According to their website, Exodus has sent an open letter to President Museveni of Uganda voicing their opposition to the Anti-Homosexuality Bill being considered there. Exodus has been criticized heavily for the lack of such a statement, and has so far only released bits and pieces. This one seems to leave no doubt that they are against the bill becoming law, though they do rely on the same “we can’t help the poor souls if you do this” argument as has been presented by others. Then again, perhaps that is an argument Uganda needs to hear.
The letter is signed by Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas (president and vice-president of Exodus), Christopher Yuan of Moody Bible Institute and Warren Throckmorton. All but Throckmorton list as a credential “Former Homosexual.”
What do you think, is this strong enough?
November 16, 2009
President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
c/o Principal Private Secretary, Amelia Kyambadde
State House Nakasero
P.O. Box 24594
Kampala, UgandaDear President & Mrs. Museveni,
As evangelical Christian leaders dedicated to advancing the truths of the Bible worldwide, we commend your work to promote ethics in Uganda. In addition, your efforts to eradicate the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been appropriately praised internationally and we are praying for your continued success.
We want to humbly share our concerns regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, introduced before the Ugandan parliament on October 14, 2009. First, we believe that sexual crimes against children, homosexual or heterosexual, are the most serious of offenses and should be punished accordingly. Homosexual behavior in consensual relationships, however, is another matter.
While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.
Many of us and those we know and work with have personally struggled with unwanted homosexual attractions and once lived as gay individuals, but have since found a new identity in Jesus Christ and have gone on to live lives that reflect the teaching of the Christian faith. We sincerely believe that such transformations cannot best be achieved in an environment of government coercion where the vital support, care and compassion of others in the Christian community is discouraged and prosecuted.
Please consider the influence this law will have upon those who may seek help in dealing with this difficult issue as well as church and ministry leaders committed to demonstrating the compassion of Christ to all. We are praying for you, for this matter and for the people of Uganda.
Sincerely,
Alan Chambers
President of Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexualRandy Thomas
Executive Vice President, Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexualChristopher Yuan
Adjunct Instructor, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois
HIV Survivor
AIDS Activist
Former homosexualWarren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
Member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors
Grove City, Pennsylvania
It could always be better, but I am very grateful that they have done this. I noticed that Exodus Board member, Don Schmierer, was not one of the signers.
Oh OK, fine: good point. In response, all they need do in Kampala is…
1) add Court-ordered therapy and/or biblical counselling to the punishments available. Make sure the wording deliberately says “appropriate counselling”.
2) exclude ‘appropriate’ church groups and ‘appropriate’ church officials and ‘appropriate’ therapists from the reach of the legislation. In fact, why not just reach back into the laws of mediaeval Europe and let any ‘appropriate’ church offer sanctuary to the evil-doers.
While still allowing for reprobate gays to be dealt with, that ought to be enough to end Exodus’ concerns; the only ones they’ve mentioned:
“Exodus International, along with its board members and broader network, opposes this legislation as it inhibits the global Christian church’s mission to share the life-giving truth of the Gospel and extend the compassion of Christ to all.”
I understand tailoring the message for the intended audience etc, but what would Exodus have to say if Kampala were to add the above to the Act?
Not sure, but I do know the statement would be 8 months late.
(If this was an official communication from Exodus… and not something from 4 individuals… what is Warren doing on it? Or Yuan? Hmm, odd.)
I’m with grantdale.
So is “former homosexual” the new moniker instead of ex-gay? Or were they just dumbing down their status/appellation for President Museveni?
No, I don’t think they are “dumbing down”. They seem to prefer “former homosexual” to “ex-gay” for some reason. It is puzzling. Alan once said that he thought the term “ex-gay” should be “done away with entirely” and “never used again”.
Personally, I don’t get it. To me, it’s a “distinction without a difference”. Whatever the choose to call themselves, they are still SSA, not heterosexual in the usual sense of that word.
