This is the face of false Christianity!

1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters

·

o

o

o Email

o Print

AP – FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2010 file photo, Margie Phelps, second from right, a daughter of Fred Phelps, …

· Slideshow:Westboro Baptist Church

· Play VideoVideo:High court rules for military funeral protesters AP

· Play VideoU.S. Courts Video:High court rules for military funeral protesters AP

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press – 20 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where his funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and his family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

They showed up with their usual signs, including "Thank God for dead soldiers," "You're Going to Hell," "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men.

The church members drew counter-demonstrators, as well as media coverage and a heavy police presence to maintain order. The result was a spectacle that led to altering the route of the funeral procession.

Several weeks later, Albert Snyder was surfing the Internet for tributes to his son from other soldiers and strangers when he came upon a poem on the church's website that attacked Matthew's parents for the way they brought up their son.

Soon after, Snyder filed a lawsuit accusing the Phelpses of intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability.

Forty-eight states, 42 U.S. senators and veterans groups sided with Snyder, asking the court to shield funerals from the Phelps family's "psychological terrorism."

While distancing themselves from the church's message, media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.

Roberts described the court's holding as narrow, and in a separate opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested in other circumstances, governments would not be "powerless to provide private individuals with necessary protection."

But in this case, Breyer said, it would be wrong to "punish Westboro for seeking to communicate its views on matters of public concern."

Margie Phelps, a daughter of the minister and a lawyer who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said she expected the outcome. "The only surprise is that Justice Alito did not feel compelled to follow his oath," Phelps said. "We read the law. We follow the law. The only way for a different ruling is to shred the First Amendment."

She also offered her church's view of the decision. "I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but here's the core point: The wrath of God is pouring onto this land. Rather than trying to shut us up, use your platforms to tell this nation to mourn for your sins."

I'm reposting this article that a friend sent to me yesterday. The origin of this blog obviously was to offer dissent to La Casa de Cristo in their misguided plan to leave ELCA. That dissent of course failed. However, more and more, this type of thought process is presenting itself in an evolving society, and as I espouse in my book, perhaps we should all take another look and examine our own perceptions of what this issue really is all about. Thanks to Tim for forwarding the link, and thanks to both Jennifer Wright Knust for publishing her ideas, and to CNN for printing them.

My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality

Editor's Note: Jennifer Wright Knust is author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire.

By Jennifer Wright Knust, Special to CNN

We often hears that Christians have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin - that Scripture simply demands it.

As a Bible scholar and pastor myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.

"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.

Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.

In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.

Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib.

Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.

According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”

When the apostle Paul envisioned the bodies that would be given to humanity at the end of time, he imagined that they would be androgynous, “not male and female.” The third-century non-canonical Gospel of Philip, meanwhile, lamented that sexual difference had been created at all: “If the female had not separated from the male, she and the male would not die. That being’s separation became the source of death.”

From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all.

Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost.

Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.

Jonathan, not David, was a king’s son. David was only a shepherd. Yet by becoming David’s “woman,” Jonathan voluntarily gave up his place for his beloved friend.

Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.

Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).

Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels - not sex between men - that led to the demise of the city.

Linking a strange story in Genesis about “sons of God” who lust after “daughters of men” to the story of the angels who visit Abraham’s nephew Lot, New Testament writers concluded that the mingling of human and divine flesh is an intolerable sin.

As the New Testament letter Jude puts it:

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and went after strange flesh, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire (Jude 6-7).

The first time angels dared to mix with humans, God flooded the earth, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals. In the case of Sodom, as soon as men attempted to engage in sexual activity with angels, God obliterated the city with fire, delivering only Lot and his family. Sex with angels was regarded as the most dangerous and offensive sex of all.

It’s true that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a few biblical passages. But these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways.

The book of Leviticus, for example, is directed at Israelite men, offering instructions regarding legitimate sexual partners so long as they are living in Israel. Biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one of these commandments.

Paul’s letters urge followers of Christ to remain celibate and blame all Gentiles in general for their poor sexual standards. Jesus, meanwhile, says nothing at all about same-sex pairing, and when he discusses marriage, he discourages it.

So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual morals? It isn’t.

