Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After covering the situation in Uganda for the past few months, you can imagine my reaction when I see this headline:
Media Homosexuals Bash Uganda's Christians
And no, this did not appear in some weird third-world church newsletter, it appears on the website of a relatively mainstream conservative group in the United States, Accuracy in Media, and was written by Cliff Kincaid. And believe it or not, the text of this screed is actually worse than the headline suggests.
The Washington Post editorial page has now joined lesbian MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow in blasting the government of Uganda for considering a law to protect children from homosexual predators and the dangerous public health impact of the homosexual lifestyle. Despite its moderate views on some foreign policy issues, the Post has always come down firmly on the side of making homosexuality into a special right that should be protected and even glorified by governmental institutions. Now it wants to impose that view on Uganda's mostly Christian population.
In the bizarro world that Kincaid inhabits, trying to keep Uganda's Christians from putting gays to death amounts to "imposing" on their rights -- not the right of gays not to be put to death, but the right of Christians to put them to death. Or, at the very least, put them in prison (the death penalty provisions are for "aggravated homosexuality," which is defined as sex with a minor, gay sex -- but not straight sex -- while HIV positive, or repeat offenders). The bill even jails someone for failing to report gay sex that they know about and also makes it a crime to advocate any rights for gays at all. But criticizing such a barbaric bill is "bashing" and "imposing" on "Christians."
The Post editorial says the proposed Ugandan law against homosexual conduct, including the deliberate spreading of the AIDS virus, is "homophobic" and will "foment hate." In fact, the bill is designed to save lives by curtailing the spread of homosexual conduct and a disease that kills millions.
As if what a bill is allegedly "designed for" mutes criticism of what it actually does. This, of course, is why politicians always give names like the Saving Cute and Fluffy Bunnies Act. But barbarism is barbarism, no matter what you may claim its intent to be. And of course, in Africa AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease, not a homosexual one. Perhaps you should be throwing straight people in prison instead.
The Uganda motto is "For God and My Country." Its national anthem, "Oh Uganda, Land of Beauty," includes the words:"Oh, Uganda! may God uphold thee,
We lay our future in thy hand;
United, free for liberty
together we'll always stand."This kind of language rubs some people in liberal-left circles the wrong way.
Because it's hypocritical nonsense. You cannot claim in one breath to always stand for liberty and in the next breath put gays in prison and jail even those who advocate gay rights. Well, you can -- but you'll prove yourself a buffoon in the process. Much like Cliff Kincaid.
Politics
Comments
Uganda, where the C Street abstinence only Christians instituted 'condom burnings', then the incidence of HIV/AIDS shot up. And they are protecting the population from what?
Posted by: Rodney | January 11, 2010 9:57 AM
Aha! So we have finally found out the actual 'freedoms' (sic) that the teabaggers insist are being taken from them. I did wonder...
Posted by: stoat100 | January 11, 2010 10:10 AM
I guess I've been happily practising "aggravated heterosexuality" since my adolescence.
Posted by: DaveL | January 11, 2010 10:19 AM
If they really want to stop the spread of HIV, then they should care more about stopping heterosexual rape (often of children and even toddlers), and promoting condom use. But those things might empower women by limiting the number of babies they have, and then they might get too uppity and start thinking they're real people or something. It's so much easier to just blame it all on homosexuals.
Posted by: catgirl | January 11, 2010 11:02 AM
First, "Accuracy in Media" have once again proven that they don't give a shit about accuracy, and are only concerned with crying the blues whenever the media say something the radical right don't want to hear. They haven't changed a bit since they were founded.
And second, if the purpose of that bill was to "protect children from homosexual predators," then its specific language would have been aimed at that purpose and no other. And why do they only pretend to care about homosexual predators? Is someone trying to cover up and divert attention from heterosexual predators?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 11, 2010 11:18 AM
So much for conservatives decrying cultural relativism.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 11, 2010 11:30 AM
erv made a terrific post on this subject:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/01/hiv-1_scapegoat_for_religious.php
guess what, heterossexuals spead more HIV. But fundies can't face that fact, can they?
Posted by: Paulino | January 11, 2010 11:33 AM
When girls are the victims, people tend not to care as much. It's the same thing with the Catholic church sex abuse. The priests molested girls too, but you never hear about them. I think there's a lot of victim blaming, or the assumption that men who molest girls just can't control their "normal" urges.
Posted by: catgirl | January 11, 2010 11:34 AM
Even allowing that since the bill is about homosexual predators - and therefore it doesn't cover heterosexual predators (thus completely ignoring psychological motivations for predation is not only about sexual preference, but about power) - what will happen when priests, monks, or nuns conduct homosexual behavior? What happens when it is found that it was covered up? Will the priest, monk, or nun go to jail? Will those in the hierarchy who knew (or likely knew) also go to jail?
... somehow I doubt they will have much happen to them.
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 11, 2010 12:01 PM
Two points:
First, this is precisely in the same vein as the Top Ten Christian Persecution Stories Ed linked to a few days ago. To fundamentalists, not discriminating against one of the groups they hate is to "persecute" them. Even when Christian-driven legislation would lead to an effective genocide against a population, it is still "persecution" to criticize the Christians.