It did puzzle me a bit that Warren Throckmorton signed the letter “from Exodus” since Warren is not part of Exodus. But I was glad that he did. It made the letter more credible.
I am convinced that Warren strongly opposes this bill — and that he would not have signed the letter if he was not convinced that Exodus also opposed it.
Perhaps it should matter, but at this date why they oppose it is not all that important to me. I am holding them to their word that they do.
Well, Michael, I might suppose that no NARTH psychologist might sign such a letter. Or perhaps none of them was pestering Exodus like Dr T.
I agree with Michael, at least they have finally come forward and spoke up in opposition to this hateful bill.
“I agree with Michael, at least they have finally come forward and spoke up in opposition to this hateful bill.”
Sort of, in a vague general sort of a way, if you don’t ask for details and don’t actually oppose it.
Hmm. When are they going to stand up and take responsiblity for their part in all this? This letter vaguely suggests that Exodus isn’t particularly enthusiastic about the bill. But this kind of letter, if taken seriously, seems more like a call to change the bill to address Exodus conerns.
Also, current law in Uganda provides for jail sentences for being gay. Exodus is silent on that law as well. While I think Warren cares about the issue, I think that this is just PR and damage control from Exodus. I can just imagine the tortured negotiation over each word and phrase included in the letter.
Alan posted on the Facebook group that Exodus is endorsing and actively participating in the Uganda World Prayer day, specifically:
Since they are endorsing this event, I choose to believe that they agree with its stated objectives.
The cynic in me wants to believe that it’s “just PR and damage control from Exodus”. The believer in me is choosing to think otherwise — and to hold Exodus to its word.
Our position at Exodus is that we hate this bill. I hate that one of our board members was involved in the initial conference that lent credibility to this. I remain absolutely sure that Don Schmierer had no idea what all of this was about until on the ground there and that his desire in speaking was to teach what he always teaches about giving grace to those in need.
Until I read the horrible comment Scott Lively made in World Magazine today about homosexuality needing to criminalized I was convinced that his intentions were also honorable there.
The truth is I don’t believe homosexuality should be criminalized. I don’t think therapy should be mandated, GrantDale. I can’t speak for individuals in Exodus but I do speak for Exodus in saying all of this. The letter was from Exodus.
As for Warren signing on, he did so because he has led this charge so well and because he has been a more moderate voice. We came at all of this from the angle that we believe in and that we thought would bridge the gap between the very conservative Ugandan government and the mostly liberal folks crying out for mercy. As a conservative organization, Exodus speaking in concert with gay activist decrying this law will hopefully carry weight.
Why is Alan Chambers still leading Exodus?
After allowing the Uganda conference debacle, he should have resigned in disgrace last March. This man’s confused and spineless leadership has permanently damaged any shred of legitimacy Exodus ever had as a “ministry.” The fact that no one at Exodus has demanded Alan’s dismissal proves that the organization itself is just as morally bankrupt as he is.
Nothing has changed with this letter. Exodus is still parsing words, and we’re still trying to figure out what they mean. People have already died in Uganda as a result of Exodus’ involvement, and we’re supposed to be impressed by their verbal Sudoku eight months later?
By their inaction and moral fecklessness, Alan Chambers and Exodus have now proven themselves to be a real danger to GLBT communities everywhere, and they need to be called out for this forcefully and consistently. One mealy-mouthed blog posting and a weakly written letter doesn’t cut it when real human lives are at stake.
This constant pandering to Exodus has to stop. Now.
I thank Alan for his post, above, an I believe he means every word of it.
Michael Bussee:
I thank Alan for his post, above, an I believe he means every word of it.
And that is what truly concerns me:
Eight months of raw bile from Scott Lively, one of only 11 anti-gay hate groups listed with the SPLC, videos, transcripts, The Pink Swastika, and on and on. I want to be generous here, and I am glad that Alan has made a clear statement, but the part about thinking Lively was honorable up to today is just frightening.
