250 Christian leaders condemn Nigerian anti-gay legislation

[kwassa]

Christian Leaders in US Condemn Nigeria’s Anti-Gay Bill
Persecution and Hatred Not Christian Values

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/27/nigeri15424.htm

New York, February 27, 2007) – A pending law in Nigeria that would impose brutal penalties on all relationships, activism, advocacy, and shows of affection among lesbian and gay people violates basic religious principles of respect for human dignity and life, a group of more than 250 Christian leaders said in a letter to the Nigerian government today. The draconian bill – poised to pass possibly as early as this week – would introduce criminal penalties for any public advocacy or associations supporting the rights of lesbian and gay people, as well as for same-sex relationships and marriage ceremonies.

“Christianity teaches us to respect all our sisters and brothers, and that includes lesbians and gays,” said Reverend Susan Russell, Senior Associate for Pastoral Life at All Saints Episcopal Church. “Whether in Nigeria or in the United States, the Christian value of human dignity for all is paramount. We call upon the government of Nigeria to respect basic human dignity and reject the persecution of lesbians and gays by withdrawing the proposed law.”

The bill is entitled “Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006,” but goes much further: it would attack all lesbian and gay individuals, families and human rights. The bill would provide for five years’ imprisonment to anyone who “goes through the ceremony of marriage with a person of the same sex,” “performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage” or “is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private.” Any priest or cleric aiding or abetting such a union could be subject to the five-year prison term. The law would also prohibit adoption of children by lesbian or gay couples or individuals.

Homosexuality is already criminalized in Nigeria. Nigeria’s criminal code penalizes consensual homosexual conduct between adults with 14 years’ imprisonment. Shari’a penal codes in effect in northern Nigeria continue to punish “sodomy” with the death penalty.

(copy of the actual letter is here)

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/27/nigeri15425.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Do not forget: It was Christians who WROTE AND PASSED these laws n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Probably Christians and Muslims

There's a good chance the Honorable Senator Ibrahim Mantu is a Muslim.

CIA Factbook estimate of Nigerian religious affiliations: Muslim 50%, Christian 40%, indigenous beliefs 10% .

[kwassa]

3. and it is Christians who are standing up in opposition.

and it was a combination of Muslims and Christians who wrote these laws.

[kiahzero]

4. It was people who wrote and passed them.

Therefore, people are evil.

Q.E.D.?

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. It is people who oppose these laws

Therefore, people are open-minded and accepting. Q.E.D.?

My point that it was Christians who helped put those laws into effect is just as relevant as the OP making a point that Christians are opposing those laws as they go into effect.

[kwassa]

10. No, you're incorrect because ...

it is Christian CLERGY that have written the letter, and express a certain level of expertise, and not Christian clergy that wrote these Nigerian laws.

No equivalency.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola was a key figure in writing these laws

Excuse me, you were saying?

[kwassa]

18. Akinola supports, not writes the laws.

I think 250 Christian clergy outnumber him.

The laws were written by legislators.

I think you make a poor comparison. I would also hardly consider Akinola's behavior, in any respect, Christian.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Lobbyists NEVER write legislation, nor influence those who do write it

Riiiiiight.

The head of a powerful national church in the country passing these laws, a man who has been striving to set himself up with the authority and power of a medieval Pope, has a bit more weight than a small (percentage wise) sampling of parish clergy in a different country. And your use of the "true Scotsman" fallacy is noted.

[kwassa]

20. They aren't the legislators

Your resorting to such heavy sarcasm indicates to me that your argument doesn't speak for itself.

Akinola is powerful. So are some of the people signing the letter, among which are 7 bishops and one archbishop. Hardly just parish clergy.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is often misused in the argument about what constitutes Christians, but it is misapplied, because of the same faulty parallels you are currently engaging in. A Scotsman is a Scotsman by geographic location of birth. Being a Christian requires an active participation in a belief system, an act of volition. The argument about who is or is not a Christian is a legitimate one, whereas no action at all is required to be a Scotsman. No belief system or behavior makes a Scotsman a Scotsman.