Moreover, as Americans we should have learned by now that such a simplistic approach to the Bible will lead us astray.

Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.

Yes, the apostle Paul selected same-sex pairings as one among many possible examples of human sin, but he also assumed that slavery was acceptable and then did nothing to protect slaves from sexual use by their masters, a common practice at the time. Letters attributed to him go so far as to command slaves to obey their masters and women to obey their husbands as if they were obeying Christ.

These passages served as fundamental proof texts to those who were arguing that slavery was God’s will and accusing abolitionists of failing to obey biblical mandates.

It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jennifer Wright Knust.

My buddy Gus, asks a very good question:

"Why hasn't the president come out and at least threaten to release the oil reserve which is bulging at the seems to get the price back in line. We don't even get much oil from the Middle East. The hedge funds are destroying our economic recovery."

Great question Gus. What do you have to say?

My friend Gary asks a poignant question this morning:

" Let's put it to a vote. The true American way. The real question is, has less than 7% of the US workforce earned the right to be compensated at a higher rate than the majority of those who pay them? Are you getting a fair and equitable return on your tax dollars spent to finance this? The key word here is EARNED."

An opinion by Gary Affolter

ADD it up   There are  500,000 more union members in the public sector than in the private sector...Why do you suppose this is true? Who participates and drives the economy? Who builds, develops, and sustains economic growth?

Who employs 88 % of the workforce?

Who pays the 7 % comprised of government workers?

Who is in more economic stress public or private?

By percentage who has the higher unemployment public or private?

Who is trillions of dollars in debt?

Who has trillions of dollars in cash waiting for government to get their act together?

Point: Take the 4.9 million Local government employees. Pick a large metropolitan area anywhere in the US. Examine the total number of small municipalities the makeup that metropolis. What if with today's technologies and advanced communications we formed Regional Governing bodies. Imagine the savings, one regional executive vs. 30 mayors, one police chief vs. 30 chiefs, 20 representatives vs. 360 councilmen on and on the savings could be in the hundreds of millions if not billions. Now think about what collective bargaining is protecting. In Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Indiana we need to be truthful and understand what this is really about. God Bless this change it has been long in coming. Let us not lose this moment our collective futures are at stake. (Note: Click on the graphic if you want to enlarge it.)

Arizona lawmakers push Medicaid program fees

(This article is from the Feb. 17 Arizona Republic.)

By Mary K. Reinhart

State lawmakers, poised to drop health-care coverage for thousands, say poor people who still qualify for the state's Medicaid program, including pregnant women, should take greater responsibility for their health care.
They want to impose co-payments for prenatal care, block care to those who don't pay a fee for missed appointments and require people to prove citizenship before hospitals will admit them.

The bills are moving through the Legislature as Gov. Jan Brewer and legislative leaders plan to eliminate at least 250,000 people from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state's Medicaid program.

One measure, sponsored by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, would eliminate AHCCCS altogether. Senate Bill 1519 and the hospital citizenship bill, Senate Bill 1405, are scheduled for a hearing before Biggs' committee next week.

A half-dozen AHCCCS-related bills, at least one of which would violate federal regulations, illustrate the resentment among some Republican legislators toward the nearly 30-year-old program, its growing share of the state budget and the authority wielded by the federal government to oversee it.

"The federal government is passing laws that prevent us from doing what we need to do," said Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake.

Senate Bill 1216 would require AHCCCS to develop a sliding-scale fee of $150 to $1,000 for prenatal care and childbirth. AHCCCS lobbyist Jennifer Carusetta told the Senate Appropriations Committee this week that federal rules ban co-payments for pregnant women.

That didn't dissuade Allen, the bill's sponsor, who called the federal rules "chains of bondage." Nor did it deter the committee, which passed the measure 7-4.

"I believe that children are the parents' responsibility, and they need to pay something towards this," Allen said.

Lawmakers also want to require a $25 fee for missed appointments and allow doctors and other health-care providers to refuse care to those AHCCCS patients who don't pay it.

Federal health officials, who must approve most changes to the program, have rejected attempts by AHCCCS to impose a no-show fee. But lawmakers are pushing forward in the name of states' rights, saying Arizona's fiscal health depends on challenging federal authority, particularly over the burgeoning health-care program.