If it wasn’t obvious before now, your answer proves why you should resign from Exodus. Immediately.
Total BS. Anyone with half a brain knows that conferences are planned well in advance. Don–and you!–knew who was going to be speaking before the conference took place, probably well in advance. You both knew that Scott Lively and an associate of Richard Cohen were going to be featured panelists. This means only one of two things. Either:
1. You and Don are expecting us to believe that you are completely unaware of the Holocaust revisionism of Scott Lively, along with his work with an organization considered an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC. You and Don also expect us to believe that you are ignorant of Richard Cohen’s expulsion from the American Counseling Association because of his dangerous “reparative therapy” techniques. If you, as the head of Exodus, are truly this uninformed about the past history of fellow speakers at the Uganda conference, then you have no business being the head of Exodus. There is no excuse for such ignorance. None whatsoever.
Or…
2. You and Don know full well the background of both speakers, but decided to participate anyway–despite repeated warnings in advance from bloggers such as Jim Burroway about being involved with such a conference in an anti-gay political powder keg like Uganda. This shows incredible hubris and insensitivity on your part to the needs of those whom you claim to serve. If this is the case, then you have no business leading Exodus, as you have lost your way.
So, Alan, which is it? Neither answer is acceptable coming from the head of an organization such as yours. I’m sure you realize this.
Are you seriously asking us to believe that you think anything Scott Lively has said or done is remotely honorable. Seriously? This man has promoted blood libel against the GLBT community here and abroad with The Pink Swastika, and you think this man is in any way “honorable”?
Either your statement about Lively is a outright lie, or you are truly this ignorant of who he is. Neither answer is acceptable from the head of an organization such as yours.
Alan, your lack of moral leadership and accountability is no longer in dispute.
I call on you to resign from Exodus immediately.
I said:
I stick by that. I believe he means it. As for the claim that neither he Don knew what Scott Lively really stood for, and that they did not realize “what was on the ground there”, seriously concerns me.
Why didn’t they understand? It certainly does seem they were forewarned — by Dr. Throckmorton, among others.
Did enthusiasm about spreading the ex-gay message cause them to make a very serious mistake and then wait too long to denounce it?
Yes, I think that shows a problem with leadership. He should have done his homework. But, I don’t think he’s lying. I just think he was very foolish. I still give him kudos for speaking out aginst the Bill.
I think we need to decide at this time whether it is more important to allow Exodus’ message to Uganda to do whatever good it can, or to possibly impede that work with criticism (albeit legitimate) of Exodus leadership. This circumstance is somewhat different than most, in that we have a tenuous situation in Uganda where lives and liberty are at stake for hundreds of thousands of people. We (XGW) may already be guilty of making some bad choices in this area, perhaps not. But there are consequences for other people going forward, let’s consider that seriously.
I agree. Was it too late, not enough, issued for the wrong reasons, slanted towards their own self-interest? Probably. Were they warned not to participate? Yes. Little doubt on that. But, however and whenever it came, they spoke out. Time to fight the bill, not each other or Exodus.
Why must both objectives be mutually exclusive?
EXODUS HELPED CREATE THIS SITUATION. And one person is already dead as a result of it.
I don’t know how much clearer I can be about this. Now, suddenly we’re fawning over Exodus because eight months later, they decide to write a unclearly-worded “tsk, tsk” letter to the government of Uganda, and this completely absolves them of past responsibility? I think not.
The response to Alan here makes me think I’m watching a woman in an abusive relationship. Her husband beats her, then says, “Oops, I’m sorry, I’ll do better next time,” and she responds, “That’s okay, honey, I know you didn’t really mean it.” Then he gives her a black eye again, and the process continues.
Someone needs to call out this cycle for what it is, and if no one else will, I will.
For an organization that repeatedly talks about “consequences of behavior,” Alan should face the consequences of his (lack of) behavior and do the only moral thing and resign. Then, hopefully, someone more transparent and decisive can take over and do what his regime was unwilling to do.
