Rick Warren and Other American Conservatives Complicit in Coming Genocide in Uganda

Rick Warren plays a nice moderate evangelical Christian in the US. Outside of the States, though Warren is just another slick, hard core conservative fundamentalist whose preaching leads to horrific outcomes.

Case in point: Uganda is one the verge of passing one of the most horrific laws ever passed – a law condemned by European, Canadian and American leaders. The law will make it illegal to be gay and actually includes thing like life in prison and the death penalty for being gay and daring to actually have sex. Since I’m not actually able to say anything that is acceptable for a nice family blog like OneUtah, I’m going to have to defer comment on this particularly offensive exercise in hatred, bigotry and state sanctioned murder.

Andrew Sullivan has this to say:

Ugandan blogger, GayUganda, is waiting for the new law – inspired by American Christianists, abetted by Rick Warren – that will soon jail or execute him for being who he is. I’m unsure when in history a group of American “Christians” have actually intervened in a foreign country to create what is the equivalent of an ongoing pogrom of terror against a tiny minority, scapegoating them as evil, demanding that their own families inform on them if they are gay or face legal punishment, and threatening the death penalty for any homosexual daring to have a love life. And I can only imagine what the response in America would be if the target were any other minority – Jews or immigrants or the sick – or the usual targets of majoritarian hate. But a declaration of a form of genocide against gays gets shrugged off by the world’s leaders, including the Pope, whose silence is reminiscent of another Pope not so long ago.

Michelle Goldberg, from the American Prospect:

But celebrity American evangelist Rick Warren, a man with enormous influence in Uganda, has so far refused to condemn the bill. When asked, he gave Newsweek this non-response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.”

Warren’s silence has repercussions beyond Uganda. Draconian anti-gay legislation is appearing throughout the continent, often closely tied to the explosion of American-style evangelical Christianity. Warren has been a crucial part of that explosion and has tremendous clout with conservative African clergy and with many politicians. “If Warren wants to present himself as someone who cares about human rights, he should be condemning this vigorously,” says Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch.

Warren may seem an odd focus for criticism, but he has huge political influence in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi – all nations pursuing brutally regressive anti-gay policies:

Warren is very close to both the Ugandan and the Rwandan leadership. He counts first lady Janet Museveni, who has spoken at Warren’s Saddleback church, as a personal friend. During a visit to the country last year, Warren lent his voice to the anti-gay stance of Uganda’s Anglican bishops. “Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right,” reported one Ugandan newspaper. “‘We shall not tolerate this aspect at all,’ Dr Warren said.”

Both Museveni and Warren have been patrons of Martin Ssempa, the American-educated Pentecostal pastor who is one of Uganda’s leading anti-gay activists. Ssempa, a vigorous supporter of the pending legislation, has published lists, replete with photographs and contact information, of gay and lesbian Ugandans on his Web site and led anti-gay marches through the streets of Kampala. Last year he won an award from the National Fellowship of Born Again Churches in Uganda for his work against homosexuality. (The headline in Uganda’s New Vision newspaper read, “Ssempa Rewarded for Anti-Gay Crusade.”)

Warren did much to elevate Ssempa to his current position, giving him a prominent pulpit at Saddleback Church, where he’s preached several times. As Max Blumenthal reported, in 2005, Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, praised Ssempa from the church’s stage: “You are my brother, Martin, and I love you.” In October, perhaps realizing that his association with Ssempa is bad PR, Warren publicly broke with him, though he didn’t explicitly mention Ssempa’s fierce homophobia.

As influential as Warren is in Uganda, he’s an even bigger man in Rwanda. Declaring Rwanda the world’s first “Purpose Driven Nation,” he’s made it the center of his humanitarian work, and he’s close to the country’s president, Paul Kagame. Two weeks ago, a story in Rwanda’s New Times newspaper began, “Renowned American pastor, Rick Warren, founder of Saddleback Church, yesterday delivered a special sermon at a prayer breakfast with a cross-section of Rwandan leaders, in which President Paul Kagame was chief guest.” (Only in the last paragraph did the article mention that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair attended as well.)

Goldberg ends with this roundhouse:

Rick Warren helped bring the language of the American religious right to Africa. His kind of Christianity, at once puritanical and magical, resonated strongly with people who’ve been angered, frightened and discombobulated by rapid social change. He, like many conservative American pastors, has developed a symbiotic relationship with his African counterparts. In this relationship, the Americans get adulation, a sense of being at the forefront of the faith, and the kind of voice-of-the-downtrodden authenticity that used to belong to liberals alone. The Africans get money, access, and a satisfying sense that they’re now the leaders of their religion, ready to save the West instead of vice versa.

