Replying Mwenda: Why homophobia isn't a 'closed' case ...

This is the second time I am compelled to respond to an article on what I consider misconceptions of the arguments that have been advanced in favor of a social and legal curtail on homosexual practice, in the Ugandan experience.

This response is a direct answer to the case made for homosexual license by the Ugandan journalist Mujuni Mwenda, specifically in his article at http://www.independent.co.ug/the-last-word/the-last-word/9317-aha-a-reply-to-christian-critics, but broadly in the efforts; legal and journalistic,  he has made to block any and all manner of legislation against homosexual practice in the country.

In his piece, Mwenda decries what he views as the patent hypocrisy of the Christian argument against homosexuality; and cites a number of internal contradictions, including a deep moral dishonesty on the part of Christians, and the Christian Messiah’s pacifism and tolerance for all ‘sinful’ practice; choosing instead to denounce the behavior and not the sinner.

Mwenda, who is a self-confessed atheist, argues sarcastically that if it does turn out, (if God is discovered to exist), that homosexuality is as bad a sin as its Christian opponents claim – then whatever ‘divine’ punitive action due to it must be left in the hands of God, and not a human jury.

While I think the same argument applies to all the mainstream religions in the country – I don’t think Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism offer any less ferocious attacks to homosexual practice than Christianity; I am hard-pressed to understand why Mr. Mwenda chooses to single out the Christian response for attack, effectively ignoring other faiths.

I prefer to think; perhaps it is because the Christians have been most vocal in the matter; not because Mr. Mwenda didn’t consider the broader religious angle in the debate.

Returning to the arguments;

The first issue Mr. Mwenda raises is that of hypocrisy. He accuses Christians, who are otherwise sinful themselves, of singling out homosexuals as a segment of sinners worse than everybody else; yet Christian theology ranks all sin – from the mildest lie to the most gruesome murder - on equal footing.

While he is right in accusing Christians of hypocrisy; Mwenda fails to succeed in his attempt to, by deduction, legitimize homosexuality.

What Mwenda commits here is what logicians would call the ‘ad hominem’ fallacy – that of rejecting the truth of an argument simply because of its author’s personality or character; and not appraising the matter on its own objective merits – independent of the subjectivities of the source.

Indeed – Christians, Muslims and all other religious adherents commit adultery and fornication, they cheat, are greedy and do much worse; but they do not do so proudly, nor do they demand society’s mark of approval for their sins.

They also don’t ask God to accept their sin, but as Mwenda rightly points out, they repent and actively seek forgiveness.

On the other hand, practitioners of homosexuality refuse to even see their actions as sins to begin with.

Indeed – the homosexual lobby has gone as far as claiming absolute normalcy – and see any attempt to brand them as sick or in need of help not only as unwanted, but as profoundly offensive.

Of course; ‘rational’ thinkers like Mr. Mwenda would say that it is up to homsexual people themselves to determine if they are normal or not, and if they think they are; then who are Christian fanatics to refute so!

Who are they, Christians, to attempt to co-opt the state’s coercive instruments in efforts to suppress the inalienable rights of fellow Ugandans.

This would of course make imperative a discussion on what qualifies behavior as normal or not – which I won’t go into, for brevity’s sake.

 I would gladly invite Mr. Mwenda, though, to explore research that has been done into the psychiatric underpinnings of gender-identity crises, and if he would still rank homosexual practice as normal as say, choosing a green dress ahead of a blue one.

Under the (informed) assumption that homosexuality isn’t normal, would Christians still be overstepping their religious and civic duties in attempting to legislate against what they are convinced is abnormal behavior?

So then, Andrew – how does a Christian welcome into 'salvation' someone that refuses to acknowledge their need for it? 

How do you ‘save’ someone who doesn’t think they need saving? How does a doctor positively prescribe treatment for a patient that doesn’t acknowledge their illness?

Anyhow, like Mwenda rightly asserts – Uganda is not a theocracy; Christian, Muslim or otherwise, and therefore belaboring the issue on salvation may sound condescending, and imply that I personally regard homosexuality a sin – which I don’t!

I am simply extending Mwenda’s logic in this context, and showing where it would hit a ‘philosophical’ snag.

The second point Mr. Mwenda raises is on the pacifist and propitiatory nature of the biblical Messianic Jesus, as portrayed in the Christian Greek scriptures of what is today known as the Christian bible. He quotes portions of these scriptures that exhort believers not to condemn lest they be condemned, and to leave all matters of ‘moral’ judgment to the father above.

While there is almost unanimous agreement within Christian circles that in contemporary interpretations and religious practice, the Christian Greek scriptures, or the so-called New Testament should take precedence over the teachings of the Mosaic Law as prescribed in the Hebrew Scriptures, also called the Old Testament; the two seem to co-exist.

It is not entirely true in practice that the two testaments are mutually exclusive, and many Christians see no contradiction in enacting the Mosaic code of stoning and decapitation as a response to what they see as an extreme form of godlessness, incomparable to the seemingly benign transgressions Jesus of Nazareth encountered in his day.

Indeed – even the mild, gentle Jesus had to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and take on some militancy – as for instance when he found that the synagogue had been turned into a makeshift market.

In other words, instead of asking, what would Jesus do, some Christians prefer to ask, what would Moses do?

The final thing I’d like to say is that what Mr. Mwenda, who I must insist I greatly respect as an irreverent, well-researched commentator, seems to be doing in his article is creating a ‘false dilemma’ and a ‘straw-man’ at the same time.

A false dilemma is a fallacy in logical reasoning where one creates two artificial, but mutually exclusive alternatives. In short, an argument that says either this or that is possible, but never both.

Mwenda paints a picture of the debate in which on the one hand, are Christians who argue against homosexuality from a purely scriptural or theological perspective, without accommodating any rational/scientific arguments; and on the other hand are rationalists who spit upon the hypocritical and unscientific case of the Christians without entertaining any moral considerations.

I have personally encountered a growing number of people who accommodate a judicious blend of either world view – people whose moral universe is scientific.

Then - a  straw-man fallacy is where one deliberately misrepresents the position of the opponent, making it sound ridiculous and thus vulnerable to attack.

While I don’t agree with the hypocrisy or double-standards of Christianity in responding to the morality of homosexuality – I think Mwenda chooses to ignore other more plausible arguments that have come from Christianity in opposition to homosexual practice.

Arguments like that of ‘’form following function’’ - where Christians like Martin Sempa, have said the muscles of the rectum aren’t  in any way, in accordance with what they consider is God’s design, well suited for the friction generated, or the strain exerted during ‘coetus’.

This is a claim I’m certain the ‘scientist’ in Mwenda would resonate with.

As a final disclaimer; I am not writing this article as a religious apologist, not being Christian myself.

I also don’t subscribe to the pernicious rumor that any proponent of gay-rights is bankrolled to defend the practice; but honestly believe it is an issue we must discuss openly as a society if free-speech and rational thinking are to have a fighting chance in the Uganda of tomorrow.