:
We join many other American voices in our concern over the way the proposed legislation can hamper ministry and harm children of God. But we are also grateful for the African voices who are calling us to pay attention to how Western society may be undermining our own zeal for preserving God’s gift of sexuality.
I am unclear how the Ugandans are calling us to see sexuality God’s way when they swallow the camel of polygamy and strain at the gnat of homosexuality. Perhaps this way of ending the article seemed balanced to the writer; give a little here, take a little there, but I am unclear what the writer thinks we can learn from the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
To get to the conclusion, the article meanders through some thoughts on cultural relativism, pointing out some conflicting possible reactions from Western Christians.
Now Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill has put Western Christian leaders in a bind:
(1) The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity; (2) their belief in the traditional family leads them to support Ugandan Christian resistance to sexual liberation movements imported from the United States and Europe; (3) their belief that churches need to minister to homosexuals leads them to oppose legal penalties for those who don’t report homosexual activity; (4) their belief that the fight against HIV/AIDS requires confidential testing leads them to oppose laws that could expose HIV-positive people to harsh penalties; (5) their belief in the ability of African churches to make mature decisions prompts them to remain silent on legislation that African churches are still pondering; (6) their commitment to ongoing engagement in missions and social service with African churches makes them extremely cautious to interfere in general.
I suspect these possible reactions do seem confusing for many evangelicals. However, it is clearly possible to respect the Ugandan’s right of self-determination while at the same time, disagreeing with the proposal before their Parliament. I also take issue with what is listed as the first possible response and would say it this way:
The leaders’ commitment to human rights (based on the Golden Rule and the image of God) leads them to oppose harsh any penalties for consensual adult homosexual activity.
Responding to the Ugandan bill, I believe Rick Warren had it absolutely correct when he wrote about criminalization of homosexuality:
I oppose the criminalization of homosexuality. The freedom to make moral choices is endowed by God. Since God gives us that freedom, we must protect it for all, even when we disagree with their choices.
We know where Rick Warren stands. Where does CT stand on criminalization? To me, it is not clear.
The editorial continues:
For American Christian leaders, both silence and open condemnation end up violating important missional and human-rights principles. There is no escaping this dilemma, but several points are worth reflection.
What missional and human rights principles? I don’t think it is difficult to say that the sentence of a life time in jail for touching “another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality” is wrong. What missional or human rights’s principles are violated by saying what Rick Warren said to his Ugandan brothers and sisters?
Then adding insult to injury, the CT writer uncritically invokes Scott Lively’s reckless charge of racism toward those who found fault with the Americans who spoke at the March anti-gay conference in Kampala.
First, when American media reported on the proposed legislation, they assumed an inordinate amount of American influence. Media outlets tried to “expose” the power of American evangelicals who had spoken about gay issues in Uganda. Such assumptions were racist, said Scott Lively, one of the speakers. If anything, Ugandan legislators did not follow his advice: He had urged them to favor rehabilitation rather than imprisonment in crafting a new law on homosexuality.
If I understand CT here, I think this is more a criticism of the reporting by American media than a vindication of the March, 2009 ex-gay conference in Uganda. However, as presented, that distinction is vague. One could interpret this paragraph as agreement with Scott Lively’s charge of racism, obfuscating the Americans’ responsibility for what was presented at the conference. This, of course, is offensive and fails to confront the substance of Scott Lively’s remarks to the 10,000 or so people he claims to have addressed. Yes, Lively advised rehabilitation (as if that is an enlightened option) in the context of continued criminalization, but in no particular order, he also said that
- Nazi atrocities were animated by homosexuality,
- amoral homosexuals were probably responsible for the Rwandan holocaust, and
- homosexuals prey on vulnerable children.
Hearing this, it is not a surprise that the Ugandans did not heed his call for rehabilitation. Nor is it a surprise that Christians are horrified that such slander was presented in the name of Christ.
CT’s advice is much less specific:
We counsel patience as Ugandan leaders sort out among themselves the best way to preserve their culture’s sexual mores. We also caution them against punitive strategies, as we believe that capital punishment for homosexual behavior goes well beyond the limit.
The reference to capital punishment is pretty safe since even proponents of the bill suggested the removal of the death penalty in December, 2009. However, is life in prison a “punitive strategy?” What is the limit? I think it is, but from this article, I cannot tell where CT stands.
I know where I stand.
In the words of Sherman Potter, “Horse Puckey!” The issue was execution and life in prison and they did budge and speak against the extreme penalities.