Both objectives are met. Pretty simple.
Jesus didn’t respond to the moneychangers in the temple by writing a barely-critical blog posting. He threw them out.
Not “fawning over them”. I am just grateful they have (“albeit late”) come out against the bill — as we all should — gay, ex-gay, ex-gay, activist, Christian, whatever. Something is happening. Almost 5,000 Facebook members from very diverse backgrounds and beliefs.
Usual enemies are united in their call for this bill to be defeated. I believe Alan genuinely opposes this bill. Throckmorton calls such agreement “rare but cool”. I agree. Let’s take it and move forward with it.
I’m glad Alan had the guts to show up here and post what he did.
I hope this marks a turning point in Exodus’ involvement.
For the record, no one who called for Alan’s resignation has changed their minds — at least not to my knowledge. We have been over that, and we will again. But what to concentrate on at the moment is a legitimate question, one which I think we should all consider seriously right now.
The article in question is here. Only Lively is mentioned as a participant in that anti-gay conference. Reading it one would have no idea of the Exodus connection, or about the grotesque and insulting posturing that has occurred since.
While I can agree that every and all opponents of the bill are to be welcomed in their efforts today… not by a long shot will this entire ugly episode be forgotten any time soon. It has illuminated all too much of what is rotten to the core about some organisations and some individuals. Their attitudes, their behaviour, their rude dishonesty, and their dangerous incompetence. Yes David R, it is frightening.
You may mark my words on that, Alan Chambers.
I have no doubt of that.
As if to help understand what we ultimately dealing with, that edition World Magazine also headlined what is a very significant event.
Note the clarity of Associated Press.
Compare that to what the Church released.
Yes, I do appreciate Alan Chambers joining us in opposition to this bill. But I will have to disagree that he means every word that he says. Eight months. No urgency. Then a letter tainted with the notion that the draconian anti-gay bill unnecessary because there is Exodus. This reminds me of some anti-virus companies who release powerful computer viruses just so that they can come in to recommend us the use of their anti-virus software.
He has yet make a firm public apology for the mess that he could have stopped, but did not. The message of the letter is more about promoting their brand of “church compassion” aka discredited therapy than firmly against the bill itself. If the punishment for homosexuality in Uganda is forced lifelong ex-gay therapy and the punishment of knowing homosexuals is forced PFOX training, I do not think Alan Chambers would even bother about what we think.
Well, I’ve slept on this and I’m fairly sure what sparked this letter by Exodus. While that spark may have been pure of motive, the trouble is that the letter did not go far enough. Reading the World article on the letter has left me with the feeling that the main purpose of Exodus is using this as simply a publicity stunt among Christians here in the US, as there was no mention in the World article of Exodus board member Schmierer’s part in this throwing gas on the fire of Uganda’s home-grown homophobia. And Alan Chambers then says:
Please… it was blogged about here, at Box Turtle Bulletin, and at Dr Throckmorton’s about how ill-conceived this this conference was for two reasons. First was the entrenched homophobia and pogrom like outing of gays in newspapers of Uganda in the past (and Langa’s part in some of that). Second was the the very idea of an Exodus board member being on a ‘team’ with Scott Lively. But you were “convinced that his [Lively’s] intentions were honorable there only after reading the World article?” So you agreed with Lively’s bile that he has spewed out in eastern Europe and with the Watchmen on the Walls? You agreed with his lies concerning the Nazis? All I can say is that being Christian must really cloud your eyes to truth when another comes along with a Christian ministry; you certainly are a poor judge of character.
…
I’m way out of my league in terms of knowing the personalities here. but it seems very much a case of AC knowing what he wants to know, and being incredibly myopic about what he doesn’t want to know. This whole mess is a another version of the incredible damage that “Love the sinner hate the sin” does, both to its victims and its perpetrators. It allows the perps to say “we’re doing this out of love and concern for your immortal soul”, without the slightest concern to what it does to people’s actual lives.
