Gone for the weekend

I'm gone for the weekend, and probably won't be in touch to blog until Tuesday (though you never know).

After getting off my flight, I caught wind of three new posts that are worth reading:

(1) The Episcopal Diocese of Washington has posted a response to the many challenges to Bishop Chane's op-ed on its blog.

(2) The Living Church has now written a piece on the Minns and Duncan letters (which I discussed here and here, respectively).

(3) The EDOW post links to a letter to Chane from three priests at All Saints' Chevy Chase. The EDOW blog, I think, handles the letter well. I would add only that I continue to be astonished that American citizens are willing to cast aside civil liberties so blithely -- it must be that they take these liberties for granted. They make distinctions of "public" versus "private" homosexual advocacy in the Nigerian legislation's text in order to defend it, and then compare that distinction to the one made in the US Military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. This is a ludicrous analogy -- its application would have the effect of shutting down an important element of the democratic process. As for the rest of the letter, its contents are sufficiently similar to those of other letters that I will rely on my previous posts as rebuttals.

Bishop Duncan chimes in

(update below)

Adding to a growing string of apologies (here, here, and here) for Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, anti-speech, anti-assembly legislation (pdf) before the Nigerian Federal Assembly, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), just released a statement, available at VirtueOnline, dated today (March 15).

I'm reposting Bishop Duncan's release here, in its entirety:

Bishop Chane's comments betray a profound lack of empathy or understanding for the position that Archbishop Akinola and all Christians in Nigeria find themselves in. During the last few weeks in Nigeria, an archdeacon has been murdered and two bishops have survived assassination attempts.

All were attacked by what appear to be Islamic extremists. During the same time, Islamic violence ignited by the publishing of Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed have claimed the lives of scores of lay Christians and seen numerous churches destroyed in Nigeria.

Further, it should be noted that while the proposed law sounds harsh to American ears, the penalty for homosexual activities in those parts of Africa under Islamic Sharia law (such as the Sudan and portions of Northern Nigeria for that matter) is death. It is precisely the imposition of these much harsher Sharia laws that Archbishop Akinola and other Anglican leaders in Africa have resisted so strongly for many years with little publicity or support from the West.

It is jarring, to say the least, to see church leaders, who claim to champion the primacy of local understanding and culture, demanding that foreign sister churches give up their own local understanding and culture and be judged by an American understanding of individual rights. There is a word for the one-way imposition of values - colonialism.

This release is astonishing. First -- and I can't emphasize this enough -- the primary criticism of Akinola's endorsement of the Nigerian legislation is that it curtails basic press, speech, assembly, and religious freedoms. I have written about this ad nauseum before, so I won't go into it any further here. Suffice it to say that everyone who has thus far offered support for Akinola on this point has failed to raise the issue of civil liberties, and instead chosen to focus on the issue of gay marriage. Yet gay marriage is moot since homosexuality is already illegal. I beg someone in the conservative Anglican community to please speak to this issue.

Second, Christian-Muslim violence is not a recent problem -- it has been going on for a long time and at a much greater intensity than what happened between February 18 and 24 of this year. A buried article from September 11, 2001, by Dan Isaacs for the Daily Telegraph, London (available on LexisNexis), suggests just how bad it was only a few years ago. He says:

CLASHES between Christian and Muslim youths in Nigeria have left at least 165 dead and about 1,000 injured, the Red Cross said yesterday.

Buildings have been razed throughout the city of Jos in the centre of the country and hundreds of burnt-out cars littered the streets after three days of rioting. Thousands have fled the mobs and witnesses indicated that the numbers of dead could go much higher.

Last night, violence had subsided after heavily armed troops were deployed but the clashes were reported to have spread to the northern city of Kano, where a 5,000-strong Muslim mob was reported to have attacked and burned a church.

Phillip Macham, a Red Cross official, said the streets in Jos were still littered with bodies. "This figure [of 165 dead] includes those that were brought by the police and other organisations. We are overstretched," he added.

Terrified Jos residents described gangs setting up roadblocks and pulling people out of vehicles to kill them, and house-to-house searches by youths armed with machetes, clubs and guns. By last night, more than 6,000 people had sought refuge in the compound of the central police station.