[trotsky]

33. Ooh it's fun to see you bristle when people call you on your No True Scotsman fallacy.

Being a Christian requires an active participation in a belief system

But what is that belief system, kwassa? You define it as you believe. Jerry Falwell does the same thing. You say he's not a Christian, he says you're not one. Just as the Scotsman fallacy goes. Until and unless you two can come up with a universal definition of "Christian," (just like a universal definition of "Scotsman" is "one born in Scotland") your squibbling is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Sorry.

[kwassa]

37. It is even more fun when the fallacy is not properly used

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing ") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work

Using the context of culture, religious individuals, for example, sometimes employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

As there is no one accepted definition of the subject by all who claim to be Christian, then the definition must be understood in context. The context is precisely what I believe a Christian to be, based on what I see as Christ's message of mercy and forgiveness and acceptance, in interpreting the behavior of Peter Akinola. Your mileage might vary.

Therefore, no fallacy.

[trotsky]

39. That's perfect! Thank you for squirming some more.

Falwell is not a Christian, according to you.

You are not a Christian, according to Falwell.

And when you both try to say that, you're both using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

You're a riot. It's been too long, kwassa. We must do this more often.

[cosmik debris]

41. Schadenfreude? n/t

[kwassa]

42. Who is squirming, and where is the fallacy? You still haven't shown it.

Neither one is using the fallacy, because for the fallacy to occur there must be an accepted definition of Christiantiy in place, which there isn't. Falwell has his definition, and I have mine. Having different definitions for a word does not create a logical fallacy, merely different definitions. My argument is entirely logical within the framework of my definition, and without any fallacy.

and invoking the fallacy does not make it so, nor constitute proof of anything whatsoever.

[trotsky]

49. There's no accepted definition?

OK, let's let you squirm out of that. Just for argument's sake.

Congratulations, kwassa! You are now the ONLY Christian on the planet. After all, I think it's highly unlikely that any other person agrees on exactly your definition, so therefore you are a religion of one. No fallacy means you have no other Christians anywhere.

Your "logic" takes you to some really funny places, kwassa. See you around!

[kwassa]

52. If you have an argument, offer it.

Instead of using a cheap characterization like "squirming" which is, in essence, a personal insult.

"Congratulations, kwassa! You are now the ONLY Christian on the planet.'

Now, where did I ever say that? Or even imply that? You jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

"After all, I think it's highly unlikely that any other person agrees on exactly your definition, so therefore you are a religion of one."

No, I think that there a lot of people that agree with me. This does not mean, of course, that there are not other definitions.

"No fallacy means you have no other Christians anywhere."

Where did you get that from???

"Your "logic" takes you to some really funny places, kwassa. See you around!"

When you can pose an argument against my logic, write again. Please refrain from the insults, however.

[trotsky]

53. In order to argue against you, don't you have to put up an argument first?

'Cause what you've posted up until now hasn't contained anything resembling a logical argument. I'm sorry if you think "squirm" is a personal insult, it's just a verb. People can squirm when they are trying to make a point but don't offer up any sort of logic behind it. So sorry that I applied it to you.

You don't think the No True Scotsman fallacy applies, because you get to define Christian to your liking, depending on your mood (which appears at the moment to be a little cranky). Therefore no true Christian believes something that kwassa doesn't. Or doesn't believe something that you DO. I guarantee you that you have at least one doctrinal difference with EVERY other "Christian," even ones in your church. Hell, even ones in your family, I bet, if you dig deep enough. The world has only one Christian, then, and his name is kwassa, because you and you alone set the standard.

[cosmik debris]

22. As Charlie Brown used to say "Good Grief!"

"The laws were written by legislators."

Do you really believe that?

I guess you have forgotten the MBNA Bankruptcy Bill.