Once again I am amazed at your gift of being able to judge without the slightest taint of bias…to know not only the heart of EXODUS but also the reason behind what they do.
Again, your gift of knowing the motivations of others is unsurpassed…darn, if you didn’t tarnish it though by saying that it ONLY spoke to their own self interest. I realize it’s not convenient for you at the moment to recall that they also spoke to the severity of the punishments but that did happen and it did go beyond their own self interests.
It’s my opinion Eddy. You are entitled to defend them all you want.
And yes, it’s VERY biased. Never claimed it was not.
There’s a very good reason not to…perhaps your reacting without reading. Such matters aren’t simply board decisions…they involve the voices of all the Exodus member agencies and affiliates. And, for the record, YOU demand that the answer be either “yes” or “no”….you, sir, don’t have any rights to make such a demand of an organization you aren’t a part of. It may come down to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but that’s for them to decide not you.
This statement comes from a memory tarnished by time. I recall having several burning issues mostly about words that would be misconstrued or politics back in the days when you were involved. A number of them were discussed for weeks before resolve and others went for discussion at the annual conference. Perhaps you forget that the board at the time was made up of people who were, on the average, devoting 40 plus hours a week to their individual ministries besides serving on the board.
This notion of resolving an issue and making a statement based on a single phone call is the stuff of fantasy.
I don’t defend them against credible and true charges, Michael. I defend them against obvious bias that forgets the facts and presumes to know motives.
How long do you think Exodus would have taken to make it clear where it stood officially if Don Scmierer had been “duped” into speaking at a conference where the agenda was support for gay marriage? I’ll betcha the offical response would have swift and clear — and no one would have had to pressure them to do it — as Warren had to do with the letter.
Alll I know is if this had happened when I was part of the Board, action would have been taken quickly and clearly or my resignation would have been swift. Debating what words we should use is not a valid comparison. Life and liberty to not hang in the balance.
The Board is elected to make important policy decisions. If the members and affiliates disagree with the Board or choose to support criminalization and forced treatment., they can vote the board OUT or drop out of the organization Who would want such folks as members and afilliates anyway?
Just like we have no right to tell Uganda what we think of their proposed legislation bcause we “weren’t invited”?
I have every right to criticize them. You are part of the organzation either. What gives you the right to defend them?
LOL. I can’t believe you even posed such a silly question.
Demanding that someone not only make a decision but that it must be made on a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ basis is both intrusive and restrictive. Members have such rights; non-members don’t.
Defending someone is neither intrusive or restrictive…heck, unless they happen to read here, they don’t even know I’ve defended them. It’s not intrusive or restrictive in the slightest. So it doesn’t even factor in under ‘rights’.
We actually don’t have the right to DEMAND anything of Uganda. The other obvious difference between our statements is that in regards to EXODUS you aren’t just saying something is wrong, you are trying to tell the only appropriate way to fix it. Oh, wait, that is kinda what you are doing with Uganda too…it’s the part that many of us feel is misguided and imperialistic.
Who says so? Who are YOU, sir, to tell me what my “rights” are? It’s OK for YOU to defend but not for ME to criticize? LOL. LOL. LOL. Talk about “censorship”! You have often expressed how you think Exodus or other organizations ought to do things and you are not part of those organzation either.
You have expressed what you think should be done (or not done) about Uganda. You have that right. I have that right. You and I BOTH have EVERY right to express our opinions as to the nature of the problem and how best we think they should fix it. You do it all the time, Eddy. All the time.
My insistence that Exodus should do or not do someting is not intrusive or restrictive — any more than your suggestions as to what GLSEN should do. You are not a member of GLSEN. Why don’t you button up about them?
You and I can opine, demand or insist all we please. We BOTH have that “right” — whether or not we are part of the organizations or nations we criticize. You’re saying that I do not have the “right” does not make it so. LOL. LOL. LOL. Freedom of Speech, remember? I don’t derive my “rights” from you.
Exodus has always done pretty much whatever the hell they feel “led” to do — and they will continue to do so — regardless of how I strongly I “demand” or “insist”. That they will not give a “yes or no” answer to that life or death question (while being perfectly willing and able to officially weigh in on gay marriage or the Day of Silence) speaks volumes.
To demand action is a member’s right. It comes with the mutual agreement entered into by the member and the organization. Who says so? Not me, Michael, common sense and the way things are.