"They are literally forcing us to throw the AHCCCS population under the bus or go bankrupt," said Sen. Frank Antenori, R-Vail, who sponsored Senate Bill 1357, the no-show bill. "I'm tired of coddling this population."

The Senate Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform Committee approved SB 1357 on a 4-1 vote Wednesday night.

With 1.3 million members, AHCCCS accounts for 30 percent of the state budget. Brewer and lawmakers have tried for two years to scale back the program to help close gaping budget holes, and Brewer's budget for fiscal 2012 proposes eliminating 280,000 people, effective Oct. 1.

In a letter to Brewer this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the state can drop most of those people without losing federal matching funds. That's because Arizona's program is due for reauthorization on Sept. 30, and the law allows the state to renew its agreement without including childless adults, whose coverage is optional under Medicaid.

Opponents of the bills say people cannot afford fees. Federal rules prohibit such fees because they could discourage or prevent people from seeking care. Medicaid rules require minimum coverage for children, parents, the disabled and pregnant women.

"They just wouldn't be able to pay it," said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix. "These are very, very poor people."

AHCCCS provides health care for children, parents and the disabled. Under an expansion, approved in 2000 as Prop. 204, the state covers childless adults up to 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $10,830.

Sinema said the bills are intended to reduce the AHCCCS population.

The bills, including another to require AHCCCS and food-stamp recipients to carry bright-orange identification cards with large black lettering, demonize poor people, said Tim Schmaltz, who heads Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition.

"There are rampant stereotypes about poor people," Schmaltz said. "They don't have the faintest idea what people are going through."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/17/20110217arizona-medicaid-fees-pushed-by-lawmakers.html#ixzz1EciefX1X

There are so many Bibles! Which one is The One.

A discussion popped up this morning on Facebook. I believe it worthy of discussion here and so, I'm posting the comment thread as it exists right now.

Tom Weller via Mark

And, if you want to have it spelled out for you in English, try the Message Bible. There are different varieties of this Bible, so get the entire old and new testament. You won't be disappointed!

The Evidence Bible - New King James Version

www.youtube.com

This Bible will enrich your trust in God and give you powerful and compelling evidence, not only for the existence of God, but for the inspiration of Holy Scripture.

What about these public employee unions?

My buddy Rick came up with this item of the day:

Hey, Pub Employee Orgs, Gov (yer bos) Wake up. Sit down, LISTEN (BOTH ya) Get REAL! Cookie jar is EMPTY. Go for the attainable! No one is asking you to work for peanuts, or totally WRECK your pensions! We're ALL in trouble. Be the solution, not the PROBLEM!

Meet the new boss!

My Buddy Bob sent this one along: " Nation - Want the truth. Inflation is coming. Higher taxes are coming (mostly in the form of "fee" hikes and additions). They will start to kill the only thing in the budget that up until last September paid for itself and had extra. You've been duped. Take a bow."

Just what is this dependency on China anyway?

My old buddy Denny came up with this question this morning. Lets see what you think.

" Can anyone tell me when or which US administration decided the strategy for our economic co-dependency on China? When did the American people sanction this mess? And what are your opinions as to how we can re-gain our freedom?"

What is happening in the world

As you know, I started this blog 9 months ago or so, specifically as a format for discussion regarding the situatiion at La Casa de Cristo Lutheran Church. The church has chosen it's path, as I have mine. I seem to be involved in lively banter with old and new friends of mine on Facebook, and have decided to open up this blog to include them and our discussions. As such, this is now an open blog of religious, world, and current events, and is open to all discussion of that is happening in the world right now. I started this idea with a question to certain of my old classmates from high school. The question for the day therefore is:

"There is, according to some quarters, a belief that our foreign policy and our country as a whole is at it's weakest point in years, at least according to some foreign states. We are perceived as being weak; whether we are or not, is another issue. However, the thought leaps to mind that if this perception is true in the middle east, and the Egyptian populace figured this out, could it be, known or unknown, that the US propped up Mubarik's reign just as we propped up Sadaam's reign, and in this moment of weakness, populations in Yemen, Jordan, Iran, and Egypt have collectively said "To Hell with you US. We want our freedom and don't want your puppets any longer!" And if so, is this a good or a bad thing? "

The polls are now open for your opinion. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.