I guess you have forgotten the Pfizer Medicare Reform.

I guess you have forgotten the Exxon Energy Policy the Mr. Chaney went to court to protect.

I guess you don't remember Duke Cunningham.

I guess you don't remember Bob Ney.

I guess you don't remember Tom Delay.

Where the hell have you been for the last five years?

[kwassa]

34. Give me proof that Akinola wrote the law in question.

Until you can do that, you have nothing.

[cosmik debris]

35. I don't need to offer proof. I have proved my point.

I answered your claim that laws are written by legislators. It is bogus on its face. For you to pretend otherwise shows how desperately you cling to lost causes.

[kwassa]

38. "I don't need to offer proof" You are above proof?

That's funny.

This argument is about whether Akinola, an alleged Christian, wrote the anti-gay laws now being considered in Nigeria.

You actually have no idea how the Nigerian government works, or any specifics of this case do you?

[cosmik debris]

40. I answered ONE BOGUS claim, not the larger argument.

And I don't need answer the larger argument because the one bogus claim destroys the credibility of the larger argument.

It is obvious that you are defending a POV with no rational supporting evidence, only opinions. Good luck with that.

[kwassa]

43. I guess you can't answer the larger argument?

"And I don't need answer the larger argument because the one bogus claim destroys the credibility of the larger argument."

No, it doesn't, in fact, it is not even relevant to the larger argument, which, judging by your response, you know nothing about.

[cosmik debris]

44. False premises make for false conclusions

Keep digging

[kwassa]

45. No, false assumptions make for false conclusions.

The original assumption is that Akinola wrote the anti-gay laws in Nigeria. No one has a shred of proof of that.

The second assumption is that Akinola somehow operates as lobbyist in Nigeria. No one has ever offered a shred of evidence for that, either.

He supports the laws, there is no doubt of that. He is not, however, either a legislator or a lobbyist.

[cosmik debris]

46. You made the statement, now you refuse to defend it

The weakness of your argument is self evident.

keep digging.

[kwassa]

47. Sorry, I have defended it, and you know nothing about Nigeria, apparently.

Do you realize how pointless it is to say that US lobbyists help write legislation here?

What does this have to do with Nigeria? What is this proof of????

[cosmik debris]

48. It is proof that you don't know what you are talking about

When you say "The laws were written by legislators."

keep digging

[kwassa]

51. What proof?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

63. uh, we're talking Nigeria here,

not the US.....

[cosmik debris]

67. Are you making the point that Nigeria is so much less corrupt than

The USA that it would never happen there? Do you believe that "special interest" groups have LESS influence in Nigeria than in the USA? Hmmmm?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

65. And your point?

Since a majority of people in Nigeria are either Christians or Muslims, it would only be expected that the legislators who passed these laws would belong to some faith. Are you saying that the reason for this legislation is based solely on their religious belief?

And are you implying that all people of faith are homophobes?

[cosmik debris]

5. Why don't they stand up against the same evil in the USA

Why don't the same fine Christian men and women stand up against Dobson, Robertson' and Falwell? Are they so far-sighted that they can't see that the same shit is happening right here int Jesusland?

[kwassa]

6. What makes you think that they aren't?

Christians here do so, but they don't get a lot of press about it.

[cosmik debris]

7. Are you saying that these people write letters to Dobson et al.

But they don't get press coverage for it? That's just plain lazy. All they have to do is CC the editors of several papers and they can get plenty of press coverage. Why are they being so discrete in their criticism of Dobson?

[kwassa]

9. No, I am saying that the press ignores them.

Not controversial enough.

[cosmik debris]

11. That sounds absurd to me, but if you believe it

I'll let you.

[kiahzero]

14. It's hardly absurd.

How much press coverage do progressives generally get?

