Perhaps in preparation for the upcoming Current TV documentary on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Scott Lively is going on offense. In a May 22nd email to supporters, Lively wrote:
I’m looking for a good Christian media source to interview me on film on the Uganda issue for posting online. I intend to get off defense and counter-attack the false witnesses with hard facts about Uganda and the dishonest way the media has addressed the story. Please forward this to any pro-family journalists you know and ask them to contact me at email@example.com.
In the mean time, I have created a new category of news stories at DefendtheFamily.com under the title “Uganda.” There are about 20 stories there now, going back to about 2003 which show the growing problem of pro-homosexual activism in that country, long before my 2009 seminar which is now being blamed for creating a climate of “homophobia” in Uganda. There are also numerous examples of liberal media propaganda about the anti-homosexuality bill.
If you happen to hear someone criticize me based on the intense, global anti-Scott Lively character assassination by these media, please refer them to our website, both to read the material there, but also to download Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the “Gay” Agenda which was the source of all of my comments and teaching in Uganda.
Thanks for standing with me through the firestorm,
Dr. Scott Lively
As he notes on his website, there are several articles going back to 2003 (although some of the links are broken), including a letter addressed to the Parliament of Uganda back in March. The letter is long but the highlights are that he favors targeted criminalization but with the aim being rehabilitation rather than prison. He indicates in this letter that he knew the Parliament was considering new legislation at the time (March, 2009). He also frames his views as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” public policy:
I believe you could easily adapt this model to your purposes by imposing this same reporting requirement on anyone with knowledge of homosexuals who involve themselves with anyone under a certain age. If, for example, you encompassed all youths under the age of twenty-five within this shield of protection, you would stop virtually all “gay” recruitment in your country, since normal young men and women are usually firmly set in their heterosexual identity by their mid-twenties. On the other hand, you would preserve the right to privacy of adults who are not activists or pederasts but simply want to live their lives in relative peace. This would function much like the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the United States military. Adult homosexuals would remain subject to the law, but not actively pursued if they are discrete about their lifestyle.
Lively professes opposition to the death penalty but the reasons sound pragmatic rather than principled.
First and foremost, the inclusion of capital punishment for what you have classed as “aggravated homosexuality” is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh penalty. You may not be aware that capital punishment has been banned in numerous countries, even for the most extreme cases of aggravated murder. This is held as such an important policy that these nations will often refuse to extradite criminals to their home countries (including the United States) if there is any possibility that they will be subject to capital punishment there. Advocating the “death penalty” for “mere” sexual crimes evokes such a severe negative reaction in most Western nations that all other aspects of the law, and the rationale for drafting it is ignored, and very “gay” movement we seek to oppose is strengthened by public sympathy they would not otherwise enjoy.
Conversely, if the “death penalty” provision were removed, it would take the wind out of the sails of their current campaign against the bill. With so much of the international opposition rooted in the idea that this is a “Kill the Gays” law, the removal of this provision would represent enough of a concession on your part that a great many of the people who are now siding with the homosexual movement out of sympathy would consider the matter resolved. The “gay” activists and their political allies will, of course, continue to attack the bill, but from a much weaker position.
You can read the whole thing and form your own conclusions, but according to the response provided, the bill supporters did not want to make any changes. Note the players involved in getting the letter to Parliament and then the response to Lively. Martin Ssempa received Lively’s letter and forwarded it to Parliament. Then, the responder was Charles Tuhaise, who has emerged as a major supporter of the bill. Here is the reply:
My letter was forwarded to Members of Parliament by Dr. Martin Ssempa. This was the reply.