More on the Ugandan Crisis

Today I received and update from SOULFORCE, a group of Christ driven GLBT's and straights alike who are at the forefront in the battle for human rights as they relate to our GLBT brothers and sisters. For those of you who do not subscribe to this website, here is the update as presented on the Soulforce website just a few moments ago:

Faith Coalition Mourns the Murder of Ugandan Human Rights Activist and Calls for Action

The Board of Directors, Staff of Soulforce and our Volunteers throughout the world are deeply saddened by the loss our friend and colleague, David Kato, who was murdered in his home this

week in Uganda. David was considered the founder of the gay rights movement in Uganda. He was brilliant, direct, courageous and relentless in his pursuit of justice. He found his Soulforce and lived it out to the last moments of his life.

David conducted his work with dignity and complete understanding of the enormous risks to his life. He understood the forces of conservative religion and politics that were in play in Uganda and being fueled by groups like The Family here in the United States.

In the face of all those who would have gender & sexual minorities imprisoned or executed, we must clearly raise our voice. We ask you to add your name to our short, simple call for decriminalization now.

Conservative Christian groups that espouse antigay beliefs have made great headway throughout the African continent and wield considerable influence. Uganda's minister of ethics and integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, who describes himself as a devout Christian, has said, "Homosexuals can forget about human rights." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/world/africa/28uganda.html)

As members and friends of Soulforce, we are now compelled to consider our ethical response to David's murder. First, we call upon our colleagues in ministry who have contributed to the rise of homophobia in Uganda and around the world to repent of the kind of preaching and public pronouncement that vilify homosexuality as a sin and that purport to offer "cures" for sexual orientation. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/joel-osteen-on-piers-morg_n_813295.html)

These untruths distort family and community relationships, encourage violence and, when unchecked, result in murder.

Second, we renounce the statement by Uganda's minister of ethics that "homosexuals can forget about human rights" and unequivocally assert that the subjugation, harassment and murder of sexual minorities and women are threats to the national security of the United States and threats to the common security of our world. In our roles within spiritual communities, we see how suffering and denial of the rights of human beings and the instability of nations go hand in hand. As faith leaders and citizens of the United States, we want to encourage the leaders of our nation to use the power of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and our international treaties to express our national concern about the promulgation of oppression.

David was vigorously fighting the Uganda government in its death march progression toward passage of a bill that will criminalize the lives of all gay people and insist on the death penalty for homosexuals. Known as the "Bahati" bill, it is expected to come before the Ugandan Parliament in the spring of 2011.

Before he was killed, David told the world what he needed in order to push back this madness in Uganda. In an interview in Cambridge last year, he said: "We just need some resources to cause awareness...the dialogue is coming up...some of us I know we are going to die. I know. But at least (change for the better) will begin..."

It is up to us to help supply those resources and to encourage people throughout the world to help us do so. The activists on the ground in Uganda are desperate for financial support to establish safe houses, produce publications for education and to create micro-economies to employ sexual minorities who lose their employment after being outed.

Donations can be made in David's memory to bring more legal and human rights work to Uganda, as well as providing safety and sanctuary for other Ugandans facing persecution athttp://stpaulsfoundation.com/Donate.html.

And, we will continue relentless non-violent resistance to those who are contributing to the oppression of sexual minorities.

As many faith leaders prepare to gather in Washington, DC for the National Prayer Breakfast on February 3rd, we call on our colleagues not attending to gather in silent vigil, outside our churches, synagogues and mosques and in front of Ugandan Embassies in solidarity with David and others who are criminalized for simply being gay. We call on those who will be present to make sure David's life and the senselessness of his murder are remembered in prayer.

We call on all our colleagues to join us in urging President Obama to use his presence at the National Prayer Breakfast to mourn our brother and to express his Administration's position on governments who "fail to protect" their LGBT citizens from faith-based and state-sponsored homophobia. You can add your name by visiting www.soulforce.org/decriminalize

If you wish to join a scheduled vigil, please go to GETEQUAL's Facebook event. Soulforce and other LGBT organizations are co-sponsors of this event."