Second, Ed said in the original post:
That was in reference to the claim that the bill was designed to prevent the spread of HIV, but that is not the purpose of the bill at all. The purpose is to eliminate gays and lesbians (and presumably other queer people) from society. HIV, pedophilia, bestiality - these are just covers to mask the true eliminationist nature of this agenda.
Posted by: Thinkoplex | January 11, 2010 12:07 PM
Awww, poor Ugandan Christians are getting picked on by big ol gay meanies. And for what, simply trying to kill them? Homosexuals should just shut up (it's the law after all) and accept Ugandan Christians' loving hangings, saintly firing squads, and merciful prisons. Truly Jesus' love has been made manifest in Uganda that all the world may witness His glory and follow their rightious example. How could anyone bash them for that?
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 11, 2010 12:32 PM
This is really an example of the banality of evil in action. What we have here is a perfectly ordinary person rationalizing mass murder. It's an extremely disheartening thing to behold.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 11, 2010 1:06 PM
I think it's also revealing how carefully Rick Warren and conservative politicians parsed their objections to the proposed Ugandan law. While criticizing the death penalty aspect, they were careful not to criticize Ugandans continued desire to criminalize homosexuality.
Tyler @ 12 - great point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 11, 2010 1:14 PM
...and the dangerous public health impact of the homosexual lifestyle.
Speaking as someone who actually works in public health, the impact of the homosexual lifestyle is so far down our priority list it isn't even on the radar.
Posted by: Shay | January 11, 2010 4:14 PM
Shay: which "lifestyle" are these idiots even talking about? Do they really think that Bob Baumann, John Mapplethrpe and Andrew Sullivan all had the same "lifestyle?" Do they even know what that word means?
The Christofascists know the American people aren't drinking their kool-aid anymore, so they're trying to foist it off on some other people with less leeway to tell them to piss off. This is part of a Grand Alliance against all those educated rationalists who have been bedeviling them since the Enlightenment.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 11, 2010 4:26 PM
Oops, that's ROBERT Mapplethorpe. Sorry, posting in haste on a busy day...
Posted by: Raging bee | January 11, 2010 4:45 PM
Posted by: Foggg | January 11, 2010 6:16 PM
Sorry, Ed. If you consider anything Kincaid writes as deserving being considered "mainstream conservative," you really need to stop reading WND so much!
Do we have to have an intervention here? LOL
Posted by: Tony | January 11, 2010 6:54 PM
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg has been proven right again.
Posted by: Eric R | January 11, 2010 7:27 PM
"...the homosexual lifestyle."
All homosexuals have the same lifestyle?
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 11, 2010 8:36 PM
People claim christianity is of peace just like islam and jews. BullSchite!!! All 3 and hindu as well has repeatedly demonstrated their love of blood. Looking thru history you can see that all of them have MURDERED any they wish for little or no reason.
The only advantage the US and some european countries have is their somewhat secular governments and the number of other religions help keep any one in check. Where you have had or do have a theocracy you have terror, fear, & oppression.
This uganda thing is just a visual symptom of the underlying hate present in the big 4 faiths.
Think my thought is BS??? Show me a theocracy, that is not of your specific religion, that you would like to live under.
Posted by: CybrgnX | January 11, 2010 9:33 PM
The case over Prop 8 in California has started and I came across this piece by the the attorney arguing for the gay couples in the case.
Ted Olson's viewpoint on the subject of gay marriage is interesting for a conservative.
It would be an interesting topic given the perceived importance of the case over prop 8.
Posted by: Owen | January 11, 2010 9:39 PM
"All homosexuals have the same lifestyle?"
Whenever I hear someone use the phrase "homosexual lifestyle", I always just fire back with this query: "so what's the heterosexual lifestyle?" Typically that takes the wind out of their sails, as it exposes the fact that such phraseology is a form of innuendo and slander rather than rational argument.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 11, 2010 10:18 PM
Posted by: H.H. | January 11, 2010 10:38 PM
Oh, the irony - why do idiots always choose names in a desperate attempt to appear somewhat credible? "Accuracy in Media" has always been devoted to lying.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 11, 2010 11:20 PM
"Media Homosexuals Bash Uganda's Christians"
Since when were Christians in Uganda supposed to be immune from criticism no matter what they say and/or do (the "saying" and "doing" in this particular context being their support for the anti-homosexual bill in question)? I must have missed that memo.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 12, 2010 12:30 AM
It's the last stage of rabies. Even a thick layer of faux-outrage can't hide the foaming mouth.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 12, 2010 10:58 AM
It's the last stage of rabies. Even a thick layer of faux-outrage can't hide the foaming mouth.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 12, 2010 10:59 AM
I like the idea of homosexuality as a "special right". The way the right likes to throw that term around, it's like you'd have to take a test to prove you're gay before you're allowed to fuck someone of the same sex.
Posted by: BrianX | January 12, 2010 2:03 PM