In the wake of the shocking revelation about Bluehost shutting down Web sites of Zimbabwean and Iranian dissidents (and one Belarusian national living and working in the U.S.) on the grounds that Bluehost was just following federal law (which is a crock), this naturally caught my eye:
A Practical Guide to Internet Technology for Political Activists in Repressive Regimes
EFF Releases ‘Surveillance Self-Defense International’ for Iranian Dissidents and Other Protestors
SAN FRANCISCO — July 21, 2009 — The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) released “Surveillance Self-Defense International” (SSDI) today, a practical guide to help activists from around the world use the Internet safely under repressive regimes.
Or: A Funny Thing Happened While Investigating the Lesbian Web Site That Ran Up Against the Mormon Web Host: I Stumbled Across an International Incident.
First things first: There are only five hard-and-fast rules I follow in life, without exception:
1. Keep your marriage vows.
2. Be nice to people until they give you a reason not to be.
3. Give money to homeless people, and never question what they’re going to do with it.
I’ll try to spout off on some of these in more detail, but as long as I’m working on Teh Prop 8 Project, I don’t have the time to give each the proper consideration (for better or worse) it deserves:
The “infallible” Pope-O-Ratso, or: Every Day, A New Reason I’m Happy to Be an Ex-Catholic:
Stupid lesbians I 1) instantly hate with a passion, and 2) refuse to excuse for any reason whatsoever, and 3) would like to slap the crap out of, because 4) I get crazy when ANYONE gets involved with underage youth, 5) I myself was taken advantage of at the tender age of 15 (by a male teacher, mind you), 6) it’s against the freaking LAW, you stupid b-words, and 7) the Wrong Wing is going to hold you both up as representative of “pedophile gays,” which makes the road for the rest of us all that much harder to hoe (and by the way, did I mention how much I hate you both?):
Since nobody seems willing to help me understand Twitter (for which the lack of feedback has left me even crankier than usual), how about this: Anyone know if this area of Washington state is filled with Mormons and/or militia, or if it would be safe for a couple of peace-loving lesbians?
I respect the guy to no end, and I’m thrilled somebody who knows what he’s doing is taking over, but yeah, Marc Solomon has a lot of damage control to do first, and yeah, it’s unfair Marc has to inherit the ludicrous shambles that was the No On 8 campaign, but yeah, Marc’s going to have to convince me, too, to put my faith back into a “movement” and not just go off and do my own thing while muttering, “F*k the nice gays and their f*king cocktail parties, nobody cares about us old, in-the-way lesbians, we’re all on our own, it’s every man, woman, and TG for him/herself now, to hell with this…”
Another reasonScott Lively is going to burn in Hell forever — and another reason we wish God would open a giant sinkhole under Uganda and suck the whole damned place into the bowels of the earth:
Memo to Jared Polis, Part II: Stop making excuses, Jared — you’re just embarrassing yourself now. Take your lumps, learn from the experience, and next time, DON’T BLUFF:
Fears are growing for the fate of thousands of young girls in rural Mauritania, where campaigners say the cruel practice of force-feeding young girls for marriage is making a significant comeback since a military junta took over the West African country.
Aminetou Mint Ely, a women’s rights campaigner, said girls as young as five were still being subjected to the tradition of leblouh every year. The practice sees them tortured into swallowing gargantuan amounts of food and liquid — and consuming their vomit if they reject it.
“In Mauritania, a woman’s size indicates the amount of space she occupies in her husband’s heart,” said Mint Ely, head of the Association of Women Heads of Households. ”We have gone backwards. We had a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. We had achieved a parliamentary quota of 20% of seats. We had female diplomats and governors. The military have set us back by decades, sending us back to our traditional roles. We no longer even have a ministry to talk to.” …
A children’s rights lawyer, Fatimata M’baye, echoed Ely’s pessimism. … “The politicians are scared of questioning their own traditions. Rural marriages usually take place under customary law or are overseen by a marabou (a Muslim preacher). ..”
Leblouh is intimately linked to early marriage and often involves a girl of five, seven or nine being obliged to eat excessively to achieve female roundness and corpulence, so that she can be married off as young as possible. Girls from rural families are taken for leblouh at special “fattening farms” where older women, or the children’s aunts or grandmothers, will administer pounded millet, camel’s milk and water in quantities that make them ill. A typical daily diet for a six-year-old will include two kilos of pounded millet, mixed with two cups of butter, as well as 20 litres of camel’s milk. “The fattening is done during the school holidays or in the rainy season when milk is plentiful,” said M’baye. “The girl is sent away from home without understanding why. She suffers but is told that being fat will bring her happiness. Matrons use sticks which they roll on the girl’s thighs, to break down tissue and hasten the process.”
Other leblouh practices include a subtle form of torture — zayar — using two sticks inserted each side of a toe. When a child refuses to drink or eat, the matron squeezes the sticks together, causing great pain. A successful fattening process will see a 12-year-old weigh 80kg [over 176 lbs]. “If she vomits she must drink it. …”
Historians say the practice dates back to pre-colonial times when all Mauritania’s white Moor Arabs were nomads. The richer the man, the less his wife would do — the preference being for her to sit still all day in her tent while her black slaves saw to household chores. … Fattening of girls is practised beyond Mauritania, in northern Mali and rural Niger — areas conquered, along with half of present-day Spain and Portugal, by the Almoravid dynasty in the 11th century. The practice of fattening also continues in Nigeria’s Calabar state and north Cameroon. …
Good piece, well worth the full read — and a good article to pass along to those who still don’t see what the big deal is about Rick Warren (since, after all, it’s only us lowly ‘mos having big ol’ faux-outrage hissy fits), but who might be persuaded to righteous outrage by Warren’s African crusade:
If you want to foster AIDS and kill queers in Africa, Rick Warren’s the man for you. While Warren’s characterization of queers (and Jews and Muslims) as godless perverts fuel bigotry in the US, the real effects of inviting Warren to preside over Obama’s inauguration will be felt in sub-Saharan Africa. …
In case you actually care, his campaign for AIDS prevention, in a region decimated by the disease, sneers at condoms, needle exchange, and sex education. He claims all those efforts merely slow the spread of AIDS, while his plan can stop it flat. The secret — abstinence before marriage, religious conversion, and, not included on his website, that perennial favorite, queer-baiting.
One of his closest allies in Uganda in his so-called fight against AIDS is Martin Ssempa, an evangelical preacher who blames queers for the disease, makes a show of burning condoms, and this spring organized a rally with the theme “A Call for Action on Behalf of the Victims of Homosexuality,” where he spent most of his time railing against queers.
As far as treatment goes, Ssempsa offers faith healing in his Pentecostal services if only victims believe enough and make a nice donation. In general, the bulk of his anti-AIDS activism seems to be legal battles to ensure that homosexuality remains illegal and the media continues to portray queers as sexual predators.