Even you know this…earlier in your comments to Karen, you appealed to her association, her membership…and alluded to the notion that you don’t have the same clout…that your voice doesn’t count there. Outsiders can speak…they may or may not be heard…and, yes, in one sense, they can be as demanding as they wanna be…they certainly ‘have that right’ but their voice can be overlooked in ways that a member’s voice can’t. The member has a right to be heard.
And how quickly the words change. I was speaking of your ‘demanding’ a certain type of response from EXODUS and you charge me with ‘suggesting’ things GLSEN ought to do. I do recall pointing out GLSEN problems of good sense re school materials but I do not recall making any suggestions or demands of them. Can you cite one? And, unlike you with EXODUS, I’ve never contacted GLSEN telling them what they need to do.
Re Jennings himself, it was different. I made some pointed suggestions and called for certain actions…and there I HAD THE RIGHT. He had been appointed to a government post–my government, your government. And we both have the right to request and sometimes demand accountability from our government.
In any event, we are far off course and are locked in non-productive wrangling. You’ll continue to badmouth EXODUS and, when I feel you’ve gone overboard, I’ll state my case for how and why as I have thus far. Hopefully, it will be some other time, some other topic thread.
The way things are, according to Eddy. LOL. Forgot to read the rule book.
No, sir, I don’t “know this”.I appealed to Karen, “her association, her membership” and “alluded to the notion I don’t have the same clout” because I KNOW I don’t have the same “clout”. LOL.
That does not negate my “right” to strongly express my opinion or to “insist” or “demand” that they do something. I think they should because I think it’s the RIGHT thing to do. That’s my opinion and I have every RIGHT to express it. For you to insist otherwise is “censorship”.
LOL. They have every RIGHT to blow me off. You don’t think they should to officially oppose prison, death or forced treatment? FINE. You have that “RIGHT” And I am not about to tell you that you don’t. LOL.
“Outsiders can speak…they may or may not be heard…and, yes, in one sense, they can be as demanding as they wanna be…they certainly ‘have that right’ but their voice can be overlooked in ways that a member’s voice can’t”. LOL. You are pointing out the obvious. You think I don’t know that? You may rub me the wrong way and I may diagree with almost everything you say, but it doesn’t make me stupid or naive.
It’s not that the “member has a RIGHT to be heard” and I have no right. It’s that they are more LIKELY to be heard because they are an insider. That is common sense and the “way things are”. LOL. An OUTSIDER can suggest or demand the right thing and the INSIDERS tend to resist it — often for no good reason than because it comes from an OUTSIDER. That’s why I asked Karen to make a commitment to try. She has the RIGHT to refuse. That’s FINE. I have the RIGHT to be disappointed — even angry.
EVERYONE, including YOU, SIR, have avery “right” to spout, opine, demand, insist, throw a fit, rant, etc. as ANYONE else here. YOU do not own the blog, and YOU don’t make the rules. LOL.
all done mincing words with you today Michael.
SHORT FORM: The fact that insiders have more “clout” does not negate the right of an “outsider” to say whatever he pleases, “demand” changes that he thinks should be made — or express whatever he strongly believes. You don’t have to be an insider, or a Ugandan.
“Outsiders — people with no “clout” whatever — had every “right” to speak out or demand changes in the face of anti-semitism, or slavery or in this case, the persecution of gays. EVERY RIGHT.Sometimes, strong enough pressure from “outsiders” causes the “insiders” to change their tune — although I am very pessimistic that Exodus ever will.
Didn’t think I had “minced” mine. I thought I was blunt. LOL.
Shame on Exodus.
(1) Exodus leadership ignored the warnings (from friends and foes) and the pleas for their board member to not go to Uganda. Instead, Exodus leadership praised his participation.
(2) Don admitted — months later and under considerable pressure — that he had not prepared and knew almost nothing about the conference. An Exodus leader doesn’t prepare? Does no homework? You want such a person in leadership?
(3) He later excused his extreme carelessness by saying he was “tricked”, “sucked in” and “duped”. He did not apologize for his sloppiness. Instead he commented on how surprised he was to see his “tanned and smiling” picture on Rachel Maddow’s show.
(4) Many people, including Dr. Throckmorton, openly expressed frustration that considerable time had passed and Exodus had STILL not openly condemned the legislation.
(5) People on this blog argued that there was no need. BTW, Dr. Throckmorton is not an Exodus “insider” but he felt he had trhe “right” to push Exodus to do something.