Most of those under threat appeared to be Muslims, but many Christians have been caught up in the violence.

Violence by Nigerian Muslims against Christians is not new -- neither is violence by Christians against Muslims. Isaacs goes on:

The initial cause of the violence was a minor altercation outside a mosque after Friday prayers but there has been simmering tension for weeks.

Christians have been complaining about the appointment of a Muslim to head the state's poverty alleviation programme.

After decades of corrupt military rule which has reduced oil-rich Nigeria to penury, such jobs are seen as providing access to government funds for the supporters of those appointed.

I could be full of it, but my growing sense is that the problem of Christian-Muslim violence in Nigeria is broadly political, rather than narrowly religious, or simply "caused" by the Danish cartoons of the Prophet. At the very least, Duncan should recognize that the violence is two-sided -- for every instance of Muslims unilaterally attacking defenseless Christians, there's an example of Christians doing the same to Muslims. It is in this context that Akinola's statement to the nation, saying "may we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation," is so callow and contentious.

Third, the West has actually been very interested in the problem of Shar'iya in Nigeria. Perhaps the bishop will recall the case of Safiya Huseini, a Muslim Nigerian woman sentenced to death by stoning by a Shar'iya court. Again, Dan Isaacs is on the case, in an article for the Observer dated December 9, 2001 (LexisNexis):

Her daughter Adama, 11 months old, is both her greatest joy and a symbol of her predicament. The judge decreed that, because Huseini had conceived a child outside marriage, she was guilty of adultery. She is divorced, but under Islamic or sharia law the crime is the same as if she were still married. The lesser charge of fornication, punishable by 100 or so lashes, applies only to virgins.

The man Huseini names as the father of her child comes from the same village of Tungar Tudu in the north west of Nigeria. Yakubu Abubakar has two wives, and although he admitted to the relationship with Huseini he refused to marry her or contribute to the upkeep of the child.

Traditional family disputes such as this have been resolved in the sharia courts for decades, according to a judicial system operating within Nigeria's majority-Muslim northern states. It is only in the past two years that the harsh criminal punishments of stoning (for adultery), amputation (for theft), and lashing (for such crimes as drinking alcohol and fornication) have been introduced.

The recent extension of the laws to include harsh sharia punishments, guided more by political than religious interests, has served to exacerbate tensions between Muslims and the minority of Christians living in the north. Over two years, 4,000 people have lost their lives in clashes between the two communities.

When Huseini's case came to court, Abubakar retracted his confession, denying he had ever met Huseini, and the judge acquitted him of any charges. Under Islamic law, if a man does not make a confession in court the only way he can be convicted of adultery is for four men - not women - to have witnessed the adulterous act.

Isaacs spoke directly to Huseini, now for the Daily Telegraph (London) on March 25, 2002, the day before she was acquitted by an Islamic appeals court, writing (LexisNexis):

There has been widespread international pressure on the Nigerian government to pardon Huseini. But the federal authorities are powerless to intervene directly. The country's devolved system of government gives the majority-Muslim northern states the power to introduce their own legal codes.

This has not stopped the federal justice minister, Kanu Agapi, from trying to exert influence.

In a letter to all the governors of all northern states last week, he said strict Islamic punishments were discriminatory because they applied only to Muslims and therefore unconstitutional, and that "the federal government could not keep quiet whilst members of the international community upbraid the country for imposing these discriminatory punishments on a section of the populace".

The northern states have made it clear that they consider this statement an attack on Nigeria's Muslims and have said they intend to ignore it.

President Olusegun Obasanjo, a devout Christian, has been placed in an awkward position. Although he is clearly uncomfortable with these strict Islamic punishments, he is aware that to challenge the validity of sharia law would be seen as anti-Muslim.

In a country with a recent history of communal and religious violence, such a confrontation could have a dangerously destabilising effect.

This story was all over the Western media in the months following September 11, and it drew serious attention to the practice of Shar'iya in northern Nigeria. It was, in fact, the story that first brought my attention to the fact that harsher forms of Shar'iya are still practiced anywhere. The response to the story was strong enough to compel Betty McCollum (D-Minn) to bring a resolution before Congress to condemn death by stoning. Bishop Duncan might find this response too weak for his tastes, but it is utterly false to suggest that the West does not care about the encroachment of Shar'iya in northern Nigeria.