When the bad stuff happens, it allows them to say, in the name of their Heavenly Substitute for Personal Responsibility, “Why, we just had NO idea, really.”
Timothy Kinkaid wrote this just yesterday:
“Scott Lively is the author of the Pink Swastika, in which he charges that the Nazi movement was, at its core, a homosexual movement, and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While speaking at the anti-gay conference in Kampala, he blamed the Rwandan genocide on “butch” gay men.
And that’s barely the tip of the iceberg. He is associated with not just one, not two, but three of just eleven organizations identified by the SPLC as a hate group (He co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, founded Abiding Truth Ministries, and he is now the leader of the School of Christian Activism). If that weren’t enough, he spoke at a banquet last winter for a fourth SPLC hate group, MassResistance. This man knows hate speech backwards and forwards.”
If I knew all of this, it seems unlikely, to say the least, that AC and Exodus are shocked–SHOCKED– that this oculd be happening.
Yeah, right.
with all the lies, the hate, the slander, the fear-mongering, the plain un-Christian (or very Christian, depending on your point of view) behavior, I don’t understand how people who claim to speak for good can sleep at night.
This is the logical path of the Mormon position on prop. 8. We don’t hate you, we just want to make your lives as difficult and unpleasant as possible, and deny in every way your full participation in civil society.
It’s not hate, it’s just our religion. And where is the hate in that?
But David, why do you think this letter from Exodus will do any good whatsoever? Some people here are acting as if the Pope had made a major announcement. This is nowhere near in the same league.
1. We already know the letter doesn’t adequately condemn the Ugandan bill, so it’s ineffective right out of the gate.
2. If anyone knows Exodus’ involvement in the Ugandan conference, it’s those in Uganda who back this bill. Now, eight months later, Exodus sends a letter that (only gently) criticizes legislation which is a direct result of the conference, undergirded by claims made at the conference that gay people can be “healed” from homosexuality and can choose not to be gay. (It doesn’t matter if Don Schmierer voiced these sentiments or not. His presence at the conference legitimized them.) So, the Ugandan supporters of the bill will read the Exodus letter and think one of two things:
–Exodus is speaking out of two sides of its mouth, and is confused about what it truly believes. So, the letter will be viewed as unreliable and will be ignored.
–Because of the crazy beliefs that many anti-gay Ugandans have about homosexuality, the Exodus letter will likely be viewed as a capitulation to “gay pressure” from U.S. groups–in which case the letter won’t be taken seriously–or worse, that Exodus has been “corrupted” by pro-gay forces, in which case the letter and Exodus will now be viewed as suspect.
Exodus could have prevented all of this by:
1. Not participating in the conference after being warned numerous times. They choose to ignore the warnings and participate anyway.
2. They could have directly stated at the conference that homosexuality is not a political issue, and any kind of anti-gay legislation would be destructive. However, it’s kind of hard for Exodus to lecture another country about not politicizing homosexuality when they do the same thing at home. (While claiming not to do it!)
3. The leadership of Exodus could have clarified its message immediately after the conference ended, distancing themselves from the other panelists and pointing out the dangers of any possible legislation.
Exodus did none of these things. They have sown the wind, and Uganda is reaping the whirlwind.
And we think a long-delayed, mealy-mouthed letter to Uganda is going to make any difference at all? Please. If anything, it will make things worse. Exodus helped push Humpty Dumpty off the wall, and nothing Exodus attempts to do now will put his cracked pieces back together. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking otherwise.
“Our position at Exodus is that we hate this bill.”
And yet Exodus’ letter said no such thing. There’s a time for soft-spoken diplomacy and a time for rebuke. The letter speaks the former but needs the latter.
More deeply, consider the humans are complex with multiple dimensions and motivations. Therefore, I have no doubt Alan is sincere and hates this bill. But the other dimensions? Far be it for me to pretend to know Alan’s unconscious, but something is counteracting his hatred that turns it into a mere wimper in that letter. Only Alan and God possibly know, and I’m not so sure about Alan. Whatever it is, Ugandans need less of that and more of his hatred. If not, their blood will be on his (complex, multifaceted) head.