He’s getting it done. Homosexuality is still illegal, and queers face increasing harassment and violence from everyone from the government to their next-door neighbors. Newspapers sometimes print lists of people suspected of being lesbian or gay, opening them up to job loss and physical violence. Several activists are arrested every year. …
Terrible for queers, Warren and his pals are almost worse for AIDS. Uganda’s HIV infection rate, which had dipped from its 1996 height, has been climbing back up in recent times. The problem? Advocates like Warren and Ssempa dumping sex education and condom promotion in favor of abstinence-only programs, which study after study show actually increase risky sex. …
The most vulnerable of all are gay men. Warren has supported figures like the archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, who in 2006 and 2007 campaigned ferociously for anti-gay legislation which stipulated five years’ imprisonment to anyone who had anything to do with a same-sex marriage ceremony, participated in gay organizing, or had anything to do with anything gay of any kind “directly or indirectly in public and in private.”
Hate-mongering may have become a habit for Akinola. In 2005, he was implicated in the massacre of more than 650 Muslims by a Christian mob tied to the Christian Association of Nigeria. He was president of the group at the time. For all this, Akinola earned praise from Warren in an April 2006 Time Magazine article lionizing him as a defender of the faith, a “Nelson Mandela”, and “a model for Christians around the world.” …
Nine gay men were each jailed for eight years by a court in Senegal, the highest such sentence in a country where homosexuality is outlawed, their lawyer and gay rights groups said Wednesday.
The nine, all aged under 30, appeared in court Tuesday charged with “indecent conduct and unnatural acts and membership of a criminal organisation”. They were arrested in December in the Dakar suburb of Mbao.
“This is the first time that the Senegalese legal system hands down such a harsh sentence against gays,” said Issa Diop, one of four defence lawyers representing the men. …
Homosexual acts are punishable with a maximum sentence of five years in Senegal, where 95 percent of the population is Muslim.
However, the judge in the case raised the sentence to eight years after taking into account their “membership of a criminal organisation”. Most of the men belonged to an association set up to fight HIV/AIDS.
A legal source told AFP the men were arrested after police got an anonymous tip-off. “They were arrested while they were in the act and they had pornographic pictures,” the source said. …
Senegalese gay activists say homophobic sentiments have surged in the last year.
In February 2008 a local magazine focusing on celebrity and nightlife published pictures of what it said was a gay marriage. In the ensuing furore, several men seen in the images fled their homes and in some cases the country.
In August, a Belgian and a Senegalese man were sentenced to two-year prison sentences for “unnatural acts”.
And after an HIV-AIDS conference in Dakar in December, an Islamic group denounced as “inappropriate” the part icipation of gays during its proceedings.
As India’s High Court Mulls Reform, Nations Should Repeal This Legacy
NEW YORK — December 17, 2008 — More than half of the world’s remaining “sodomy” laws — criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct — are relics of British colonial rule, Human Rights Watch showed in a report published today. Human Rights Watch urged governments everywhere to affirm international human rights standards, and reject the oppressive legacies of colonialism, by repealing laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity among adults of the same sex.
The 66-page report, “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of ‘Sodomy’ Laws in British Colonialism,” describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and from Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. This year, the High Court in Delhi ended hearings in a years-long case seeking to decriminalize homosexual conduct there. A ruling in the landmark case is expected soon.
“Half the world’s countries that criminalize homosexual conduct do so because they cling to Victorian morality and colonial laws,” said Scott Long, director of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights program at Human Rights Watch. “Getting rid of these unjust remnants of the British Empire is long overdue.”
On December 18, 2008, the UN General Assembly will hear a statement signed by over 60 countries affirming that human rights protections include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Some national leaders have defended sodomy laws as reflections of indigenous cultures. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, for example, has called gays and lesbians “un-African” and “worse than dogs and pigs.” The Human Rights Watch report shows, however, that British colonial rulers brought in these laws because they saw the conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. The British also wanted to defend their own colonists against the “corrupting” effect of the colonies. One British viceroy of India warned that British soldiers could succumb to “replicas of Sodom and Gomorrah” as they acquired the “special Oriental vices.”
In the early 19th century, the British drafted a new model Indian Penal Code, finally put into force in 1860. Section 377 punished “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with up to life imprisonment.
Versions of Section 377 spread across the British Empire, from Africa to Southeast Asia. Through it, British colonists imposed one view on sexuality, by force, on all their colonized peoples. Over time, these laws came to seek punishment against not particular acts but whole classes of people. The British, for instance, listed “eunuchs” - their term for India’s hijras, or transgender people - as a “criminal tribe” because they were prone to “sodomy.” Simply for appearing in public, hijras could be arrested and jailed for up to two years.
Today, international human rights standards have compelled former colonial powers to acknowledge that these laws are wrong. England and Wales decriminalized homosexual conduct in 1967. The European Court of Human Rights found in 1981 that a surviving sodomy law in Northern Ireland violated fundamental rights protections. In 1994, the UN Human Rights Committee — which authoritatively interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) — held that sodomy laws violate the rights to privacy and to non-discrimination.
The laws nonetheless persist in many of Britain’s old colonial possessions. Moreover, the model British-era sodomy law made no distinction between consensual and non-consensual sex, or between sex among adults and sexual abuse of children. As a result, these surviving laws leave many rape victims and child victims of abuse without effective legal protection.
“From Malaysia to Uganda, governments use these laws to harass civil society, restrict free expression, discredit enemies, and destroy lives,” Long said. “And sodomy laws add to the spread of HIV/AIDS by criminalizing outreach to affected groups.”
Colonies and countries that retain versions of this British sodomy law include:
• In Asia and the Pacific: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, India, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. (Governments that inherited the same British law, but have abolished it since include: Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, and New Zealand.)
• In Africa: Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Eleven former British colonies in the Caribbean also retain sodomy laws derived from a different British model than the one imposed on India.
I guess since God has failed to oust scum-of-the-earth Robert Mugabe, it’s dawned on a few mere mortals that it’s up to them — but if they think words will accomplish anything, they’re sadly mistaken. The guy is as evil, crazy, and unmovable as Hitler, Idi Amin, and Pat Robertson combined; about the only thing that will work is a coup, and the Zimbabweans are so weakened, and more concerned about starving to death and not being murdered by their own next-door neighbors, I’m not sure they’re capable of overthrowing Mugabe. Then again, I’m surprised they haven’t already; if extreme adversity breeds violence (and it does), then Zimbabwe is more than ripe for revolution.
But that’s just my take from the other side of the planet. Here’s what people who are supposed to know better than I do are saying:
The U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe, citing a “man-made humanitarian crisis,” Thursday echoed world leaders who want Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe out.
“It is time for Mugabe to go,” said Ambassador James McGee. “He’s outlived his usefulness in Zimbabwe.”
The current humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe — including a cholera outbreak — is linked to the political crisis, McGee said during a news briefing.
World Health Organization officials said the cholera outbreak resulted in the death of least 783 people have died and reported infections of more than 16,400 people.
“And this political crisis is nothing more than the result of the failed economic policies, corruption and human rights abuses on the part of the government of Zimbabwe,” he said.
