Ugandan pastors blast Rick Warren for opposing anti-gay law

The Ugandan law against homosexuality is an abomination and it demeans basic human rights. From what I recall Pastor Warren tried to be quiet about his disagreement until he was called out by popular media here. I could be wrong.

I am happy that Pastor Warren opposed this terrible law. We as a people, particularly as Christ followers, should oppose any law that pushes this deeply into anyone's life. To say that this behavior is punishable by death is so horrible...it is only a step away from totalitarianism.

FTR, I am not a fan of homosexuality and oppose any form of legal recognition of same sex marriage. That said I don't believe we as a society should ever prohibit behavior at that level. You can't legislate away sin. If you want tot change behavior you must begin with the heart.

 

==That is up to the government, laws, and constitution of Uganda. The United States really has no say in the matter at all. For the record, however, I would oppose such a law in the United States. Not because I have tolerance for homosexuality, I don't. I would oppose such a law because I believe in the constitution as the rule of law and limited government.

 

please, please tell me you are going to run.raying:

 

Wrong. This is why pornography is legal. If speech you find offensive is banned today, it may be your speech that I find offensive and get banned tomorrow.

 

From the content of this article.... it appears RW presented no other guidance than that he was against the law as it was presented to him.

And, according to the report, it is not capital punishment for homosexual practice but what they define as aggravated homosexual practice. As words are sometimes expressive of more or less in one culture than in another... and may not be as accurate if translated as the original... I don't really know ..... so it would be better for more information than making a judgement.

 

I totallly disagree! We used to have laws against the practice of homosexuality. This kept it secret and confined to the bedrooms of most of those who practiced it. The communities, themselves, pretty much directed the force of the law by their reporting to authrorities their complaints and their persuasion on the courts as a jury. Many times, within the community, there might be persons living and associating in such a way that others wihtin the community either suspected or knew they were sodomites..... but were generally accepted within the community as neighbors and in business as they weren't flaunting their values and lifestyle in the faces of neighsbors and particularly children.

Just like profanity is governed by laws.... it is in the gray area of being both expressive speech and being offensive within the acceptance of public decorrum. There are other means of expressing the same meaning without offending others..... therefore it is considered within the rights of the people within a community to determine when and where it is offensive and criminal based upon their level of agreement as to what is disturbance of the peace etc. and what is not. Pornography and the business surrounding it, used to be prosecuted more under similar laws. While a community might give tolerance to the sodomites living within it ...... and even minister to different ones, when in need..... generally communities did not use to support or encourage their behavior, nor tolerate public displays (nor, for that matter, tolerate much public displays of heterosexual behavior), but the sexual revolution, the music, acceptance and proliferation of Woodstock mentality through out our country, changes in cinema etc.... have broken down the mores which used to be upheld in many communities..... and larger metro areas have pressured through their organizations, their need to prevent or enforce upon 'harder' crimes, and their increased tolerance and changing mores upon those within the cities... and placed pressure upon communities for additional 'permissions'.

The term 'aggravated homosexuality' sounds to me like a cloaked way of saying 'rape' or a sexually violent act upon another without consent or beneath the age of consent: In such case, I don't think the death penalty is too strong, if proven beyond the shadow of doubt, if that is the agreement of the people. We can acknowledge that in some cultures, this has been an acceptible violence of war by its soldiers as a part of terrorising the conquered: Where it has been an acceptible act of soildering.... it would be hard to change that military behavior without making it subject to law and discipline, and include it in the discipline of officers who knowingly commit such offenses or allow those under their command to commit such offences upon the populace.

What originates in the bedroom.... should stay in the bedroom. What is public is not expressive of any form of intimacy. These people who flaunt their sexuallity in the face of others are among others who do similar displays. They are dehumanizing intimate behaviors of communication and should not be on public display....... and certainly not the subjects of school lessons.

 

You're saying people have the right to be homosexuals?

You're such a naif.

 

Absolutely, in terms of human rights...just like people have a right to be heterosexuals, promiscuous, alcoholics, depressed, drug/substance abusers, speeders, etc.

When we sentence people to death for moral actions we teeter on the edge of the arrogance of the Crusades and Inquisitions. We deny the love of Christ and charitability of grace.

Will someone please explain to me how this kind of attack is permissible around here? Really, this is how you want to wage your argument?

 

Do they have the right to suicide?

What about pedophilia? Do people have the right to be pedophiles?

You mean moral actions like murder and theft?

 

It sure is hard to prosecute suicide victims...

This is really where I take issue with most fundamentalist attacks against homosexuals. Homosexuals are not pedophiles. You can't equate them as such.

I have friends who are homosexuals and they are not pedophiles. They are not lusting after little kids. They are living a different life that is full of struggles, but they are not going after these little ones. This kind of argumentation is as inflammatory as it is derogatory. (Of course this argumentation is par for the course for you.)

Different level of legal action here. Murder and theft are immoral actions against other people. By committing either you impinge on another's rights.

From a moral standpoint the rule of law does nothing against adulterers who act together. It does nothing to people who engage in premarital sexual relations. It does nothing to couples who enage in swinger behavior. It does nothing and should do nothing.

Now if someone takes their sexual behavior and forces it onto another or a minor that is a different situation.

Creating a society of mindless automatons might appeal to some but the freedom to choose morality is a vital part of a free society.

 

Uh, no. How anyone can come to that conslusion is beyond all manner of reason.

The ugandan legislation goes way beyond logic, and anyone who supports it is not fit to be call themselves a friend of Jesus Christ.

 

That wasn't the question. Do people have the right to commit suicide?

I didn't. I just asked about pedophiles. We're talking about basic human rights here. Let me rephrase the question: Do people have the right to be be sexual deviants? Is that a God-given, unalienable right?

That's too bad. Your witness should be such that they hate you.

So? Their sexual deviants. They're unnatural and mentally sick.

What about those that do? Do they have the right to be sexually stimulated by the appearance of little kids?

Suicide is self-murder. Does a man have the right to kill himself?

So prostitution should be legal?

You're such a naif.

 

Why are we debating homosexuality and pedophilia? There's no argument to them being morally wrong.

The topic here is the Ugandan legislation. The Ugandan legislation goes so far over the deep end to persecuterpeople, no discerning Christian should support it. Evef if one takes the position that the Ugandans can legislate as they see fit, there can be no reason to take issue with Warren's outpoken opposition to it.

 

When did Rick Warren move to Uganda?

 

...then my question is...why are Ugandan pastors asking Rick Warren for his opinion or direction?

 

Then you agree men do not have the right to engage in homosexual behavior.