I think it is good (morally) that they did it whether or not it will do any good.
Maybe it’s time for some of both. For whatever reason, however late, insincere or inadequate some may feel it is, Exodus is on record that they oppose, even hate, the bill for several reasons. It’s on their website. They issued it as press release. Alan is promising to do more. At this point, I choose to believe him and I intend hold him to it.
l
Then why even bother? And why is it “good” for them to do this? To what ends? Exodus has proven that their role in society is to lie about the nature of sexual orientation in order to provide cover for an anti-gay political agenda. This will not change. The most grievous example of this agenda was their participation in the Uganda conference despite repeated warnings.
This was a moral failure of the highest order. The blood of Brian Pande cries from the ground, and you think that a weakly-worded letter to the Ugandan government is “moral”?
I’m utterly speechless. I really am.
Isn’t it clear by now that Exodus always goes back on their promises? Remember the “we’re not going to be political anymore” pledge? That lasted all of about five minutes.
So let’s say they break this promise, too? Then what will you do? Write a sternly worded blog post about it? We shouldn’t even be having any kind of conversation with Alan Chambers at this point. He’s either incredibly amoral, or incredibly stupid. Probably both. His personal moral failure is so deep and so grave, he has abdicated any right to speak with any authority anymore.
I swear… the relationship that some people have with Exodus is that of a battered wife and her husband. They just keep coming back for more, despite all the false promises. It’s completely dysfunctional, and I don’t understand why it keeps continuing. Someone has to break this cycle.
It needed to me done. They needed to say it. Do they really believe it? I think they do. Were they blinded by their zeal to do something that may result (and indeed may have already have resulted) in suffering for others? I think so.
They issued statements denouncing this law, but have not really apologized for their role in it. Is that OK? No. Would folks believe them if they did? Probably not.
Does these admittedly tardy denunciations absolve them? No. Were they stupidly uniformed — or resistant to their wise counsel and warnings of others? It seems so. Did they do their homework before giving Don their blessings? No.
Do I remain somewhat skeptical? Of course. I left Excodus for a reason and have been expressing open distrust for Exodus for some time. Will they keep their word? Only time will tell.
In this particular instance, it only matters what the key people in Uganda think of Exodus’ statement. Nothing else has changed concerning the latter’s accountability, but indulging the desire to flesh that out further at the moment is not worth lives.
Christopher said:
This is the second time you have made this lame remark. It is insulting, not only to battered women but to the writers here (past and present) who have donated thousands of hours and a lot of life energy to hold Exodus, et al, accountable over the past 7+ years. You have made your opinion clear, go rant about your indignation elsewhere if you must.
A new report documents the trend of evangelicals like Rick Warren exporting sexuality issues to Africa, whose clergy, in turn, support the minority antigay view in mainline denominations, weakening them. The author of the report, Rev. Kapya Kaoma, speaks with RD at length about what he found.
Read the interview here.
I apologize, David, if I have offended you or anyone else who misunderstood my point here. Perhaps I expressed myself inadequately. It is precisely because of the hard work that you and others have done over the years that prompted me to say this. I don’t believe my analogy is “lame,” but we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. I just don’t want your hard work of keeping Exodus accountable go to waste whenever they just manage to do the right thing long enough to keep the dogs at bay, as it were. I’m just tired of their pattern of behavior, is all.
And thank you, Michael, for clarifying your position. I know your history with the organization, and I appreciate your willingness to engage with those that have brought you a lot of grief.
Believe me, so am I, but I am praying that this may mark a change in that pattern. I maintain a certain level of skepticism — and today, for a change, some level of optimism as well.
“Although water drowns a fire…spitting on a firestorm will not put it out.”