It is time that those of us who profess to be Christian, renounce our own prejudice, exclusion, discrimination, and bigotry, and accept it as complete and total misinterpretation of scriptural readings. Christ presented us with the 11th commandment, also referred to as the "love" commandment, in which it does not specify who, what, why, where or when to love; it simply admonishes us to love. Those who would lead congregations away from this simple concept, in my opinion, in so doing walk away from Christ and all the HE stands for. Beware these false prophets!

HEED the words of Christ! We each have one part of the puzzle of life contained within our selves. Yield to the rights of humankind to be unique or different without living in fear or being killed for who or what they are! Shame on US Christianity, for we well know better.

Hear me preachers and teachers; ministers and priests; Deans and Bishops, rabbi's and imams, all! Teach your children the way of living with love for our neighbor, understanding for their uniqueness and patience for their differences, or surely we will all perish! Rest in peace David Kato. Another gave His life for you so that you may now give your life for us!

Is it ever going to be too much? Why can't we agree to include all of humanity?

Ugandan gay activist slain after photo published

Jan. 27, 2011 11:32 AM
Associated Press

KAMPALA, Uganda - A prominent Ugandan gay rights activist whose picture was published by an anti-gay newspaper next to the words "Hang Them" was bludgeoned to death. Police said Thursday his sexual orientation had nothing to do with the killing and that one "robber" had been arrested.

Activists were outraged over the death of David Kato, an advocacy officer for the gay rights group Sexual Minorities Uganda. His slaying comes after a year of stepped up threats against gays in Uganda, where a controversial bill has proposed the death penalty for some homosexual acts.

Kato, who had received multiple threats, was found with serious wounds to his head caused by an attack with a hammer at his home late Wednesday in Uganda's capital, Kampala. Kato later died on the way to the hospital. We are horrified and saddened by the murder of prominent human rights activist David Kato in Uganda yesterday afternoon," Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson posted on Twitter.

Human Rights Watch called for an urgent investigation, saying that Kato's work as a prominent gay rights campaigner had previously seen him face threats to his personal safety.

"David Kato's death is a tragic loss to the human rights community," said Maria Burnett, senior Africa researcher at HRW. "David had faced the increased threats ... bravely and will be sorely missed."

A Ugandan tabloid newspaper called Rolling Stone listed a number of men they said were homosexuals last year, including Kato. Kato's picture was published on the front page, along with his name and a headline that said "Hang Them."

Kato and two other gay activists sued Rolling Stone over claims that it had violated their constitutional rights to privacy and won the case earlier this month. A judge issued an injunction banning the publication of the identities and personal details of alleged homosexuals.

A police spokesman, Vincent Sekatte, said Kato was killed by robbers who have so far killed more than 10 people in that area in the past two months. He said there was no indication the death was connected to any anti-homosexual sentiment. Kato was hit by a hammer that has been recovered by police, Sekatte said.

Police arrested one suspect, a driver for Kato, Sekatte said. A second suspect is being hunted. That suspect had been hired as a house helper and had recently been released from prison, Sekatte said.

Kato's lawyer told The Associated Press on Thursday that his client had become noticeably more worried about his safety in the wake of the Rolling Stone publication.

"He was conscious that something could happen," said John Francis Onyango.

Family, friends and neighbors gathered to mourn at Kato's house on Thursday. Several women lay on the floor of the living room. The room where he had been killed was closed off by the police. A funeral is planned for Friday.

"I feel very lonely," said John Mulumba Wasswa, Kato's older twin brother. "My brother was a very brave person, very courageous."

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda and gay men and women face regular harassment. The controversial bill introduced in 2009 and still before the country's parliament would see the death penalty introduced for certain homosexual acts. The bill prompted international condemnation and hasn't come up for a vote

Human Rights Watch called on the Ugandan government to offer gay people in the country sufficient protection.

In a statement, the group said that witnesses had told police that Kato was hit twice on the head by an unknown assailant who had been spotted entering his property. The assailant was then seen leaving by vehicle, the statement said.