Anti-gay politics are absolutely crucial to this bond. There’s no reason to think that Warren would risk severing it just to do the right thing.

I have never had much use for Rick Warren – but not at least I can find him hateful and despicable with a clear conscience. Again from Andrew Sullivan describing Warren as a silent enabler of vicious hatred:

This is an act of terror and murder against an already beleaguered minority, and Warren is an accessory to it. As a powerful figure in distributing AIDS funding in Uganda, he cannot bring himself to oppose a law that would condemn someone in a gay relationship to death, and imprison him or her for touching another human being, and inciting a wave of informing on family members and friends and acquaintances in order to terrify a sexual minority. This alleged man of God cannot speak out on this – except to protect his own p.r. His schtick of actually being the nice evangelical – a schtick that got him to Obama’s inauguration – is a lie. If he cannot condemn this fascist act of violence against a tiny minority of vulnerable human beings, then his position in this struggle is clear enough. [snip]

He lies. He has taken sides, whenever possible, to stigmatize, demonize and now physically threaten the lives of gay people in his own country and abroad. And his silence on this issue means the deaths of others. Warren needs to come out and condemn this law as evil, which it is. And to stop hiding his own enmeshment with the most virulent forms of fundamentalist hatred under the veil of media-savvy benevolence.

Besides the grotesquery of the law itself, what makes this so troubling is the role being played by American religious conservatives – people like Rick Warren and The Family – which provides housing for wingnut conservatives in a tax free location on C Street in DC. They can’t actually kill gay people in the US so they’re taking horror show on the road.

Share Utah:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • TwitThis
  1. #1 by shane on December 4, 2009 - 11:51 am

    Look on the bright side, if they start executing gays in Uganda, by brewski’s reasoning that means we can torture Warren.

    Sadly, that really is the bright side, and it is pitch black.

  2. #2 by Glenden Brown on December 4, 2009 - 11:53 am

    That’s about the only upside.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on December 4, 2009 - 3:40 pm

    Somebody had to take over for Falwell and apparently Warren is it.

    What is he doing on “Meet The Press?”

    The host tied to press him on what he might do to support homosexuals, but what is he doing on the television political news show anyway tweeking Falwell’s line:”love the sinner, hate the sin” bull crap!

    He says his job is to love everybody. Keep it, Rick!

  4. #4 by Glenden Brown on December 4, 2009 - 4:12 pm

    Larry – I think Rick Warren is more like Billy Graham than Jerry Falwell – Falwell’s bigotry was on display for any and all to see; Billy Graham’s was more subtle, hidden behind a smiling facade. However, there has definitely been a space in American politics of late – one formerly filled by a national evangelist – and Rick Warren is rushing to fill it.

  5. #5 by Jim Barnstall aka Glenn Hoefer on December 4, 2009 - 8:13 pm

    So you are telling us you are gay. I accept that. Thanks for that, Duly noted. cheers now.

  6. #6 by mike on December 4, 2009 - 9:00 pm

    Glenden,

    Are you suggesting that only religious conservatives have wingnuts in their midst? Just curious, what are your feelings on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright? It seems to me that both sides have their share of religious and irreligious wingnut zealots.

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on December 5, 2009 - 12:56 am

    mike:

    The right has a plethora of televangelist preachers that are heavily involved in politics. You know their names: Robertson, Falwell, The Graham’s, Swaggart, Hagee, Roberts (Oral), Jim and Tammy Faye – a myriad of others through the years. As far as I’m concerned, they have ALL disgraced themselves, despite the fact that even the right would have to admit that half of the list I just gave disgraced themselves.

    Wright is not a televangelist and we wouldn’t even know who he is if Obama didn’t run for office. Which side is more dangerous?

  8. #8 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 7:53 am

    Larry,

    Which side is more dangerous is an interesting question indeed. It could be argued that because the idiot televangelist you named are well publicized they are also well scrutinized making them far less dangerous than the grassroots psychos that preach unopposed and unchecked. How many Jeremiah Wrights may be out there preaching their brand of hate is anyone’s guess.

    Also I don’t recall any of the moron televangelists you named having a long term relationship to the President of the United States that Wright has had with Obama. Which is more dangerous some idiot wolves whose deeds are very much in the public eye or a multitude of wolves in reverends clothing that preach hate without constraint?

  9. #9 by Glenden Brown on December 5, 2009 - 8:31 am

    Mike – a group of arch conservative televangelists and preachers had weekly conference calls with George W Bush and his administration and had a huge influence on its policies. Among those included in the weekly calls was Ted Haggard, right up until the moment he resigned his job. John McCain deliberately sought out John Hagee and his endorsement for president. Billy Graham pretty much had a standing invitation to the Reagan White House. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were hugely influential in setting policy for the Bush administration – including providing staffers for a variety agencies (Monica Goodling springs to mind as one example). No one the left is marginally comparable to any of these people.