Furthermore, as I have argued in a previous post, the threat of Shar'iya is not sufficiently compelling to endorse discarding basic democratic institutions and processes, as this legislation would do.

Fourth, Bishop Duncan's final paragraph contains an argument that can be easily turned against him. For the moment, let's leave aside the fact that the primary objection to this legislation is not that it bans gay marriage (though that's bad enough from the point of view of many) but that it curtails speech, assembly, the press, and religious expression (i.e., it doesn't just ban gay marriage -- READ IT!!!). Duncan cries hypocrisy when his liberal colleagues squawk over Akinola's support of the legislation. He says that the same people who had before demanded local autonomy in the elevation of gay priests and bishops now claim that local Nigerian customs must bow to Western values -- he calls this "colonialism." But I must ask Bishop Duncan if he is not practicing a kind of moral relativism, declaring that what is good for us as Americans is not good for Nigerians.

In his support of Akinola's endorsement, Duncan is asking Nigerians to abandon entirely their fragile democratic institutions in the fear that a few gay Nigerians will organize meetings in protest of Nigeria's anti-sodomy law. He is supporting Akinola's "one-way imposition of values" at the cost of free speech, free assembly, free expression of religion, and a free press.

In fact, by arguing that struggles between religions require curtailment of civil liberties, Duncan is unknowingly providing the logical groundwork for the imposition of Shar'iya on all Nigerians.

UPDATE: 3/16/2006, 7:33 PM. Göran, in the comments, has pointed out something that was in the back of my head when I posted this entry but that I couldn't quite spit out at the time. Basically, he argues that if North-South Network bishops claim that ECUSA bishops are not allowed local choice with respect to their "culture, laws and circumstances," then the global communion ought to be able to censure Akinola for his endorsement of legislation that denies narrowly defined Nigerian groups basic civil rights. Ultimately, the "local custom" argument is hogwash, since it appears that it is applied only when convenient.

A slow news day in Anglican Nigeria or So you're new to Nigeria, eh?

Things have been a bit slow on the news front, but that's ok -- I've been writing a mile a minute for the last week and a half.

For those of you that are new to the proposed "anti-gay-marriage" legislation in Nigeria, or to the fact that all the legislation does that's new is ban speech advocating or defending gay marriage and homosexuality, or to the fact that the Anglican Primate of Nigeria endorsed that legislation, or to the fact that the same Primate appears to have had a role in instigating violence in the southeastern city of Onitsha in late February (or at least has suffered from selective amnesia regarding Christian involvement in that violence), please rest assured that I am new to it, as well. I've been learning as I go along, pulling information out of my now rather antiquated relationship with the Episcopal Church, or following my gut on the one issue in all of this that I feel we should all be agreeing on.

Human rights must be protected -- it serves everyone's interests.

I have deliberately tried to stay out of the Anglican Communion's debate regarding the Episcopal Church's strong advocacy of homosexual relationships. This is because I think that the issue that should be of greatest concern to us all -- an issue that extends beyond the bounds of the day-to-day decisions of the clergy in their ministrations to their flocks, and into the secular world -- is the fact that conservative American Anglicans' have given carte blanche support to Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of the legislation that would actively limit the democratic participation of a small part of the Nigerian population.

Their most prominent argument in their support of Akinola is the most dangerous: the Church in Nigeria is under threat from Islam; Akinola must appease Muslims while protecting his flock in order to prevent further violence. This sounds reasonable at first glance, but it is simply not legitimate to blackmail our best intentions with threats of violence from unfriendly "outsiders." In fact, I am becoming convinced, slowly, that there is no real threat to Nigerian Christians from Nigerian Islam per se, but rather that this "threat" is a convenient scapegoat, used by politicians in control of huge government contracts, for the far more difficult social and political milieu of land and power conflicts that still wracks this oil-rich nation almost eight years after the military government stepped down in 1999.

I'll let you make up your mind on this issue.