[cosmik debris]

15. I say it is ridiculous

I live in one of the most conservative cities in America, and even here we have LTTE's once a week or so calling for impeachment, and frequent letters from the various clergy supporting Planned Parenthood. If 250 preachers can't get their letter published, I suspect that they aren't trying very hard. But just to provide a little help they could try the Waco Tribune Herald (http://www.wacotrib.com). It is a Cox newspaper--same ownership as Atlanta Constitution Journal and Austin American Statesman so don't start in with the "local hicks" argument.

[kwassa]

17. Say whatever you like.

http://storiesinamerica.blogspot.com/2005/12/liberal-media-strikes-again.html

Liberal Media Strikes Again

Remember last week's budget protest in DC that was led by progressive Christian groups? The protest at which 115 people were arrested? Chances are, you didn't hear about it unless you get most of your news online:

A search of the Nexis "major newspapers" database -- which contains 87 newspapers -- turned up only 10 mentions of the event.

The House budget legislation would cut spending on social programs for the poor by $50 billion while sacrificing $94 billion in government revenue to extend tax cuts, more than three-quarters of which would go to the 14 percent of U.S. households making more than $100,000 a year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

(jump)

But the December 14 protest was largely ignored by the media. The Associated Press (AP) and Reuters both issued wire reports mentioning the arrests, and a search of the 87 newspapers in the Nexis major newspapers database from December 13-15 found only 10 mentions of the event.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Do you *really* think writing to Dobson would have any effect

whatsoever?

I can't think of a more futile exercise.

They're the "mainstream" -- their opinions are simply common sense. So they get none of the press of the nutjobs like Falwell and Dobson. They could write all the letters they like, and cc every paper in the country -- it wouldn't get much play at all.

Check out the websites of the major denominations -- I'm sure you'll find all sorts of press releases about issues just like this one, as well as poverty, hunger, homelessness. Last year, or the year before, I remember a concerted effort by a group of mainline churches on the war -- big release, press conference, etc.

Press? What press?

[cosmik debris]

28. No, but I don't think writing to the Nigerian government will help

Writing letters like this is a publicity stunt. It is designed to get press attention. If the 250 clergy members don't have enough media savvy to get their letter published in US press, they need to hire someone who does. Otherwise, it is just tilting at windmills.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

64. please give a definition of "stand up"

what do you expect people of faith who are not members of the congregation or groups run by Falwell et al to do? You've said that letters aren't enough--ok, tell people of faith what to do then.

[cosmik debris]

68. I don't recall saying that.

All I expect of Moderate or Progressive theists is that they exert the same effort to address the problems in their own back yard as they do in distant countries. It is a lot easier to criticize people who live ten thousand miles away than to criticize your neighbors.

[varkam]

13. If it wasn't for religion

there wouldn't be anti-gay legislation in the first place.

[kwassa]

16. Baloney

Anti-gay prejudices are part of cultures around the world. There is no particular uniqueness to Christianity about it.

[cosmik debris]

21. Look before you leap

varkam said nothing about homophobia being unique to Christianity.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. In fact, this one is largely based on tribal taboos about

homosexuality -- which greatly predate Christianity.

Where does one separate culture and religion?

[varkam]

30. I didn't say Christianity.

Christianity is but one of many religions with anti-gay thematic elements.

[okasha]

23. So where do homophobic atheists come from?

n/t

[Random_Australian]

24. Homophobia is transmitted through socially learned implicit associations.

Heuristics.

As is racism and many other things.

People are using religion to propogate these IA's.

Therefore, with no religion, there would be an approximately exponential decline in homophobia given prevailing anti-homophobic social conditions in general.

It is also useful to note that if there were a religion without maleable quotes about gays, then they should not change the prevailing social attitudes, and thus homophobia would make its rightful exit.

Note: IA's are transmitted by social observation, not religion itself.

And yes, what I just described does mean there would be some homophobic atheists. Note that in this case there would be less atheist than religious homophobia - if I am wrong, there will be a lot of atheists saying that gay marriage, for example, is wrong.

Now, where are those statistics?