Exodus or anyone who believes their Bible based ideology, has never needed or required any caveats or directives regarding to what extent that ideology will be used. The target of it is VERY specific and some areas of the world are more dangerously fertile for that target to be subject to abuse than others.
In the minds of many, the abuse is considered rightful, useful and necessary.
And although Exodus or anyone else who agrees that abuse, threatening the loss of freedom goes too far, the objective is STILL the same. To require religious discipline ONLY on those suspected of being gay. Even Exodus agrees this is an undesirable, less holy way to live.
That’s ALL anyone needs to hear. No hard sell necessary. And so far, even the threat of incarceration, institutionalization, torture and violence hasn’t really kept gay people FROM being gay has it?
So, does it not occur to Alan Chambers that HIS methods or beliefs in how to change gay people is considered worthless and too tame to get the job done?
We’re considered by many non Western cultures to be WAY too lenient with our social and moral standards. Especially where women and gay folks are concerned.
And just as our society underestimated who they’ve been dealing with in those cultures, this is more of the same. Going into the Uganda situation, with the only connection of concern being Christianity and homosexuality, and arrogantly assuming that Ugandans now have to change their approach, when THIS culture is considered KOWTOWING to gay people and their demands!
Even conservative Christians in THIS country have resented the change with the APA and DSM regarding mental illness, and what is seen as an encroachment on civil and moral society at large.
And influencing pop culture in particular.
Alan Chambers is behaving as if he had no idea to what extent the damage would go and who was part of influencing how Ugandans would deal with THEIR ‘homosexual problem’.
Ugandans were ALWAYS going to handle it this way, they simply got a validation from certain parties where they knew they’d feel no consequences to be concerned about. Really, do they HAVE to give a sh*t?
No.
They DON’T have to care what Dr. T or Alan Chambers says.
The fire was burning and more fuel was added, and now Chambers is showing up to the conflagration with a water pistol. He might be sincere in wanting to help put out the fire, but he should have considered that his organization already had the fire well under way, and for a long, long time now.
Unless he’s thinking HIS butt will get burned in this did he load his water pistol.
Even here, where gays and lesbians are losing their careers, losing their children in custody battles against ex gay exes and losing their rights to marry and protections against the tyrannies of the majority, Chambers and his ilk court all the while exactly what NO ONE can fight, especially gays and lesbians.
Religious ideology that engages government force against easily scapegoated targets.
And in countries under the stress that Uganda has been, and what our country is rolling towards in these hard economic times, rage is a hard thing to fight.
We’re seeing it everywhere, and gay people are the easiest to attack and blame for every ill of mankind.
Alan, if you’d EVER had an education like I’ve had, in the tactics of the worst systemically bigoted paths of law and government, you would have known what you were messing with.
And you would have rejected the people you have embraced, roundly and in no uncertain terms
But you had your own agenda and the extent of influence and damage didn’t matter to you.
And now you can’t do anything truly EFFECTIVE for the people who were going to suffer the most.
If you’d had the stuff in you to recognize what you were dealing with, your life would have taken another course.
But it did in the first place BECAUSE you don’t have the character or the necessary moral and constitutional mettle to fight what gays and lesbians REALLY have to.
And homosexuality doesn’t put up the fight. So your ‘struggle’ with it is so trite. Compared to what gay Ugandans are struggling with.
Now, you’re dealing with a whole other issue that has nothing to do with you being gay or ex gay.
And that is relevance.
And are you struggling to have it here? I would think so, because your water pistol IS irrelevant to the issue facing fellow gay and lesbians Ugandans a half a world away.
In a BoxTurtleBulletin article from March 9th, 2009, Jim Burroway reports:
And as Warren Throckmorton notes in an article dated June 25th, 2009:
Given Chambers’ respect for Lively until just recently, was he even aware of the link to the existence of the Lively article, and/or its removal?
If the PRESIDENT of the organization is/was unaware of the content on the Exodus website, or the removal of that content, then who’s running the show over there?
(if those links are screwed up, I tried everything to get them to fit right)