Global leaders, including U.S. President George Bush, have called upon Mugabe to step aside. …
Meanwhile the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provides economic and humanitarian assistance, allocated $6.2 million in addition funds to help battle the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, officials said. The agency already given $4.6 million in help, providing emergency water, sanitation and hygiene programs, said Henrietta H. Ford, USAID administrator. …
Hm, not exactly a lot to be hopeful about there, eh? As I said, words aren’t gonna work with Mugabe; you’re not going to get him to “step aside” just by suggesting it.
Now, you know if Zimbabwe had anything the U.S. wanted (like oil), we already would have been funding a coup — or, worse, the spooks would have already offed him. Both options are morally repugnant, and I’d rail against either. (Well, I might be open to the idea of funding a coup, if we did it out in the open, instead of feigning ignorance and innocence, the way we do in South America every decade or so.) But that, sez the armchair observer, is why Mugabe has been allowed to remain in power as long as he has: It’s of no “benefit” to the U.S. to do anything about him.
Never mind that we’re so gung-ho about eradicating terrorism from the world; the powers that be always conveniently gloss over the fact that terrorism is a direct result of poverty, disease, and other conditions that leave a people with literally nothing left to lose. Oh, noooooooo, we can’t be bothered to strike at the root of a problem — in Zimbabwe, or in our own backyard.
Here’s a big, fat clue, people in power: Prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Africa Health Workforce Shortage Moves From Obscurity to Centerpiece of New Law
WASHINGTON — July 17 — Last evening, the US Senate voted to reauthorize PEPFAR AIDS legislation (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), despite a gauntlet of last-minute obstacles and objections ranging from a Senate Republican filibuster to amendments to drastically cut funding and PEPFAR’s reach. Senate approval is the last major obstacle to the bill’s becoming law. PEPFAR reauthorization is targeted to prevent 12 million HIV infections and treat three million people over five years. The Senate version also contains a provision that would lift the infamous HIV travel ban, which generally prohibits HIV+ people from entering the United States.
Said John Bradshaw, JD, Washington Director for Physicians for Human Rights: “In passing this bill, Congress has saved countless lives in a single evening. It is difficult to exaggerate the impact that this $48 billion program will have on people suffering in Africa and around the world from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The vote also sends a message of support to many of those who suffer, that the U.S. is even more committed than ever to getting them the help they need. We welcome the provisions that would bolster Africa’s health work force. Without more health workers, there can no lasting progress in addressing these diseases. We applaud the removal of the HIV travel ban, which is and always has been a human rights violation and has no basis in the needs of public health.”
Africa’s catastrophic health worker shortage, which received little mention in the original legislation, is now a central element of the reauthorized bill passed by the Senate. PEPFAR reauthorization will support countries in developing long-term health workforce plans, will fund 140,000 new health workers, and will pay for a push for 2.3 health workers per thousand people. Many African countries currently employ far fewer health workers than that ratio would provide, crippling efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
The health worker shortage has been cited by international health organizations such as the World Health Organization and World Bank as perhaps the single biggest obstacle to implementing HIV services. Indeed, PEPFAR reauthorization provisions constitute the single biggest effort to alleviate Africa’s health workforce crisis of any wealthy country.
PEPFAR, the world’s largest anti-AIDS program which also now addresses malaria, tuberculosis, and nutrition, has so far treated over 1.5 million people with AIDS. The bill is seen as a cornerstone of President Bush’s legacy as he leaves office, and has overall enjoyed wide bipartisan support, including from Republican Senator Richard Lugar, a co-sponsor of the bill who became an energetic proponent.
President Bush initially proposed $30 billion for the reauthorized program (the initial price tag for PEPFAR 1 was $15 billion), but grassroots support, including bold leadership from Physicians for Human Rights, eventually pushed that figure to $48 billion.
Below is a summary of PHR’s positions on some of the salient provisions of the version passed this evening by the Senate:
Africa’s Health Workforce Crisis: PEPFAR reauthorization will support countries in developing long-term health workforce plans, will fund 140,000 new health workers, and will help pay for a push for 2.3 doctors, nurses, and midwives per thousand people. Many African countries currently employ far fewer health workers than that ratio would provide, crippling efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
PHR is advocating for including a provision during conference that would provide health care for health workers themselves — an issue not addressed in the Senate bill, but that is included in the House version — and stronger language about safe working conditions and health workforce plans.
Injection drug use (IDU) policy: PHR welcomes the increased attention given to IDUs in the proposed legislation, which favors increased access to HIV prevention for this group.
The bill makes “…the reduction of HIV/AIDS behavioral risks a priority of all prevention efforts by …promoting voluntary counseling and testing, addiction therapy, and other prevention and treatment tools for illicit injection drug users and other substance abusers.” It promotes substitution therapy for IDUs. [NOTE: An effort is underway in the House to repeal the US ban on needle exchange, including a letter to House leadership signed by 56 Members of Congress, urging the leadership to “seek immediate removal of the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange.”]
In addition, there is a reporting requirement that PEPFAR must track the number of IDUs reached by PEPFAR services in each affected country, including users at risk of becoming infected with HIV. The inclusion of prevention services for users not yet HIV-positive is a breakthrough and differs from PEPFAR 1, which only targeted HIV-positive injection drug users.
Women: PHR supports the focus given in the bill to programs to combat HIV/AIDS among women. Women’s unique vulnerability to HIV is explicitly discussed in the bill. The bill provides important targets for preventing mother to child transmission and AIDS medical treatment for children.
PEPFAR’s five-year strategy must include a plan to address the needs of women and girls, including specific strategies, targets, and goals. The bill also mandates:
• A report on the five-year plan must be submitted annually to Congress;
• Expansion of monitoring and evaluation and operations research to include collection and analysis of data on gender-responsive interventions, and will develop gender indicators;
• Authorizing new IOM evaluation four years later to assess performance;
• Compacts with countries to include how they will address the needs of women and girls.
The integration of family planning services and HIV services, seen as critical by advocates including PHR, is not discussed in the Senate version. PHR is calling for the integration of family planning and HIV services in the final PEPFAR reauthorization legislation. Such integration is essential in order to catch women with HIV as early as possible to prevent and treat the disease.
HIV Travel Ban: PHR strongly supports the repeal of the longstanding ban preventing people with HIV from visiting the US, and calls for this language to be included in the final legislation. The Travel Ban is a violation of human rights, including the right to privacy and the right against discrimination.
Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) mobilizes the health professions to advance the health and dignity of all people by protecting human rights. As a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, PHR shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.
We’re always interested in the off-again, on-again split in the American Episcopal church — not because we’re Episcopalians (we’re not), but because we’re fascinated and horrified by the revelation that a Christian denomination we considered relatively moderate could house so many members who are so rabidly anti-gay, they’d rather follow a Nigerian despot like Peter Akinola than work out their differences over the consecration of Eugene Robinson.
Also, if you haven’t checked it out already, do visit the blog Akinola, Repent (”Akinola, Repudiate Anti-Gay Violence”), which we’ve had in our blogroll for some time.