(5) Finally, the “letter” appeared — curiously with Dr. Throckmorton’s name on it — focussing primarily on the need for the Church to be a “safe place” for the homosexual “struggler” — in other words concerned that they might be blocked from returning to Uganda to spread the ex-gay message and agenda.
(6) The letter did not state that Exodus was officially opposed to criminalization or forced therapy — or that the bill was a serious violation of human rights. The letter was signed by only TWO Exodus board members — not the entire board, Why?
(7) Alan Chambers boldly promised that Exodus “would not stop at the letter” and that they would “do more” to see that the Bill was defeated. They didn’t. It stopped at the letter. There has been no “more”.
(8) Exodus is back to business as ususal — opposing gay marriage and the Day of Silence — they have done considerably “more” on those issues — but nothing “more” on Uganda.
(9) Don Scmierer finally opposed the law and said that it deserved “all the media attention” it could get. So far, neither he not Exodus has done anyting to generate more media attention — or to make its opposition to this Bill openly known.
(10) Although “members” of the FaceBook group, they have posted nothing since the letter — nothing to voice their solidarity with those who oppose it — or to announce their efforts to do “more”. You wouldn’t know they were even members of the group unless someone told you. Its been months since they have said a word. Just the sound of crickets chirping.
(11) They have heard and have steadfastly refused to make their opposition to criminalization and forced “treatment” official — or to make it clear that they expect their members and affiliates oppose these things.
(12) On this blog, Dr. Throckmorton gave his “outsider” suggestion of something “more” Exodus could and should do — “Say directly to the people of Uganda — we were WRONG it what we told you.”
They have not. Shame on Exodus. And shame on anyone who defends their handling of this human rights disaster. — Their mistakes and poor leadership have been compared (even by outsiders like Dr. Throckmorton) to carelessly dropping matches on gasoline. And the fct remains, they have done precious little to put the fire out.
Thanks for the enumeration. When it comes to EXODUS shortcoming’s, you really are kind of a savant. But somehow it manages NOT to address whether there’s any appropriate response for EXODUS other than to immediately draft and post an official global policy statement re criminalization and or forced treatment that doesn’t boil down to a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
I have been conveying my responses to rigidity, to motive-guessing, to spin and to judging. I found the statement demanding both in the sense that it had to be done NOW even before the next assembling of the EXODUS members and affiliates in less than 5 months and that it demanded that the answer be ‘yes’ or
‘no’. This makes for great debate talk but is irrational. What would our response be if EXODUS actually produced a one word policy statement…’yes’…or…’no’? Would it meet our needs? Would it answer the unasked questions? I’d like to answer with an enthusiastic “Hell, No!” People from both sides would be asking “OK, what do you really mean?” But again, it looks great on paper and has debate flair, unfortunately it ignores reality (as I just demonstrated).
This appears to be the point where our conversation took it’s new leap into ‘testiness’. My use of the word ‘rights’ was perhaps a bad one. However, I don’t know how else I could have expressed the sentiment that, at days end, it’s an EXODUS family issue…waiting for a time when the whole family is assembled and giving every member of the family an opportunity to speak and be heard. Had I said that you don’t have the ‘privilege’, I fear that would have sparked yet another detour that’s also somewhat offpoint. Simply, for EXODUS to produce a statement immediately, as a result of a board members only’ phone call, when there’s no new crisis imminent, without waiting to hear from it’s other members and affiliates WOULD BE favoring you over those it represents. In Uganda, the horse is already out of the barn; I have heard no rustling in the wind that any similar proposals are in the works elsewhere that demand EXODUS draft a statement immediately.
As I said earlier in this post: “I have been conveying my responses to rigidity, to motive-guessing, to spin and to judging.” You are free to present your take on EXODUS and it’s actions (or lack thereof), however, I will be reviewing those statements and offering counterpoint when I feel they are inappropriately rigid (as in demanding an immediate policy statement), or motive-guessing (mind reading), etc. I will state my take and why I feel that portion of a statement crosses a line of objective truthfulness. It’s not even for you as much as its for someone else who might be reading. (I recall a year or so back when we discovered that even some of those who railed against EXODUS most vocally…that these folks didn’t even have a concept of the basic structure of EXODUS, that it wasn’t one office somewhere but rather a conglomeration of individuals and ministries. Or others who thought that EXODUS and NARTH were interchangeable terms…not having any appreciation for the big distinctions between them. That was quite a wake up call for me.)