Right now, I'm spending my time getting up-to-date on recent Nigerian political struggles. Pretty much anything by Dan Isaacs of the BBC is helpful. Here are excerpts from his May, 2004, analysis:

Some of the violence has pitched Muslims against Christians, but all of them have fallen across different tribal and cultural divides. ... The broad characterisation of a Muslim Hausa-speaking north, and a Christian south made up of two dominant tribes - the Yoruba in the southwest and the Ibo in the southeast - is a vast over-simplification. ... [The conflict] most often boils down to competition between those that see themselves as the true 'indigens' of an area, and those that are considered to be more recent 'settlers'. Whatever the historical justifications, the conflict is always and everywhere about access to scarce resources. This might be farmland, or employment, or access to political power. It could even be jealousy over the provision of water or electricity to one village but not its neighbour. ... At their root, these differences are not cultural or religious. They are economic. [emphasis mine]

Read it all, and also read Isaacs' profile of Olusegun Obasanjo as he ran for his second term as president.

Institute on Religion and Democracy: "Democracy" not so important

With a name like Institute on Religion and Democracy, you would think that, as an advocacy group, they would be committed to both. In fact, as their mission statement suggests, it's a bit more complicated:

The Institute on Religion and Democracy is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.

First comes Christian renewal, then comes social renewal and democracy. They go on:

The IRD believes that the Christian tradition has great resources for the building of a just society. Among the basic teachings with profound political implications are these: God alone is sovereign and worthy of worship. All persons are created in the image of God. Endowed with inalienable rights, persons have the responsibility to love their neighbors. A church that faithfully proclaims and demonstrates these teachings will do much to sustain and spread democracy.

The IRD makes a further judgment that Western representative democracy is, on balance, a good worthy of advancing. Among political systems of our time, democracy holds the most promise for a relatively just ordering of society. It best provides the freedom for the Church to carry out its mission. We are convinced that the Church best serves democracy by simply being the Church, true to its own calling in Christ.

Thus, the IRD advances two goals: the proliferation of sound Christian teachings in the hopes of advancing democracy, and the advancement of democracy as the safest haven for Christianity. In other words, "we promote democracy to advances Christianity, and vice versa" (my paraphrase).

On that basis, one might think that the IRD is at all times vigilant in the protection of basic civil rights -- it stands to reason that wherever speech is protected, Christianity should thrive unfettered. Indeed, the IRD's Religious Liberty program, directed by Faith McDonnell, had this to say about one of their overseas missions:

Christians are treated as second-class citizens in Pakistan. They are poor and powerless, have little opportunity for education and jobs, and are excluded from politics by a system of "separate electorates" -- a religious apartheid. According to Pakistan's "Blasphemy Law," anyone who defiles the name of Mohammed must be punished by death. This gives unscrupulous people a great opportunity to cause trouble for Christians. Many believers have been falsely accused and, even if acquitted, some have been killed by Muslim extremists and live under constant fear of death threats. Now Islamic Law has become the supreme law of the land in Pakistan.

Pakistani Christians had renewed hope for an end to their unjust situation with the takeover of General Pervaiz Musharraf in October 1999. President Musharraf had taken some admirable first steps towards amending the infamous Blasphemy Law, and other laws that oppress religious minorities, and in recent months he had announced plans to abolish the separate electoral system that marginalizes Christians and other minorities in Pakistan, but he has been under intense pressure and even threats from powerful Islamic factions. Christians continue to be arrested on trumped-up Blasphemy charges. And since the war against terrorism began, Christians in Pakistan have been especially vulnerable to radical groups.

Aside from the religio-xenophobia of Christians v. Muslims, this is all very noble. But how easily those high-minded principles are discarded!

Over the weekend, Faith McDonnell, the director of the Religious Liberties Program, published a letter on the IRD website that defended the IRD from the criticisms of Bishop Chane's recent Washington Post Op-Ed. (Please read both the Op-Ed and the letter by McDonnell again, if you haven't looked recently at either.) As a reminder, Chane criticized conservative elements with the American Anglican Communion for their association by proxy with a very un-democratic piece of legislation before the federal assembly in Nigeria that would bar gay marriage, with penalties of up to 5 years' imprisonment. I've written about this extensively on this blog.