    Unlike the host of right wing preachers, Jeremiah Wright’s church has actually done some good in its community – the have an HIV/AIDS ministry, career development for members, domestic violence, drug and alcohol recovery . . . the list goes on. I’m also assuming you only Wright for the 30 second soundbite that was played endlessly on Fox last year.

    We’ve talked about this issue before at OneUtah. Here’s the thing: The right’s lunatics are central to its politics – there are tea baggers and birthers in Congress. The left keeps its nuts at arm’s length.

  10. #10 by cav on December 5, 2009 - 8:49 am

    The right IS nuts

    The left just know nuts.

    Hatch / Palin ‘12.

  11. #11 by Cliff Lyon on December 5, 2009 - 9:02 am

    Coincidentally, to a man, each of these Christian Americans are also global warming deniers.

    Im surprised not one, NOT ONE, of our conservative religious friends has taken this opportunity to connect the dots for us.

  12. #12 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 11:18 am

    Glenden,

    Just a couple of thoughts

    First, you stated that “Billy Graham pretty much had a standing invitation to the Reagan White House” are you forgetting he had the same standing invitation to the Clinton white house? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1650798,00.html

    Second, I’m not certain what your saying here, “I’m also assuming you only Wright for the 30 second soundbite that was played endlessly on Fox last year.” However if your questioning my familiarity with Wright and his ministry, in the last year I have spent a bit of time in south east Chicago and I’m fairly familiar with his church, ministry and the area his church serves. Remember Glenden assumption is just one step away from stereotyping.

    Third, are you implying that to do some good in a community excuses the preaching and promoting of hateful bigoted attitudes? Would you be willing to give the LDS Church the same pass on some of their attitudes? Like them or hate them, I don’t think you would be able deny that the LDS Church gives a hell of a lot of humanitarian relief, gives large amounts of money to state educational institutions, and has a large welfare system to help those in need.

    Finally, I’m amused by your statement of “The left keeps its nuts at arm’s length.” By this do you mean being a member of a nut’s congregation for almost 20 years?

  13. #13 by Glenden Brown on December 5, 2009 - 11:27 am

    Here’s where you are full of shit of Mike – Wright doesn’t preach hate or bigotry and the “big scandal” about his views was entirely manufactured by Fox news in an attempt to beat Barack Obama. The right had to dig through his sermons to find a soundbite they could blow out of proportion. Unlike so the host of wingnut pastors populating the conservative movement, like you know Rick Warren.

  14. #14 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 12:16 pm

    Wow Glenden,

    Forgive me for suggesting anything that may run contrary to your beliefs. I’m still trying to learn that tolerance for others opinions is not a two way street.

    Just a quick couple of more quick questions.

    If Jeremiah Wright sermons and speeches are all above board why did Obama have to state that he was outraged and saddened by Wright’s behavior and even go so far as to resigned his membership in the church? By the way Obama’s remarks and resignation happened after Wright made appearances at the NAACP and the National Press Club (neither of which is Fox). In other words, if Wright is as innocent as you seem to be implying then why the Obama response? Was Obama willing to sacrifice the reputation of a good man and his relationship with that man just for political gain? If so what does that say about Obama?

  15. #15 by Glenden Brown on December 5, 2009 - 12:56 pm

    Quit being a crybaby and pretending you’re some sort of victim Mike.

    So stop me if I’m misunderstanding you. The right wing press, led by Fox, was doing everything in its power to slander not only Jeremiah Wright and Trinity UCC but Barack Obama and when Obama acted to end the smear campaign, that somehow reflects badly on him? As long as Obama was affiliated with Trinity, the church was besieged by right wing reporters disrupting the life of the church and Obama walking away to stop that is somehow a problem for you? Notice, that, obama didn’t sacrifice Wright’s reputation – Wright was savaged by the conservative press with the witless help of the mainstream media. So, really the issue here is that you and a lot of people fell for a manufactured controversy and now you feel like dupes and so you’ve decided to believe the lie rather than just own that you were fooled. If Wright were any where near as controversial as the smears would suggest, why was there only one soundbite instead of many?

    So then you come along here and pretend that somehow this justifies the decades of naked bigotry and prejudice right wing preachers have been speaking and supporting and claim that somehow this proves something?

  16. #16 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 1:51 pm

    You’re right, I apologize Glenden only the left are allowed to act as crybaby victims.

    However Obama didn’t just walk away, he said he was outraged and saddened by Wright’s behavior. That would either imply Wright had done or said some things that Obama disagreed with strongly or Obama slandered a friend for political gain.