You seem to be saying, “These things take time.” They have had ample time to discuss this with the board, their members and their affiliates. They could send a mailing to each affiliate asking them to sign the proposed statement and mail it back to headquarters. They don’t need five more months of stalling. They have have almost a year now.
No. One word statements of “yes” or “no” would be stupid. Rick Warren’s statement could be easily adapted. Alan has already posted his personal views on criminalization and forced treatment. These would make good rough drafts. With some help from friendly advisors, I am sure that they could come up with a very clear statement if they are having troubling writing one on their own or are concerned that their statement might not be strong and clear enough.
You can say that again. WHo are YOU to decalre who has “rights” and who does not? You cry “censorship” when people try to argue you down, but think it is you “right” to declare the “rights” of others regarding how they express their views. You have every right to make your voice known — and so do I. You aren’t an “insider” either.
Many people have weighed in on what more Exodus could and should do — including Dr, Throckmorton. Many of these people are “outsiders” not “family” and they have every right to make their positions known and to strong urge Exodus to take more decisive action.
Eddy, I completely understand that any decision must eventually be made by “family” and that “insiders” have more clout. I understand that they probably resent “outsiders” telling them what they should do. Like it or not, “outsiders” are looking to Exodus to keep its promise and “do more” — as Alan said he would do.
I have every “right” to “demand” or “insist” — but I have no power. That’s why I have contacted Alan, and Randy — and now Karen — to ask them to help. They blow me off. I have also asked two other signers of the letter (Christopher Yuan and Dr. Throckmorton) to use whatver influence they may have to get this done.
Chris Yuan, who signed the Exodus letter, thinks its a good idea. So do other people — friendly to Exodus — that I have been talking to. Some are surprised and a bit troubled that Exodus hasn’t.
They have promised to try to get it done — using whatever influence they may have. I even thought you might have some influence and could see the wisdom of making their official position on these matters clear. This is Exodus’ mission — to reach the “struggler”.
Shouldn’t a “struggler” know that Exodus and its affiliates do not and will not support criminalizing them or forcing them into treatment? It’s been a year. So far, nothing but stalling and excuses from Exodus.
“Immediately” would have been a year ago. And a “new crisis” is imminent. It’s the very same one that has been threatening the life, liberty and essential human freedoms of Ugandans since Exodus first stuck its clumsy hoof in this manure — against good advice from friends and foes. They ignored it then and they seem to me doing the same thing now.
You don’t like that I am rigid and demanding. I offer no apology. Dr. Throckmorton has called on Exodus (and the other misguided and misinformed American “outsiders” who stepped into this situation against good advice) to “say directly to the people of Uganda, we were WRONG in what we told you”. He have better manners in the way that he expresses what he thinks Exodus should do, but I doubt he is any loess passionate. He has been openly criticial of Exodus’ mishandling of this crisis. My guess is that he would think that clarifications and official policies are in order too.
It’s been nearly a year since the ill-advised conference but it’s only been 4 or 5 months since the release of the Ugandan proposal.
We’ll need to disagree re the timing or the dynamics of how Exodus gets the input of its members and affiliates. I have always preferred ‘live, in person’ to ‘written’ for some issues because, in the hearing of someone else’s point or question, sometimes your own point or question is sharpened and clarified. And I believe that another 5 months won’t make a difference.
EXODUS, in my opinion, has to also determine what areas or issues are worthy of ‘Official Policy Statements”. Such statements can be good or bad. Sure, someone can pop onto your website and catch at a glance your official position. Would something be lost there? Would the fact that the person didn’t feel the need to contact a real live person…to ask their question…to express their point of view…would that close EXODUS off from some valuable voices and opinions?
I haven’t been there but I understand that there’s been a whole lotta heat over on the Facebook group. I know my own frustrated attempts to discuss any issues that fall short of total legalization here. Being that EXODUS is privy to that…but that conversation is being stifled…there’s a problem with the think tank. Many conservatives see the ‘outrage’ (remember how that’s been used as a ‘buzzword’ before) as partially manufactured; they see the refusal to discuss anything shy of absolutes as questionable…in short, their radar is sending them a very strong caution signal and the communication necessary to address the cautions is being withheld. So, while I understand how urgently you think a policy statement needs to be issued now; I maintain that there’s also logical support for waiting…and possibly, for not issuing one at all.
I don’t meddle with EXODUS much. I did share concerns with Alan and Randy back around the time that they issued their letter but I can’t recall whether it was before or after the letter AND my advice leaned heavily towards caution. If I were to address them on that matter again, my advice would be pretty much the same.