The stated purpose of the legislaiton is clearly at odds with its obvious inevitable effect. Homosexual sex is already illegal in Nigeria and punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment. The new legislation would bar gay marriage, but what's the point of banning gay marriage if the sex is already illegal? In fact, the only novel prohibition in the new legislation is its ban on any form of speech in support of gay marriage or homosexuality. The Nigerian people, through their elected representatives, are about to pass a law that would limit the speech of a minority of Nigerians on an issue that is of great importance to them. Speech, press, assembly, even freedom of religion would all be affected.

The Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, recently lent his support to the legislation, saying, "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality."

Is the "moral position" of Nigerians to limit free speech, assembly, press, and religious practice and belief? Faith McDonnell seems to think so, but indirectly. She wants to have it both ways: either the Nigerian Christians are under threat from Islamic extremists, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want to protect themselves from Islam, or the legislation, as proposed, is "onerous to us". Here's what she said:

The "Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act" before the Nigerian Federal Assembly would instead charge violators with penalties of up to five years in prison. The proposed federal legislation is onerous to us. But our society is not yet living in constant fear of the rule of Islamism.

Islamists often accuse Christians in the Islamic world of supporting Western immorality. The policies of liberal-led churches in the West, such as the U.S. Episcopal Church, often feed this accusation. Christians who live under or along-side Islam face the duel challenge of rebutting the charge while also opposing the imposition of shari'a. Archbishop Akinola and others walk a tightrope.

I see, the ban on gay marriage is Islam's fault, not to mention the fault of ECUSA. That's right. In some countries Islam must be countered with democracy to promote Christianity, while in others the threat of Islam can only be countered by limiting the democratic process.

This stance by the IRD reflects two rather ignoble predispositions on their part: (1) they aren't really committed to democracy in and of itself, but only insofar as it assists the spread or protection of Christianity; and (2) they want to argue that a ban on gay marriage is necessary to PROTECT us from the demands of Islamic extremists.

The former indicates that they are not serious players in the arena of transformative democracy, while the latter indicates something truly dangerous. Does the IRD really mean to say that it is because of our FEAR of Islamic terror that we should change the way we live our lives? Isn't this exactly backwards? Yechhh. (That was the sound of wretching.)

What makes this particularly bad, as I've said before, is that homosexual sex is already illegal in Nigeria. Whatever you feel about that, it means that this legislation is not about gay marriage at all, but about its other provisions, which limit a variety of civil liberties if exercised with the aim of defending homosexuality. In other words, despite the Nigerian Muslim community's support of the legislation, this can't really be about appeasing Muslims. In fact, I've begun to think that this is more about limiting the growth of pro-gay religious movements within Nigeria than about anything else.

(Note: Faith McDonnell says she and her colleagues have seen Chane's opinion piece republished only in markets where prominent Network bishops reside -- I would like to add the following markets to their list: Decatur, Salt Lake City, and Pakistan.)

Skirting the issue?

(update below)

Nigeria's The Daily Sun reports that the Christian Association of Nigeria, led by Archbishop Peter Akinola, has called for a strict two-day period of mourning (March 27 and 28) in response to February's religious violence.

"We call on the faithful, who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus the Christ, Christians of all denominations, of all ages – young, old, men, women, clergy, lay to observe a two-day national mourning for the fallen brethren thoughout the country on March 27 and 28. During this period of mourning, no Christian shall go to work, no shop, market or office is to be opened. In other words, there shall be no business transactions," he stated.

He said that CAN watched with sadness and utter dismay the recent crisis in which many Christians were killed and churches and other property destroyed by people hiding under the guise of religion.

Akinola, who is also the primate of the Church of God, Anglican Communion, said a meeting of the Governors Forum should urgently be convened to discuss and agree on step to be taken to stop anti-Christian posture. He said that Nigerians should know that the country belongs to all Nigerians, that Nigerian Christians have no other country but Nigeria and that there should be mutual respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence among all Nigerians in all the states of the federation.

There is, strangely, no mention of the violence handed down on Nigerian Muslims, by Christians, in the southeastern town of Onitsha, nor the potential culpability of the Archbishop in inciting that violence with his February 21 press release, declaring to northern Muslims, "may we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation" and that "C.A.N. [Christian Association of Nigeria] may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue."

Is this a press hiccup? Why is there no mention of Onitsha? Is The Daily Sun sympathetic to Akinola? What's going on?