Peter Akinola is not exactly a household name, but he could well be the problem pastor of neo-conservatism. He is certainly less well known in the U.S. than John (”McCain threw me under the bus“) Hagee, but he is every bit as consequential.
He is the spiritual leader of thousands of Americans, including many Washington insiders who attend schismatic Episcopal churches that have placed themselves under his authority in recent years. He is Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, a cruel and ostentatiously anti-gay cleric and a driving force in the widening schism in the worldwide Anglican communion, who makes James Dobson seem liberal and Hagee a relative man of peace.
He is the embodiment of many people’s worst fears about the theocratic, authoritarian nature of the Religious Right. (See also here, for a recent example.)
That Americans of any political or religious orientation would choose this man as their spiritual leader is disturbing enough. But there is a still darker side of Akinola, one linked to an infamous massacre.
But before we get to that — a few words about some of the Akinola Anglicans.
Akinola Anglicans are represented in the United states in part by, and are closely aligned with the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a neoconservative strategy and action center that has waged a war of attrition against mainline Protestantism for a generation, primarily under the leadership of conservative Catholics and evangelicals; and is bankrolled by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and Howard Ahmanson, whose neoconservative and theocratic agendas are respectively opposed by the historic communions of mainline Protestantism. …
There’s nothing funny about Robert Mugabe’s seemingly endless reign of terror — other than George W. Bush opining that Zimbabwe’s presidential run-off elections “appear to be a sham” (who better to recognize a sham election?) and accusing Mugabe’s government of intimidating voters (who better to know about intimidating voters?).
Meanwhile, a few folks who once bestowed honors on Mugabe (before he turned into a modern-day Hitler) have taken them away. Kudos to Queen Elizabeth for stripping Mugabe of his honorary knighthood, “an extremely rare move by the British monarchy,” and to UMass for rescinding Mugabe’s honorary degree awarded in 1986.
Meanwhile, Mugabe says “only God” can oust him from office. Now, that’s something we’d like to see. I mean we’d really, really like to see that. The sooner, the better. (Hey, God…?)
The arrest of three sexual rights activists during a peaceful demonstration to raise awareness about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues shows the Ugandan government’s determination to enforce silence around sexuality and HIV/AIDS, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Minister of Justice and Attorney General Edward Kiddu Makubuya.
Although the activists were released on June 6, Human Rights Watch urged the government to drop all charges against the three and to stop future arrests and prosecution of activists working on issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
On June 3, 2008, police in Kampala detained Onziema Patience, Valentine Kalende, and Usaam Mukwaaya while demonstrating during the HIV/AIDS Implementers Meeting — a conference aimed at sharing lessons learned and best practices for HIV/AIDS programs. The three activists were protesting remarks made the day before by the chair of the Uganda AIDS Commission, Kihumuro Apuuli. He had declared that “gays are one of the drivers of HIV in Uganda,” and that the government could not afford direct prevention and care.
“Silence around HIV/AIDS kills,” said Juliana Cano Nieto, researcher of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. “LGBT people do not ‘drive’ HIV in Uganda, but they have driven many community-based responses. They deserve recognition and inclusion, not repression and jail.”
The three activists face charges of “criminal trespass” under article 302 of the Uganda Criminal Code. Even though cosponsors of the Implementers Meeting later provided the activists with appropriate accreditation, the police detained one of the activists for over four hours and charged him with “forgery of documents.” All three face a court hearing on June 20, 2008.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly drawn Ugandan authorities’ attention to patterns of abuse based on sexual orientation and gender identity. On August 22, 2007, Human Rights Watch wrote to president Museveni concerning threatening statements made by government officials against LGBT people in Uganda. In an October 11, 2007, letter, Human Rights Watch expressed alarm over authorities’ call to tighten enforcement of the country’s draconian sodomy law, which punishes homosexual conduct with up to life imprisonment.
”When police silence voices defending public health, the only winner is the virus,” said Cano Nieto. “Uganda’s once-praised HIV prevention efforts are giving way to prejudice and fear.”
Article of Faith: Archbishop Desmond Tutu thanks lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and asks for forgiveness
“Even more moving, Archbishop Tutu also asked for our forgiveness on behalf of the church, which has so often made us, he said, a ‘lesser part’ of God’s creation. He compared this sin to the long tradition of excluding women from ordained ministry. We now see, he said, how such exclusion ‘impoverished’ the church and its work for far too long.”
— Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D, National Religious Leadership Roundtable
WASHINGTON, April 10 — Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the church, while receiving the Outspoken Award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) on April 8 in San Francisco, Calif. What follows is an Article of Faith addressing the inspiring advocacy of a globally renowned faith leader in favor of LGBT people.
Article of Faith by the Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D. National Religious Leadership Roundtable
Archbishop Desmond Tutu once again set a stellar example for religious leaders and faith communities with his outspoken and unrelenting stand for justice and human dignity.
Hundreds of enthusiastic admirers gathered in San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral as the archbishop received the 2008 Outspoken Award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. He received the award with the same humor, humility and grace that have marked his long and remarkable career as Archbishop of South Africa in the midst of apartheid, the 1984 recipient of the Nobel Peace Price and chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
His remarks, though brief, were poignant, perhaps especially for those in attendance who so rarely hear such a prominent religious leader speak clearly and passionately on behalf of LGBT people. He began by thanking us, and by extension LGBT people everywhere, for our courageous witness to human dignity in the face of both religious and civic oppression. This witness, he said, makes a profound difference to so many, and he cited just two of examples in the lives of openly gay clergy with whom he has closely worked over the years in Cape Town.
Even more moving, Archbishop Tutu also asked for our forgiveness on behalf of the church, which has so often made us, he said, a “lesser part” of God’s creation. He compared this sin to the long tradition of excluding women from ordained ministry. We now see, he said, how such exclusion “impoverished” the church and its work for far too long.
This pairing of gratitude and repentance set the tone for the evening’s celebration as Tutu deflected the attention away from himself and toward the ongoing struggles for human rights and dignity throughout the world. He likened himself to the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who could no more stop speaking truth to power than he could stop breathing. Like Jeremiah, he said, God’s word of justice has always “burned within my breast,” from the scourge of racism to the exclusion of women and the persecution of LGBT people.
The archbishop concluded his remarks by referring to his own Anglican Communion and noting how “sad” and how “tragic” it is to see his church distracted by human sexuality at a time when a world marked by poverty and war demands our full attention. Reminding us that the Olympic torch would arrive in San Francisco the very next day, he deftly connected our struggle for justice and dignity to the work of freedom in Tibet.
As an Episcopal priest, I took great pride in this moment of honoring one of my own faith leaders. Even more, the Archbishop’s humble courage made me long for that day when such courage and leadership no longer seems rare or worthy of an elaborate award ceremony. The work of justice and witnessing to the full dignity of every human being belongs to all of us. As Archbishop Tutu’s life and ministry so clearly shows, that work is what religion and faith are all about.
Last October, Barack Obama attempted to defuse the Donnie McClurkin debacle by issuing a statement (actually, burying it deep within his campaign Web site) that affirmed his “belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens.”