And as to “motive guessing” — they leave themselves open to it. I have asked repeatedly for one good reason why they should not do it. I would really like to understand their rationale. Why not make it clear? It truly baffles me. I would think they would be proud to make their official position known.
Michael,
I was astonished as to why it took so long for the HRC to respond. I know their position is that if it is in the U.S., they address it – if it is not, they have another organization they partner with to do that. It took you repeatedly writing them and calling before they responded. Doesn’t that sound a little strange to you?
Actually no. It has been kinda slow over there recently. I check several times a a day. People are still joining and expressing their disapproval of the Bill — but no loud demands or “shout downs” of opposing or moderate positions.
It doesn’t feel like a “whole lotta heat”. The group’s purpose is to express opposition to the Bill. So people say why they are opposed to it. But the discussion tends to be civil and intelligent for the most part. New articles and links are posted as they come in.
The main purpose seems to be to keep folks informed of recent developments and to post news articles. No one calliing for “compromise” (as you have consistently suggested) You are pretty much the lone voice on that one, but there are many who have expressed that they believe some modified form of the Bill will be passed in spite of all efforts to stop it.
A few people actually endorse it — and the opponents have offered rational rebuttals. There are a number uf Ugandans that post — some “pro” and some “con”. Mainly, you get the feeling of wating to see what will happen next.
I know you are displeased that you haven’t gotten very far with you calls for something less than absolute opposition to criminalization and forced “treatment”. I suspect that (like me) some others may find that suggestion disgusting — like calling for less than absolute oppostion to slavery or persecution of the Jews.
I suspect that you don’t think that the comparison is vaild, but I do. You don’t compromise with a clear evil — and this Bill — many of us believe, is just that.
I don’t see any and have not heard any. That’s why I keep asking: “Why not do it?”
Something might be lost, but I think much more would be gained. For one thing, a “struggler” might feel safer asking for “help” if they knew that Exodus did not support the idea of crimiinalizing them or forcing them into “treatment”. That might give them a sense of safety and a willingness to ask more questions.
My view is that people’s motives and organization’s motives are largely their business. When we guess at their motive, we need to state it as such. (i.e. “I can’t imagine why they are delaying; it wonder if its….” as opposed to “They aren’t releasing a statement because they want to be able to hedge and they don’t want to alienate friends”) State it as a guess or a supposition and it will often fly under my radar; state it as ‘what is’ and I’ll clarify that you have no possible way of knowing that for certain.
Trying to inject yourself into their mind isn’t particularly helpful either. You aren’t them. In fact, you have a worldview that is radically different from theirs. You are an individual speaking for yourself; they are a coalition speaking for many. You’re priority and much of your energy right now is on the situation in Uganda but for EXODUS and its’ members, life presents other demands on a daily basis. I feel EXODUS needs to work Uganda into its priority list, but Uganda is not the only issue on their ‘to do’ list. You can continue to wonder why they don’t see things just like you do…why they don’t feel the need or the urgency to draft a policy statement….I wonder lots of things about lots of issues; but most of my wonderings–especially if they are about other people– are between me and God…if something or someone needs a little pressure to get it/them moving, why not make it a matter of prayer rather than of blog pressure? I can almost guarantee that if God spoke to someone in EXODUS in that ‘still small voice’ about the need for a policy statement, the matter would be escalated (it still might not reach fruition until after the next annual conference but it would be escalated); blog voices that attempt to ascribe motives to them…that second guess why they haven’t yet…that demand when and how they do it–those voices don’t appear to be having the desired effect.
No. It did not take them long to respond. They had already made their position clear by being a founding member and very active part of the larger, international organization that was already clearly opposing it.
I placed two calls and wrote two emails. They called me back fairly quickly, apologized for not getting back to me sooner and expressed their complete dismay that people might actually think they supported the law or were not clearly opposed to it. They are. Clearly. Actively. Officially. Exodus is not.
OK, Eddy. It’s a guess. I don’t “know” why they won’t do this. So I am left, like the rest of us, to guess. I think my guesses are probably right.
Mine too. But not when their irresponsible bungling puts the lives and liberties of others at risk. Then it’s everyone’s business and everyone’s “right” to cry “foul”.
Are you assuming that it is not a matter of daily prayer for me? If blog pressure might nudge them to listen to that “still small voice” then I will do that too. Personally, I think God is speakiing to them — like He was was when others urged them to tell Don to stay out od Uganda — but my “guess” is that, in their zeal to spread the ex-gay message, they plugged their ears. Exodus has done lots of things that don’t seem to reflect that they were listening closely.