Frank Mugisha, the chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, said he has asked religious and political leaders and media outlets to stop demonizing sexual minorities in Uganda.

"Across the entire country, straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Ugandans mourn the loss of David, a dear friend, colleague, teacher, family member and human rights defender," said Mugisha.

The introduction of the anti-homosexual bill in 2009 followed a conference in Kampala that was attended by American activists who consider same-gender relationships sinful. The U.S. evangelicals believe gays and lesbians can become heterosexual through prayer and counseling. Some gay Ugandans still resent that American intervention.

"David's death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S evangelicals in 2009," said Val Kalende, a Ugandan gay rights activist. "The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S evangelicals must take responsibility for David's blood."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/27/20110127uganda-gay-activist-killed-after-photo-published.html#ixzz1CHYQ16Pd

About this book you've written

On January 19,2010 a reader posed the following question to me:

So, you've been pushing this book you wrote. I read the excerpt on line and it doesn't mention anything about homosexuality; just rips the Bible. Are you kidding me? Come on! Are you telling me that your book discredits the Bible? If so, explain yourself! Fighting a church is one thing! Attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore Christianity is quite another thing. You want to comment on this?

My response to this question is as follows:

Thank you for addressing this issue with me, Anonymous. I'm glad you are checking out the book and have made your comment.

The excerpt on the Xlibris site is specifically from the first chapter. This book tangles with the question of homosexuality/bible/church/ and faith in two different ways.

First, I deal with the question of Biblical infallibility. It is my opinion, as well as numerous others, that the Bible constitutes a work of man, inspired or otherwise, and therefore, if man is involved, the writing cannot be infallible. I have used several examples to show the anomalies that occur in the Bible, derived from my studies as well as other texts. This in no way detracts from the Biblical validity, but it must be seen as a human work Glorifying God; and not the Word of God, literally. I develop a theory throughout the first 4 chapters detailing how the Bible is read and interpreted by many people, how it relates to viewing homosexuality as a "sin", and how the church has used this interpretation to exclude many from service to Christ within it's framework. This is after all the question that precluded this blog in the beginning. Mine is not to tell you what you must believe; it is to nudge you into thinking about and perhaps viewing your own study of the texts in a different light, and, as one of my readers has pointed out, to stir discussion regarding this topic and how it is applied in every day life.

In the last 4 chapters of the book, I deal specifically with the questions of homosexuality both in context of the church and without. Again, the excerpt provides one very limited passage, and if you read that only, it will not give you the entire message the book has to offer.

My issue with the commonly held interpretation of the Biblical scriptures is that the church historically has tended to be an entity more of exclusion, than of inclusion. We are all too willing to judge, and then try to change (reparative therapy), than to accept as unique the various members of humankind involved in today's dynamic society. It is just way to simplistic to accept the words of Moses and of Paul as "the words of God" and exclude, than to realize that God wants us all to read the works of man, and interpret them to live and be included in the Godly life. My former church family, La Casa de Cristo is, in my opinion, guilty of just this when it relieved one of it's former organists and Choir Directors, and then proceeded to leave ELCA because ELCA chose a path of inclusion. I would argue that Jesus Christ, as our example of Godly Life in the Christian faith, instructed us specifically to "Love one another, as I have loved you.". This is the commandment of love, and doesn't specify who, what, why, where or when to love. It admonishes us to love, and therefore, implies, leaving the judging to God. I don't know about you, Anonymous, but I have enough of my own sins to atone for, rather than spend my time judging you or anyone else. Not to mention the fact that I am not qualified to do so!

I address these and other topics in the book. I have posed the question as to whether homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe that it is. I do believe that Moses and Paul had their reasons for addressing the issue, but Jesus Christ, nowhere, in the 2026 words attributed to Him, spoke to this issue. Interesting is it not? I would argue that promiscuity is the substance of the 7th commandment, much more so than monogamous homosexual relationships.

At any rate, Anonymous, I hope this helps your understanding of what I am speaking to in my book. I'll gladly entertain other questions as well.

Again, folks, for those of you that do not know the book, it is entitled: "What would HE say". It can be found on the Xlibris.com web site.

Thank you Anonymous for your question. Yours in service to Christ, Tom.