While Obama supporters screamed, “What else do you want him to do?!” I explained that Obama could say whatever he wanted, but if he didn’t back up his words with actions, his words were meaningless.
As it turned out, his words were meaningless. Obama refused to dump McClurkin (or any of the rest of the anti-gay bigots) from his “Embrace the Homophobia Change” Gospel Tour, despite the widespread outcry from gay and lesbian Americans pleading with Obama not to allow a homophobic, “ex-gay” bigot to speak on his behalf, and especially not to exploit the deeply-ingrained homophobia endemic to conservative Southern black churches as a means of gaining a few political points.
But Obama didn’t listen to us, and “after the tour when asked why the campaign would seemingly reject gay voters for far-right leaning blacks a campaign insider replied, ‘We got what we needed to get out of it.’”
It’s not as if Obama wasn’t aware of McClurkin’s virulently anti-gay views and vile rhetoric before the concert tour; even if Obama could feign ignorance prior to the announcement of the concert, he couldn’t once the news hit the blogosphere, and certainly not after Human Rights Campaign head Joe Solmonese spoke directly with Obama to express (albeit with the HRC’s usual cloying spinelessness) “our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to ‘break the curse of homosexuality.’”
Why am I rehashing this old news? Because Barack Obama just used the exact same, ineffectual game plan (with one variation; this time, he dumped his human albatross, posthaste) in his attempt Friday to distance himself from the inflammatory, racist, and anti-American sermons of his church pastor, “spiritual mentor” and “role model” who “helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated“: Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
In response to the nuclear explosion that finally hit the MSM over the past 48 hours, Obama issued a statement, “On My Faith and My Church“. Let’s look at his dodge-and-weave points one at a time:
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring,
And you mention his imminent retirement, why? As if to suggest he’s old, past it, and won’t be saying these outrageous things anymore? Or to imply that he just started pulling these ideas out of the air only recently, and it’s time he be put out to pasture?
Wright has been preaching his Gospel of Hate for a long time — we suspect since day one, but at least for the past seven years. His “God Damn America” screed (in response to the 9/11 attacks) dates to September 16, 2001.
And his retirement has nothing to do with anything. His upcoming retirement was common knowledge well over a year ago.
What’s important is what you, Barack, have been absorbing at the feet of your spiritual advisor for two decades.
…has touched off a firestorm over the last few days.
A firestorm in the MSM, yes, but then the MSM usually lags far behind the Internet. Wright has been on our radar since well before you decided to run for President.
He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.
With which statements, specifically, do you disagree?
I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.
How about his anti-white statements?
I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit.
Then why did you refuse to fire Donnie McClurkin from your gospel tour?
And if you believe that “words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit,” why, after “strongly disagreeing” with McClurkin’s views, did you refuse to “exclude from [your] campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin”?
In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Again, which statements? It sounds like what you’re really saying is this: “I don’t want to to be pinned down to anything specific, because if I reject Wright’s anti-white remarks, I’ll piss off Black Liberation Theology believers, and if I don’t, I’ll alienate a vast swath of my white base. So I’ll just say that whatever you disagree with, I disagree with. Just think of my statement as part of the ‘blank screen’ concept, where you project whatever you want onto it.”
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright
Which “particular statements” were those again?
are so contrary to my own life and beliefs,
Are they? How do we know that if you won’t tell us exactly which statements you disagree with?
And if you “reject outright” all of Rev. Wright’s racist, anti-American remarks, then why did you continue to attend his church for twenty years, and donate a healthy chunk of money ($22,500 in 2006 alone) to a church whose pastor who has been “disparag[ing] our great country” and “degrad[ing] individuals” from the pulpit for years?
But issuing vague statements of condemnation without addressing specifics is just par for the course for you, Barry. As Ronald Kessler re-caps in Friday’s Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):
Considering this view of America, it’s not surprising that in December Mr. Wright’s church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening,” Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. “He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
After Newsmax broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.
Instead, Mr. Obama said, “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.” Trumpet is owned and produced by Mr. Wright’s church out of the church’s offices, and Mr. Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor.
Meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama described Mr. Wright as being like “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.” He rarely mentions the points of disagreement.
In fact, you’ve been forced to “clarify” the remarks of so many of your closest supporters (your wife Michelleamong them), you have your standard condemnation speech nearly down pat.
In addition to your deliberate vagueness, there’s another big problem with the way you deal — or don’t deal — with the stunning gaffes of the people you surround yourself with, Barack: You ignore the problem — and ignore it, and ignore it, and ignore it — until you are wedged so far into a corner, you are forced to deal with it.
During the Cleveland debate (February, 2008), Tim Russert asked you a simple yes-or-no question, and you, in your usual indirect manner, dodged and weaved until you were pinned to the mat:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.
On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”
OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it.
This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”
He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”
What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel’s. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically — it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it’s true in this presidency — is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I’ve been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was — just last point I would make — when I was giving — had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King’s birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that’s what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I’m president of the United States.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator…
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
(APPLAUSE)
Is getting a straight answer out of you always like pulling hen’s teeth?
Back to your statement on Wright:
…a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright
You mean how Wright is “like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that [you] don’t agree with”?
I’m not sure you want to go there, Barry; after all, you can’t choose your relatives, but you do choose your pastor, and you do choose to spend two decades listening to and learning from a racist.
As Ben Wallace-Wells wrote in Rolling Stone (more than a year ago, mind you): “Obama wasn’t born into Wright’s world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and ‘felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.’”
Barry, in my culture, there’s an old saying about people who claim to be straight after having gay sex: “Once is an accident. Twice is a phase. Three times — they like it.”
…and my membership in the church.
Let me therefore provide some context.
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
It’s probably not a good idea to mention HIV/AIDS right now, as you’ve just reminded the reader of Wright’s belief in the tinfoil-hat theory that “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life.
Oh, you didn’t just say that. You did, didn’t you?
No matter how carefully your writers crafted that sentence, you just said that 1) Wright preaches the gospel of Jesus (if so, that’s a different gospel, and certainly a different Jesus, that the one I was raised on); and 2) you “base your life” on the teachings of a man who hates whites.
Fire your speechwriters, Barry.
In other words, he has never been my political advisor;
Well, he was one of your political advisors, until yesterday — although the African American Religious Leadership Committee on which he served has been dismissed as, among other things, “the sort of largely honorary, advisory body that in recent days has recently been used mostly to throw people off who say controversial things.”
But where you’ve really backed yourself into a corner, Barry, is in saying Wright “has never been my political advisor.”
“Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.
“Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president.”
If that’s not political advice, then what is it?
(You also said: “What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice.” Does that mean you do get political advice from Wright — just not on a “day-to-day” basis?)
…he’s been my pastor.
He’s a heckuva lot more than just your pastor.
You said Wright is your “sounding board” who helps you keep your “priorities straight and [your] moral compass calibrated.”
He’s the pastor who brought you to Jesus. He’s the pastor who married you, baptized both your daughters, and blessed your home.