You can say that again.
The HRC is off the hook because they belong to an organization that stated opposition to the bill…they are termed ‘active’ and ‘official’ although the questions to them were spurred by the fact that they’ve got no statements and hadn’t spoken to the issue. How does that meet the definition of ‘active’ or ‘official’?
Exodus, on the other hand, has not, by Michael’s judgement ‘clearly’, ‘actively’ or ‘officially’ opposed the bill…the letter they sent to the Ugandan president doesn’t count? the blog statements made by several of the Exodus board members don’t count? joining a group on Facebook that officially opposes the anti-homosexuality bill doesn’t count?
We change the meanings of even the simplest words when it suits our desired spin. I would hope though that they’d mean the same re the subject that immediately preceded their usage as the one that immediately followed.
Michael,
Ok – thanks for the reply. I guess I just remember it differently, however, I am glad you are pleased with the outcome. I hope someday you can feel the same about Exodus because I believe they are endeavoring to resolve the issues they feel need to be resolved.
Sure they do. They count. I have said that those were good steps. Now take the next step. Adopt official policies and expect your affiliates, members –and especially your board members — to abide by them. They have made their official policy known on gay marriage and the Day of Silence. They can and should do the same here.
Regarding the HRC, it is a founding member and active part of of an international effort to oppose human rights violations — including this bill. Through their work with that larger, international coalition, they had “spoken to the issue”.
When I called them, they were already working with their partners to oppose the bill. Clearly. Officially. If you want proof, I will give it to you. They were suprised and idsmayed that any of their critics would try to suggest otherwise.
Ann, when you first raised the question about the HRC, you seemed to be implying that it was unfair to ask Exodus to speak out officially since the HRC had not done so. I couldn’t believe they would not be officially opposed to it, so I called.
Although it did take some time (a couple of weeks if I recall) for them to get back to me, their director expressed sincere apology for the delay — along with complete surprise and strong irritation that anyone would itry to imply that a strong “gay rights” organzation like HRC was doing nothing or was somehow complacent about making its opposition known.
They have been opposed to it from the beginning and were already working with their international partners to defeat it. No one had to shame them or push them into voicing open opposition to it. I asked and I got the “offiicial, on the record” reply. No hemming and hawing. No “we need a few more months to pray, mull it over and poll our affiliates. A clear and unmistakeable “NO”.
And will guarantee you that if you call to ask them their “official” position on the law, they will more than happy to tell you, too.
Michael–
This statement by you VERY CLEARLY and VERY DEFINITELY says that Exodus is not Clearly, Actively, Officially opposed to it.
And then you acknowledge that Exodus did take actions…did take some steps…did join a group that opposes the Ugandan Bill.
That’s that frustrating thing called ‘spin’ that I continue to accuse you of. When it suits the tone of what you want to say, you’ll imply that EXODUS has done nothing as in the first statement; then when confronted, you’ll concede (without ever really admitting that your first statement was purposely misleading) that they have taken some steps but that they aren’t enough. Heck, given that the majority of Americans don’t seem to have a clue about the Ugandan crisis, HRC’s step of belonging to an organization that made a statement isn’t enough. But all of that gets lost in your purposeful spin. “Exodus is not…Clearly…Actively…Officially…opposed to it.”
Michael,
When I asked about the HRC it was because they are the most well known, well endowed (monetarily), well connected organization that endorses, supports and advocates homosexual rights and equality. They had Barak Obama speak at their last convention in Washington, DC and for those reasons, I felt if any one organization could speak out and up and garner support in opposition of this proposed bill it would be them and their members and supporters – the president of the U.S., who, himself has ties to Africa and says he is a Christian, and many others who I thought, could and would and should stand in the gap. Was I wrong to think this? Any which way, I aksed solely for the purposes I stated here and it had NOTHING to do with Exodus and whether it was fair or unfair to ask them to be involved. My personal belief is, if there is a human rights issue, it should be presented to those, if not everyone, who can help and then leave it up to their own consciousness to do so or not. I am currently perplexed as to why Michelle Obama has chosen to advance a resolution for obese children when there are thousands of children in foster care all over the U.S. with little or no hope of having their lives improved. Why one issue is ever more important than another is a matter of personal interest and motivation. Sigh.
Yes. That is the point I am trying to make. They have expressed clear opposition to the Bill, but not to criminalization and forced “treatment”.