[varkam]

31. Do you know any homophobic atheists? eom

[Evoman]

58. Many of my family members are atheist.

My dad has 3 siblings. My dad and one of them are atheist, one is agnostic, and one of them is religious. One of them is a homophobe. Guess which it is...

Neither my brother nor my sister (atheists all) are homophobes. None of my cousins (agnostic and atheists) are homophobic. I have four religous cousins....two of them can be fairly described as homophobic. The other two are not (so homophobia is DEFINITELY not a necessary trait of religious people...but we already knew that). Any of the friends that I've had that were homophobic were ALWAYS religious...none of my friends or aquantences that are agnostic or atheist has ever expressed to me a homophobic thought (of course I don't know for sure, but they tend to be very liberal so...).

I don't think religious people are all homophobic. And religion doesn't CAUSE homophobia (or there wouldn't be any religious people who aren't homophobes). But we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't admit to ourselves that homophobia is almost entirely perpuated by religion and religious people. Religious people have a reason to be homophobic, and pass on that homophobia to their children. Atheists and agnostic really don't....

[varkam]

59. Excellent post.

I'd rec if I could.

[okasha]

72. Yes.

n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

26. I don't believe that. nt

[varkam]

29. Can you give me a purely secular rationale for homophobia?

I'd actually be interested in knowing what one is.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. I can't give you *any* rationale for homophobia

It's not rational.

But I'm pretty sure that it has existed, like many prejudices, before religion. Sexual taboos of all sorts are probably as old as humanity is.

[varkam]

36. I can give you one.

The bible says that it is an abomination against god - at least that's what the Christians tell me.

[JerseygirlCT]

50. Leviticus says something close to that

But it also has many, many other restrictions and laws that are no longer followed today. Seems pretty silly to pick and choose there. Shellfish? Clothing made of two different materials?

The letters from Paul (or attributed to him, anyway) from the NT are quite like mistranslations, and then bad interpretations on top of that. Easy to ignore if your agenda includes homophobia, but not historically accurate. Most likely what he was referring to were pagan customs that included same-sex relations with temple prostitutes. You can see why this very early Christian, forming a church, would be warning followers from pagan temple rituals.

Biblical literalists are often not even that -- they pick and choose and then fall behind their chosen verses to support their bigotry. Please don't assume they represent the entirety of Christianity, however.

[trotsky]

55. It may seem silly, yes.

But the rationale is there. No one has said that you personally, as a Christian, are homophobic. No one has said that fundie literalists represent Christianity in general, only that it is relatively easy to find "reasons" to condemn homosexuality in religion, Christianity included.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. That's a bit different than the assertion that

without religion there would be no homophobia.

[trotsky]

61. Then come up with a non-religious justification for homophobia.

Shouldn't be hard, should it?

[JerseygirlCT]

66. Because you can't prove the previous assertion

I should prove it's opposite?

Don't think so.

[trotsky]

70. Didn't think you could.

It's kind of like this:

Say someone claims there are no white squirrels. It's going to be pretty hard to prove that, sure. But it's super easy to DISPROVE it, by simply producing a white squirrel. That's the situation we're in here. Of all the irrational justifications for homophobia, there doesn't seem to be one that isn't based in religion. Now if you had just one counter-example, you could put the whole thing to rest. No, it's not your duty to do so, but the point remains unscathed.

[varkam]

57. I am not as astute as you, I presume, when it comes to biblical accuracy.

And I mean that in all seriousness. I wasn't aware of the letters from paul being mistranslations. The problem, at least as I see it, is not whether or not such things are historically accurate but simply that they are in the cannon and, either way you rub it, the problem still lies with religion (at least as I see it).

I know that many of the rules in leviticus are quite silly, and that people tend to fixate on homosexuality - I think that might be a bit of the tail wagging the dog in that people can use that to justify pre-existing bigotry against homosexuals, but I still contend that such bigotry would not of been communicated from parents to children were it not for religion.