He’s the pastor whose sermon — the first sermon you ever heard him preach — served as the basis for your keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and inspired the title of your second book, The Audacity of Hope.
“If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” your good friend, the Rev. Jim Wallis, told Rolling Stone, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
Wright is a lot more than just your pastor. A lot more.
And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
Twenty years, and you never heard him say anything as inflammatory as we’ve heard over the past few days?
Or are you saying you didn’t hear these specific statements that have gotten so much airplay?
Even when you aren’t attending “the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week,” don’t you think, especially if you’re so deeply involved in the fellowship of your church, you would have heard about something so controversial as your pastor damning America to Hell from the pulpit? Or blaming Italians for killing Jesus?
Nothing? You never heard him say anything like that?
Guess what, Barry? I don’t buy that for a second. And neither do a lot ofother people.
When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.
When “these statements” — meaning these specific statements we’ve been watching on every news channel?
There you go choosing your words a little too carefully, Barry — as if to suggest you were blissfully unaware of Wright’s radicalism until just over a year ago, when in truth:
“In his 1993 memoir ‘Dreams from My Father,’ Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.”
And in February, 2007, you personally “disinvited” Wright from delivering the invocation for the announcement of your presidential campaign. Reported the New York Times:
“Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign’s apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright’s teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.
“Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said the campaign disinvited Mr. Wright because it did not want the church to face negative attention. …
“‘Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself,’ Mr. Burton said. …
“‘When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli’ to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, ‘with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.’ Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.
“Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, ‘The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.’
“According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, ‘You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’”
Tell us again, Barry, how you didn’t hear any of Wright’s trash talk over the course of twenty years.
But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Not even at the cost of exposing your two little girls to anti-white hate? Is that the “gospel” you want them to live by?
Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
You don’t “vehemently condemn” anything until you’re forced to.
With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me,
Not half as much as they’ve pained and angered me as an Italian-American whose people didn’t arrive in this country until 1901, were scorned as non-white for a generation, and who never had a college graduate in the family until 1974.
To have this filth thrown in my face by your spiritual mentor and role model, when it’s you preaching such empty platitudes of “unity” and “transcending race,” is the ultimate insult to my intelligence, and the ultimate self-assassination of your character and integrity.
I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in;
Barack, you own this. You were the one who made your faith just a gigantic issue in the first place. You’re constantly on about how faith informs your politics. Your faith is integral to your life; you’ve made that clear in almost every speech you’ve ever made.
How you choose to worship, and who you choose as your teacher in your walk through this life (and the next) goes right to the heart of who you are.
… on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
That is exactly how I judge you, Barack. Sadly, you have only proved once again that your judgment is not to be trusted — any more than your empty words.
Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11
Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing “God Bless America” but “God damn America.”
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side, has a long history of what even Obama’s campaign aides concede is “inflammatory rhetoric,” including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own “terrorism.”
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, “I don’t think my church is actually particularly controversial.” He said Rev. Wright “is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with,” telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.
Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.”
An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright’s sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.
. . .
“He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive,” said another member of the congregation.
. . .
Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright’s approach, referring to his “social gospel” and his focus on Africa, “and I agree with him on that.”
Sen. Obama declined to comment on Rev. Wright’s denunciations of the United States, but a campaign religious adviser, Shaun Casey, appearing on “Good Morning America” Thursday, said Obama “had repudiated” those comments. …
No, we’re not done discussing Jeremiah Wright.
Provoked by an Obama supporter’s remark that white people can’t possibly understand what goes on in a black church, I’ve spent a good deal of time over the past 24 hours trying to understand the particular brand of theology that fuels much of Wright’s rhetoric.
I think I have a handle on it. While my opinion of Wright’s methods is even dimmer than it was yesterday, I think I have a better understanding of its origins, and even of some of the code phrases he employs.
I want to give myself some more time to gather my thoughts — or revelations, actually, as what I’ve discovered explains a lot of things, such as Barack’s refusal to do the right thing with regard to the Donnie McClurkin imbroglio, and Michelle Obama’s ongoing disparagement of America, among other things (and how all of this plays into a fascinating perspective of religious identity) — before I attempt to explain where I think this is all coming from… and the insight it provides into the real Barack Obama.
Judging from the astronomical number of hits yesterday’s Wright entry received, I know there are many, many people as simultaneously interested in and outraged by the Wrong Reverend Wright as I am.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., senior pastor, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, March 2005. Credit: Trinity United Church of Christ/Religion News Service
The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
This following video is, according to Fox News, from Wright’s Christmas sermon. (Gee whiz, what a message of peace and unity for Christmas, eh?)
My transcript (free to use, with attribution/link, please) is below.
On edit: YouTube keeps pulling the video, but a lot of people keep re-posting it — so if you get the “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available” message, check back later, as I’ll do my best to find a new copy every time I see it’s gone missing again.
Who cares about what I’m going through? Who cares about what poor people have to put up with? Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people?
Somebody missed that — you got nervous, because we got some white members here. I’m still in bible country. I am still in [unintelligible].
Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich white people. The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.
It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged.
Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. Giuliani fits the mold. Rich white men fit the mold.
Hillary never had a cab whizz past her and not pick her up because her skin was the wrong color. Hillary never had to worry about being pulled over in her car as a black man driving in the wrong…
I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it!
Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home. Barack was! Barack knows what it means to be a black man livin’ in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary can never know that!
Hillary ain’t never been called a n*****! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-persons! Hillary ain’t had to work twice as hard just to get accepted by the rich white folks who [unintelligible] everything, or to get a passing grade when you know you are smarter than that C student sittin’ in the White House!
Ohhh, I am so glad that I got a god who knows what it is to be a poor black man, and in a country and a culture that is controlled and run by rich white people!
He taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies. Jesus taught me how to love the hell outta my enemies! And not be reduced to their level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness.
Hillary ain’t never had her own people say she wasn’t white enough!
Jesus had his own people sidin’ with the enemy!
That’s why I love Jesus, y’all. He never let their hatred dampen his hope. …
I’m biting my tongue to refrain from saying what I’d like to say regarding your “level of hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness,” Mr. Wright, as my Italian blood (which ain’t half so white as you’d like to think) is a little hot right now.
No, actually, it’s very hot.
Here’s something I can say with complete impunity, Mr. Wright: You are outright lying about Barack Obama growing up poor, underprivileged, and “raised in a single-parent home.”
And Barack himself “admitted in his book, Dreams from My Father, that he had no clue what it meant ‘to be a black man in America.’ And with precious few African-Americans around him in Hawaii, he learned how to ‘be black’ from ‘TV, movies, the radio; those were places to start. Pop culture was color-coded, after all, an arcade of images from which you could cop a walk, a talk, a step, a style.’”
Oh, wait, one more thing: Mr. Wright, I hope the Internal Revenue Service is already investigating your church, and preparing to strip it of its tax-exempt status.
But then, the IRS is already interested in the United Church of Christ — a shame, really, as the UCC is the most Christ-like Christian denomination this side of the Quakers, far more colorblind than you are, and far more liberal than Obama himself — due to your unabashedly racist, one-sided politicking, and to Barack’s own shortsightedness.