No, Ann. I also wanted to know (although I had no doubt that they were strongly opposed to this Bil — and to criminalization and forced “treatment”.) There was no equivocation when I asked. Just an apology for not getting back to me sooner, a clarification of what they were already doing and a follow-up posting on their own website to erase any doubt.
I won’t admit that it was, because it wasn’t “purposely misleading. Now who’s guessing at intentions. I have acknowledged repeatedly that Exodud officially opposes this Bill. And I continue to be openly dismayed that they will not officially condemn criminalization and forced treatment. They had the chance to tell Uganda when Don was there. He remained silent. They have the chance now. They remain (offiicially) silent.
Michael,
I just looked at their website and cannot find anything about the Uganda bill. Do you know where it is on there? I looked on the front page and international rights page and laws and campaigns page.
You can carry on til Hell freezes over defending Exodus’s decision to remain officially silent on criminalization and forced “treatment” and I will carry on til Hell freezes over that they should officially oppose these things. Stalemate?
Ann, I was talking about an article they posted about what they are doing. HRC doesn’t need to post an official statement opposing criminalization and forced treatment of homosexuality. Exodus does. HRC did not go to Uganda. HRC did not sit silently while a fellow-speaker advocated for these things. Exodus’ board member did and they praised him for going. HRC does not advocate “changing” gay people. Exodus does.
If you wish, I will call right now and ask the director of the HRC for an OFFICIAL statement of opposition to criminalization and forced treatment. I willl get the director to swear that it IS their “official” position. I will post it here. Would that satisfy you? I really don’t get why you don’t get this. Try to get Alan Chambers to make a similar statment. Hell will freeze over first.
For Ann: http://www.hrc.org/search.asp?site=www_hrc_org&client=hrc_search_results&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=hrc_search_results&turl=10.88.88.227&q=uganda&btnSearch.x=35&btnSearch.y=10
Michael and all,
Thank you for the link and all you are doing to advance the opposition of this bill. I think it is time for me to step away from this particular thread now. God bless.
Ann: I will call again since you do not seem satisfied, for some reason that completely escapes me, that the HRC isn’t completely opposed to criminalization and forced “treatment”. I will obtain a clear, official statement from the director is that would appease you.
But it seems downright silly to me. They are a gay rights organization, for heaven sake! Is there any reasonable doubt that they oppose criminalizationa d forced “:treatment”>? Of course they do. You KNOW they do. Would the NAACP support slavery? Does Exodus need to issue an official statement against NAMBLA? Come on.
Not so clear when it comes to Exodus and these two crucial isssues — especially when you consider that they went to Uganda against good advice, that their Board Member sat silently while a fellow speaker openly adocated for these things and that they (to this day) they stubbornly REFUSE to state their opposition to criminalization and forced “treatment”. HRC does not have a HUGE MESS to clean up.
Exodus does.
Ann, Back soon. It seems I have some calls to make to the HRC. The HRC has been openly opposed to this bill since the beginning — as co-founders and active members of their international efforts. They needed no “pushing” llike Exodus did. The HRC has always been involved in the fight against the persecution of gays. Exodus has not. Ending oppression and persecution against gays is the core of the HRC’s mission. Not so with Exodus. Exodus lamented the end of sodomy laws.
I am certain that the HRC officially opposes criminalization and forced “treatment” — as certain as I am that the NAACP opposes slavery. As I said, I will obtain an official statement from their director and post it here if that would satisfy you. And I am certain that I won’t have to ask for the help of “insiders”, “make it a matter of prayer”, wait months while they poll their affiliates — or apply “blog pressure” to get it. How about you try getting the same from Alan Chambers. Let’s see which organization responds first.
Michael–
The ‘it’ in your statement comparing the HRC’s response to Exodus’ non-response was ‘this law’. Exodus has spoken out against this proposed bill…i.e. ‘this law’.
I hear what you are now saying…that you didn’t really mean ‘this law’ but that you meant ‘any law’ that included any penalties whatsoever for homosexual behavior. I’m not keen on any criminalization…just as I’m not keen on criminalization for marijuana usage and possession…but to ramp up to outrage over this possibility in a foreign country that does not share my value system…don’t know that I can go there. I’m not outraged over the marijuana laws that occur here and I’ve had friends become victims of it. Fines, felony records, forced treatment (Narcotics Anonymous even though marijuana isn’t officially a narcotic). Don’t like it but I’m not outraged.