You say biblical literalists pick and choose verses that support their views, but you make the assumption that biblical literalists know the bible. They do not. A surprising chunk of people who think that the bible is the infallible word of god have not even read the whole damn thing.

Additionally, you have fundamentalist ministers across the country railing against homosexuality on the basis of religion. If religion is not the primary justification, it has become the primary means of transmittal of such hatred.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Absolutely to your last couple of points

There's a great deal of ignorance and it has been used quite adeptly to fan the flames of hatred against homosexuals. (Not to mention women).

There is a great deal of scholarly argument about Paul's intention with his letters -- I don't mean to imply that I have the last word, or that there's universal agreement. But many biblical scholars would say that the word used in most editions now is an incorrect translation of the language Paul used. And of course, interpretation may flow from that, as well as from the interpreter's agenda...

Beyond that, is the concern for me that the words (we think) of Paul seem to be given greater weight than the words of Christ -- who had nothing to say about homosexuality so far as the gospels tell us. I think the choice to focus on Paul is also illuminating of a certain group of Christians.

[varkam]

69. I still contend, however, that

the fact that such words are contained within religious scripture - whether they are accurate translations or not - still make it a problem that lies primarily at the door of religion. Like I posted before, your average fundamentalist is not likely to know much about how the bible was written or the veracity of the claims contained within (in fact, they just believe it's all true).

In addition, I think that the point I made about religion being the primary means of transmittal is a pretty good one. I certainly am not aware of any secular means of spreading and/or justifying (whether that justification is before or after the fact) intolerance against homosxuality. Every objection to homosexuality I have ever heard has been a religious one.

I also think that you make a good point in that Jesus never really said much about homosexuality. He also had nothing to say about abortion, either, but nontheless the only rationale I am familiar with for opposing abortions is a religious one. To some Christians, it doesn't really matter what Jesus said, apparently. I do seem to recall he spent a lot of time talking about the poor and the least among us. If only fundies would focus on that as opposed to eating shellfish.

[JerseygirlCT]

71. Actually, I *have* heard objections to abortion from

people without any religious stance. They still see it as a moral issue, and their anti-choice stance as a moral one -- it just doesn't have religious underpinnings. (shrug)

I don't have the anthropology background to say so conclusively, but I totally suspect that homophobia is a very, very old taboo. Now, I suppose you could argue that ancient tribal beliefs were still *religion*, but once you get back that far, almost everything is religion, then.

I agree with you that in today's world, the foremost method of perpetuating homophobia is fundamentalist religions. But I do think all of that is based on earlier beliefs -- maybe somehow so ingrained in cultures that they're hard to separate from religion.

I've been reading a little bit, for instance, about African cultural/tribal attitudes toward homosexuality. The taboo definitely pre-dates Islam and Christianity. The religions simply built on what was already there. Where it comes from originally and why is an interesting question...

So, I don't think we're really disagreeing. I just think it's a bit too simplistic to throw off something like homophobia as a purely religious invention. It's far more complex than that. I think religions -- whether one believes they developed from divine inspiration or not, become man-made constructs in no short time. They become imbued with all the man-made junk that seems to be hard to remove from our basic wiring, which could all come down to this unfortunate human need to create a "them" so that we can be the "us".

[Evoman]

54. I wish the Nigerians would worry more about the rampant corruption and extreme amounts of

criminal conmen that are making their country look so bad, than about gays who have 0 effect.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. What this shows is

the growing schism between the progressive and fundamentalist factions of various faiths. Fundamentalists of this type tend to focus on a few verses of the Bible, often taken out of context, to justify their prejudice and hatred (for example, they cite Leviticus, and yet wear clothing made of mixed fabric and eat shellfish, which are also banned by that book), while progressives look at the overall message given by their particular messenger.

The outcome of this schism could very well be the collapse of many of the dogmas of religion and the rise of a more personalized, spiritual reality for those of faith.