What am I talking about? I’m talking about this letter from the IRS to the United Church of Christ, regarding Obama’s use of your pulpit for campaign purposes:
Because a reasonable belief exists that the United Church of Christ (”church”) has engaged in political activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a church described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt under section 501(a), this letter is notice of the beginning of a church tax inquiry described in IRC section 7611(a). We are sending it because we believe it is necessary to resolve questions concerning your tax-exempt status as a church described in section 501(c)(3) and in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Code.
Our concerns are based on articles posted on several websites including the church’s which state that United States Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama addressed nearly 10,000 church members gathered at the United Church of Christ’s biennial General Synod at the Hartford Civic Center, on June 23, 2007. In addition, 40 Obama volunteers staffed campaign tables outside the center to promote his campaign.
All 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, are prohibited from participating in, or intervening in (including the publication or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. This is an absolute prohibition, violation of which results in denial or revocation of exempt status and/or the imposition of certain excise taxes, if applicable.
The prohibition against political campaign activity does not prevent candidates from being invited to speak at an event of an organization described in section 501(c)(3). If a candidate is invited to speak in his or her capcity as a candidate, then other candidates running for the same office must also be invited to speak and there should be no indication of support for, or opposition to, any candidate by the organization. Alsom the prohibition does not prevent an orgnization’s officials from being involved in a political campaign, so long as those officials do not in any way utilize the organization’s financial resources, facilities, or personnel and clearly indicate that the actions taken or the statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organizations.
… not the first time Wright appeared to endorse Obama, who was baptized at Trinity United, has been an active member of the church for two decades and receives spiritual mentorship from Wright.
The title of Obama’s second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” was taken from a sermon by Wright.
. . .
In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:
“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
FOX News purchased the video recordings of Wright’s sermons from the church.
“It’s pretty clear an indirect endorsement of Barack Obama — that’s not something you’re supposed to do according to the tax code,” said Andrew Walsh, a professor at Trinity College who specializes in religion in politics.
“Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”
You need help, Rev. Wright. Your soul is poisoned by hate. If you’re hearing any “voices” guiding you, they don’t belong to angels.
It’s sad that your “hatred, bigotry, and smallmindedness” may be the thing to bring down one of the few genuinely liberal Christian churches in the modern world.
It’s sad that the IRS wouldn’t think of narrowing its focus to a single, rogue church within an otherwise upstanding denomination.
It’s sad that the entire UCC body may become collateral damage in your crusade against those of us who don’t buy Obama’s lies — or yours.
Or:Yet Another Reason We Wish Nigeria Would Disappear Into A Gigantic Sinkhole
From the traditionally gay-baiting-and-hating Nigeria, in the gay-baiting-and-hating Daily Sun, a gay-baiter-and-hater called Leo Nwokoji equates gay and lesbian Nigerians — and “people of questionable marital paternal or maternal footing” — with vampires:
Senator Nuhu Aliyu had no qualms, made no mistakes, spared no one when he declared that fraudsters had infested the National Assembly. But for the intervention of the Senate President, he probably would have entertained the nation with a roll-call of who is who and infact who tops the chart among these desecrators of our hallowed chambers.
Contributing to the debate on a motion tagged Direction and Tempo of the War on Corruption, sponsored by Senator Sola Akinyede, Senator Nuhu Aliyu, after identifying with the content and spirit of the motion, declared that Ribadu made a world of difference in the fight. He proceeded by recapping the world preception of Nigeria as a nation of 419ers and added that they even abound in the the Senate.
. . .
Among the issues begging for attention is the propriety of tolerating every shade of moral leaning in the National Assembly. The lesbians, perjurers, fraudsters, gay, cultists and vampires, street fighters and people of questionable marital paternal or maternal footing.
Isn’t it about time we started aiming at a more decent legislature, in both ethical and moral sense? For instance, should we allow an avowed sexual pervert, a notorious 419er, a serial rapist, and blood drinking cultists to rub shoulders with saner, more decent senior citizens in the hallowed chambers of our legislature when their likes are languishing in Kirikiri and Gashua prisons? Should such base characters be allowed to enact laws that will drive national issues? Will this caliber of people not legislate us into crisis?
. . .
Heaven is revealed to us in the Bible as a stainless city of righteousness, implying that sin cannot enter there. If God almighty, whose name is holy, decides in his magnanimity as the sovereign one, to admit into heaven everyone who obeys him in all points except one, say lying, cheating, anger, adultery or fornication, pilfering or outright robbery etc., at the end of such exercise, wouldn’t the heaven, the avowed kingdom of righteousness and hollowed abode of the mighty God, become a mere replica of sinful, depraved, earthly kingdom? Wouldn’t even the integrity of the holy one be called to question? Now, let’s come back to the terrestrial arena in context. …
Nwokoji goes on like this for a few more paragraphs (using the word “hallowed” at least twice more — doesn’t this guy own a thesaurus?); hit the link if you want to get the full effect of the nutso-wackiness within.
By the way, The Sun crows about itself like so:
Our name says it all: THE SUN – Nigeria’s King of the Tabloids. The sun is a king of the cosmic world. That is why we call ourselves “Nigeria’s King of the Tabloids.” The essence and spirit of a tabloid newspaper go beyond the elementary distinction in size. Beyond that, a tabloid is a special newspaper that looks at news – whatever the subject of the news – largely from the human angle.
THE SUN therefore is a paper of human voices, capturing the unpredictable and unexpected rhythms of life and existence, the daily heartbeat of humanity in lucid and crisp prose. THE SUN is a mirror that reflects reality with fresh, bloodied brazenness. …
“Bloodied brazenness”? Definitely.
“Lucid and crisp prose”? About as “lucid and crisp” as the latest missive from any of Nigeria’s 419 scammers.
AllAfrica.com brings us the latest plan in the all-consuming campaign to eradicate queers from Uganda:
Uganda: Mufti Wants Gays Abandoned On Islands
The Mufti, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje wants gays marooned on an island in Lake Victoria until they die. Sheikh Mubajje told journalists on Friday at Old Kampala Mosque that he sold his proposal to President Yoweri Museveni when they met last week at Hotel Africana.
“I asked President Museveni to get us an island on Lake Victoria and we take these homosexuals and they die out there,” Sheikh Mubajje said during a press briefing after Idd el Fitr prayers.
“If they [gays] die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country.”
. . .
Sheikh Mubajje said homosexuality could lead to moral decay in the society if left to blossom.
. . .
The Mufti’s statement correlates with recent plans by the Muslim Tabliq youth to form what they called an ‘Anti-Gay Squad to fight homosexuality in the country.
. . .
“We are ready to act swiftly and form this squad. It is the work of the community to put an end to bad practices like homosexuality.” he said.
To “If they [gays] die there then we shall have no more homosexuals in the country,” Buffy replies: “As if no more would be born in the future, you idiot.”
A gay rights organisation claims it has uncovered evidence that the U.S. government has funded groups in Uganda that actively promote discrimination against lesbians and gay men.