March 10, 2010
Thanks for sending Dr. Lively’s Letter. His proposals can be considered as we make our revisions, but, while I appreciate the need to have people like Lively campaign for the Bill and the law when passed, there are obvious dangers in trying to equalise the policy and law on homosexuality between USA and Uganda. The two countries are dealing with totally different situations. The time when USA should have enacted a preventive law like we are contemplating passed a long time ago and they are faced with a huge and financially and politically powerful gay population recruited into homosexuality because no one foresaw the need for a preventive law in time (probably in the 1940s). If such comprehensive law (not merely about sodomy) had been in place, people like Alfred Kinsey would not have done so much damage by opening the door wide for homosexuality.
The situation in Uganda today is different because homosexuality is still a budding problem. We either nip it in the bud now with a strong, preventive law or give it a foothold to grow from.
The danger I see in Dr. Lively’s suggestions is in proposing to
normalise homosexual practice for adults (whatever age they may be). That is the Western approach generally which has failed miserably, because what is held as normal practice by adults will be adopted by children and youth automatically. It’s just a matter of time before the whole culture is swamped in homosexual practice. That’s how pornography broke barriers in Western society and became insidious. It’s like the proverbial “Camel and herdsman story”. Today it is a foot in the hut, tomorrow it is a leg in the hut, next day its the head in the hut; before long, the herdsman is tossed out of the hut.
I agree with Dr. Lively that the Death Penalty can be removed, but it must be replaced by equally strong and detterent penalties. The purpose of penalties is to detter people from behaviour with far-reaching consequences. What the Bill needs, to me, is solid research into the consequences of homosexuality. Its huge health-risks and social, cultural and economic disruption need to be documented and not merely talk about defending our “religious and cultural practices”. In countries or territories with legalised homosexuality, parents and religious bodies have lost the right to teach against homosexuality; a property owner will not refuse to rent a house or hotel room to a homosexual couple based on belief, conscience or fear of influence on neighbouhood children; teachers must teach that homosexuality is normal lyfestyle or lose their licences; children in Kindergarten are introduced to homosexual books and other indoctrination e.t.c. All these are reasons we must do everything to stop and prevent homosexual practice.
Ultimately, I see no way out in taking a stand and paying the price. We cannot adopt an innefective policy against homosexuality just to prevent loss of donor funds. Our friends in the West must stand with Uganda as we take a serious stand against homosexual infiltration. What we need is more nations to stand up and do the same. There will be no place for lukewarmness, the way I see this situation. It’s time for nations to stand up for what is right and pay the price. The more nations do this, the more the tide will turn against the homosexual movement. Christians in the West must know that it is time to pay the price for truth. Unwillingness to do this is responsible for infiltration and takeover of virtually every western insitution by homosexuals, including the church.
I admire the courage of my friend Dr. Lively, because he has stood up to homosexual intimidation for so long as a lone voice. We need more people like him in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. The homosexual machine is well organised and its agenda is not conciliation with anyone but total take-over of society. Africa is probably is the last place they are trying to take-over that has the best hope to turn the tide, if we do not mess-up the opportunity.
(P/S: You can forward my comments to Dr. Scott Lively)
Mr. Tuhaise may have forgotten where he heard all about pornography and homosexuality. According to Lively, about the same message came from his highly successful visit to Uganda in March, 2009:
The Ugandan people are strongly pro-family, and there is a large Christian population which is much more activist minded than that of most western countries. However, the international “gay” movement has devoted a lot of resources to transforming the moral culture from a marriage-based one to one that embraces sexual anarchy. Just as in the U.S. many years ago they are leading with pornography to weaken the moral fiber of the people, and propagandizing the children behind the parents’ backs. On the TV show we exposed a book distributed to schools by UNICEF that normalizes homosexuality to teenagers. (We expect a massive protest by parents, who are mostly not aware that such materials even exist in their country, let alone in their childrens’ classrooms.)
Mr. Tuhaise seems to be saying that the bill is necessary based on what Scott Lively taught when he was in Uganda. The Ugandan supporters of the bill believe they are carrying the teachings of Lively to their logical conclusion.
Read a current update on the status of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
For all articles on Uganda, click here.