    In other words let me ask your question “If Wright were any where near as controversial as the smears would suggest, why there was only one soundbite instead of many” a little differently. If Wright was not any where near as controversial as the smears suggest why did Obama use such strong language (outraged and saddened) to condemn Wright’s behavior?

    Also remember Obama’s remarks and resignation came after Wright appeared on non-Fox media outlets. What were you saying about someone playing the victim? Are you suggesting that innocent Reverend Wright was the victim of the conservative press also known as the NAACP and the National Press Club?

    Finally, the only thing I believe this proves is what I said in my original post, both sides have their share of religious and irreligious wingnut zealots. I do not in anyway believe that one side’s stupidity justifies the other side’s moronic behavior.

  17. #17 by Larry Bergan on December 5, 2009 - 2:59 pm

    mike:

    Really now! For forty years we’ve been watching the Republicans throw temper tantrums every time they don’t get the entire pie, and you call liberals crybabies. Please stop it!

    There’s only one excuse for supporting the right wing:that’s where the big money is. I hope you’re comfortable there. At least you can afford a camera.

  18. #18 by Cliff Lyon on December 5, 2009 - 3:11 pm

    Mike,

    How on God’s green earth after yer gummin’ can you honestly say,

    ….both sides have their share of religious and irreligious wingnut zealots

    Was that your capitulation, that Glenn’s criticisms of the long parade of bigoted religious zealots on the right traipsing through Republican White Houses is unfair because “both sides have their fair share.?

    Will you not grant us the marginal intellectual capacity to distinguish the really BIG “share” on the right and the comparatively minuscule “share” on the left?

    OneUtah will celebrate her 4th anniversary in less than a month. As you can imagine, we have seen more than our fair share of amatuers with a fly-by, slam dunk that seems to work so well on your school playground.

    Frankly, I’m surprised Glen is bothering with you.

    Your tactics are tired and predictable.

  19. #19 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 3:32 pm

    Larry,

    I have stated several times on various posts that I am no fan or supporter of the right wing. However for your benefit I will state it again. I am not a supporter of, nor a believer in the right wing or their agenda. As I have stated before being critical of the left doesn’t necessarily make me a lover of the right. I hate them both equally and do not believe that either side exclusively possesses the answers to our national plight. Did you skip over where I was just as critical of the right wing nuts as the left wing nuts?

    As far as where the big money is, I wish like hell I could be there. You’re assuming way too much.

  20. #20 by mike on December 5, 2009 - 4:07 pm

    Cliff,

    My statement that “both sides have their share of religious and irreligious wingnut zealots” wasn’t a capitulation after all my gummin’ it was my original post (#6), before all my gummin’.

    As for your suggestion that the right has the big share of wing nuts and the left has a minuscule share, I’m certainly willing to agree that as far as national notoriety the right wing wack jobs have a far larger spotlight and get far more media attention. However as I suggested to Larry several posts ago (#8) “How many Jeremiah Wrights may be out there preaching their brand of hate is anyone’s guess.” A large number of grassroots left wing psychos could still amount to a big share of the wing nut pie.

    Finally Cliff let me apologize for intruding on your professional blog, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t qualified to be here. I guess I’m surprised that any of you pros have bothered with me. Keep up the good work.

  21. #21 by Cliff Lyon on December 5, 2009 - 5:06 pm

    No worries Mike. You are welcome here always. I just thought I would save you the learning curve.

    I dont think Mr. Wright has any illusions about driving POTUS policy toward Christian intolerance and institutionalized bigotry.

    I think that is the point….isn’t it?

  22. #22 by Larry Bergan on December 6, 2009 - 1:06 am

    Mike said:

    I’m certainly willing to agree that as far as national notoriety the right wing wack jobs have a far larger spotlight and get far more media attention.

    Thank you! And welcome to the discussion!

    All I’m looking for is honesty. When I hear you saying the two parties are using religion equally for political purposes, it just makes me think of the thousands of trolls who say both parties are the same to confuse our populace. It’s one of THE main strategies of the right. But the worst thing is that it works, because of the utter dominance of right wing philosophy in the media. It’s thousands of voices against tens of voices on the left; if that.

    When you say you distrust both parties equally, I have to ask WHY? Democrats are always fighting with each other and Republicans always tow the same line Limbaugh feeds them every morning. The more clever pundits will oppose their party on one or two issues, just to confuse you, but are exactly aligned otherwise.

    If you could go back ten years and compare all of the things the right was saying with what turned out to be false, you would fall off your chair. No matter how hard you try, you cannot get success out of nonsense and hypocrisy.

    The left has it’s problems, but the right IS the problem!

(will not be published)