. . .
IGLHRC says that a “primary instigator” of the religious backlash against the LGBT community in Uganda was Pastor Martin Ssempa, leader of the Makerere University Community Church and spokesman for the Interfaith Family Culture Coalition Against Homosexuality in Uganda.
. . .
With support from conservative organisations such as Family Watch International in the United States, Ssempa has launched attacks not only on homosexuals but on Uganda’s women’s rights and HIV activists as well, claims ILGHRC.
“The U.S. government’s funding is meant to alleviate suffering and support effective AIDS initiatives in Africa, not to further blame and stigmatise already marginalised groups,” said IGLHRC Executive Director Paula Ettelbrick.
. . .
IGLHRC has also investigated homophobic Muslim groups in Uganda and claims that the Uganda Muslim Tabliqh Women’s Desk has also received a grant under the President’s Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to implement HIV programmes in Masaka District.
Recently, Muslim Tabliqh youth announced a plan to form an ‘Anti-Gay Squad’ to fight homosexuality in Uganda. …
[Uganda’s] Minister for Ethics and Integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, has vowed to block the demand for recognition of gay’s rights, reports Conan Businge.
“The Government shall do whatever it takes to block the spread of homosexuality.”
People who are agitating for those rights are selfish individuals with callous intention, Buturo said, adding that: “They are trying to impose a strange, ungodly, unhealthy, unnatural, and immoral way of life on the rest of our society.”
“I will endeavour to block it. I can assure you on that. Let them go to another country, and not here,” the furious Buturo said.
So Uganda’s Minister of Hate has vowed to “fight homosexuality.” Gee, that’s funny — just a few months ago, Buturo said the Ugandan “government is not fighting gays but it is against the practice of homosexuality because it is immoral.” Talk about splitting hairs.
Oh, you want to know about the title of this post? …
“It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It’s like disapproving of rain.” — Francis Maude
A massive march calling for greater protection for South African gays has erupted on the streets of Soweto following the murder of two lesbians last July.
The women, 34 year old Sizakele Sigasa and 23 year old Salome Masooa were raped, tortured and killed in Meadowlands, Soweto.
. . .
Many participants wore a T-shirt saying ‘Dying for Justice’ in sympathy with the two victims. Other T-shirts read ‘Pissed Off Women’ and ‘Lesbian Rights are Human Rights’.
. . .
Twenty two year old Lesego [said] “I’m here to tell the public that we aren’t different… And being gay is certainly not un-African. We have a very liberal constitution but it isn’t implemented in civil society. And things are getting worse. Most of my sisters have been violated.”
Onlookers seemed to sympathise with the marchers, with one resident telling the Star: “They are fighting for their rights. I have no problem with that.”
A Catholic leader has claimed condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.
Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique, claimed some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected “in order to finish quickly the African people”.
. . .
Aids activists have been angered by the remarks, one calling them “nonsense”. …
. . .
It is estimated that 16.2 per cent of Mozambique’s 19million inhabitants are HIV positive.
. . .
Archbishop Chimoio said that abstention, not condoms, was the best way to fight HIV/Aids.
“Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose,” he alleged, refusing to name the countries.
Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t Mozambique just send all their AIDS sufferers to Ethiopia for the holy-water cure?
They have said they will halt the ordination of gay bishops and public blessings of same-sex relationships to prevent a split in the Anglican Church.
“That word ‘halt’ is not enough,” said Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi.
. . .
“What we expected to come from them is to repent - that this is a sin in the eyes of the Lord and repentance is what me, in particular, and others expected to hear coming from this church,” he said.
. . .
The Episcopal bishops did reaffirm their commitment to the civil rights of gay people and said they opposed any violence towards them or violation of their dignity.
The meeting in New Orleans follows a summit of Anglican leaders in Tanzania earlier in the year which gave the US Episcopal Church a deadline of 30 September to define its position on the issue.
Theological conflict over the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, is draining the Anglican Communion of its global influence.
. . .
Anglican leaders, called primates, have set a Sept. 30 deadline for the Americans to pledge unequivocally not to consecrate another gay bishop or approve an official prayer service for same-gender couples. Episcopal bishops have dedicated their meeting here to crafting a response.
. . .
Breakaway Episcopal parishes are joining a patchwork of separate U.S.-based networks with leadership from all over the Anglican world, including Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya, where theological conservatives are the majority.
About 60 of the more than 7,000 Episcopal parishes have either split off or suffered serious membership losses, according to the national church.
At least three dioceses — Pittsburgh, Quincy, Ill. and San Joaquin in California — have taken the first steps toward breaking from the national church. …
. . .
If Anglicanism continues on the path of slow but steady splintering, it will effectively do as much harm as a formal schism. Anglicans in Africa, who derive much of their stature from their global ties, will become just another church. The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church, which has played such a central role in U.S. history, will also be marginalized. …
That’s the perfect phrase for the situation: “dying by a thousand cuts.”
And yet the denial is mindboggling; e.g.:
“‘The movement is in danger of fragmenting into so many pieces,’ said Canon Kendall Harmon, a leading conservative thinker from the Diocese of South Carolina.”
“In danger”? It’s done, over, kaput, fini.
The patient is beyond hope, but none of the doctors wants the responsibility of calling the time of death.
In a statement through the Elton John Aids Foundation, the star said the Prime Minister’s “leadership and vision” was “urgently needed, right now”.
He talked of the lives saved in Africa thanks to his foundation, set up 14 years ago, and the thousands who died for lack of access to what are affordable antiretroviral drugs.
In June the G8 countries promised to make access to HIV/Aids treatment universal by 2010, through tripling the size of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, tuberculosis and Malaria to 6-8 billion dollars (£3-4bn).
But Sir Elton claimed that at the present rate the world was barely on track to meet half that target.
Tweet This Post! 
The “infallible” Pope-O-Ratso, or: Every Day, A New Reason I’m Happy to Be an Ex-Catholic:
Stupid lesbians I 1) instantly hate with a passion, and 2) refuse to excuse for any reason whatsoever, and 3) would like to slap the crap out of, because 4) I get crazy when ANYONE gets involved with underage youth, 5) I myself was taken advantage of at the tender age of 15 (by a male teacher, mind you), 6) it’s against the freaking LAW, you stupid b-words, and 7) the Wrong Wing is going to hold you both up as representative of “pedophile gays,” which makes the road for the rest of us all that much harder to hoe (and by the way, did I mention how much I hate you both?):
Since nobody seems willing to 
I respect the guy to no end, and I’m thrilled somebody who knows what he’s doing is taking over, but yeah, Marc Solomon has a lot of damage control to do first, and yeah, it’s unfair Marc has to inherit the ludicrous shambles that was the No On 8 campaign, but yeah, Marc’s going to have to convince me, too, to put my faith back into a “movement” and not just go off and do my own thing while muttering, “F*k the nice gays and their f*king cocktail parties, nobody cares about us old, in-the-way lesbians, we’re all on our own, it’s every man, woman, and TG for him/herself now, to hell with this…”
Another reason 