Catholic bishops in Nigeria have issued a similar directive for two days of prayer on the same dates. However, they, in contrast to the Anglican Church, released a far more conciliatory note of calm during the southern Christian violence against Muslims, that called upon Christians to stay their hands and seek peace with their neighbors.

I honestly find it difficult to understand why Akinola couldn't mention the scores that died in Onitsha by Christian hands. Maybe his office will release something in the next few days to clarify his position on that tragedy, as well.

UPDATE: 3/13/2006, 9:02 AM. Nigeria's Daily Independent also reports on this story, but again there is no mention of the violence in Onitsha, let alone any reconciliation.

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) on Sunday directed all Christians to stay at home and observe a two-day national mourning for the “fallen brethren” in the cartoon riots throughout the country on March 27 and 28.

The umbrella Christians body also requested the law enforcement agencies and the judiciary not to treat those arrested in connection with the recent wanton destruction with kid gloves, adding that they must be treated for who they are: criminals, murderers and arsonists.

President of CAN, Most Rev. Peter Akinola, read a statement entitled: “A Call To National Mourning” at the inauguration of the League of Anglican Media Practitioners (LAMP) in Abuja.

He said CAN watched with sadness and utter dismay the recent crises in some states in the North where many Christians were ruthlessly killed and churches and other property wantonly destroyed by some criminals, murderers and arsonists hiding under the guise of religion and therefore resolved to set aside the two days for national mourning and sober reflection. It is also to declare that Nigerian Christians have no other place they can call their own, except Nigeria.

What in the world is the "League of Anglican Media Practitioners?" All I've managed to find is a short press release from the Church itself on changes in the League's officers, and some indication elsewhere that the organization is intended to promote the Anglican Church in the media. No wonder there hasn't yet been any mention in the press of violence in Onitsha.

By the way, the American Anglican Council gives an unannotated mention of the article in the Daily Independent on their website. I guess the AAC has no problem with the violence in Onitsha, either. Probably best not to mention it.

"... or will Anglicans get there first?"

In what appears to have been an afterthought to a blog post on the Islamic response to Western tolerance of homosexuals, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

By the way, how long before religious right leaders urge a ban on gay marriage because it is inflaming Islamist terrorism? Or will Mickey [Kaus] get there first?

Good question. And if I might humbly ask, "... or will the Anglicans get there first?"

It may already have happened. The Rev Canon Martyn Minns', in his letter to his parish in Northern Virginia defending Archbishop Akinola's support of Nigeria's proposed gay-marriage ban (legislation that is really just an effort to limit speech and assembly), says:

There is a precarious balancing act between those regions that are under Muslim influence – where Sharia law calls for the stoning of homosexuals – and those that have a majority Christian population. The situation is volatile as demonstrated by the repercussions from the Danish cartoon saga that have already led to hundreds of Christian and Muslim deaths. Keeping the lid on this situation is a formidable task. In recent months homosexual activism sponsored in part by organizations from the UK and South Africa has threatened to add further instability. In response the President of Nigeria has proposed legislation that would restrict such activities. [emphasis mine]

Other conservative Anglicans with whom I have corresponded directly have said much the same thing: the new law is meant to appease Muslims in the north of Nigeria. (I agree, not because it prevents terrorism, but because it provides cover for Obasanjo's bid for a third term. I'm also beginning to suspect that it's intended to keep gay-friendly church organizations out of Nigeria.)

Why should this matter to American Anglicans? This is what Archbishop Akinola had to say in his Pastoral Letter to the Church (2/25/2006):

These times are perilous for our Communion world-wide, resulting from the continuing obstinate revisionist agenda, master-minded by ECUSA [Episcopal Church USA] and her allies. We must intensify our prayers for the truth of the word of God to be the guiding light for the Church. We will also do more by ensuring that we do not associate with ECUSA in any official capacity. We have already taken a decision to train our clergy and church staff within our own environment and in partnership only with those who hold similar biblical views of God and human sexuality with us. The emergence of Church of Nigeria Mission to America, known and called, 'Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA)', registered Charity Trust in U.S.A., is a serious step to put into action our bible-based convictions. [emphasis mine]

For more on this "Seventh" Convocation (from a man with a severely conservative -- can I call Republicans "conservative" anymore? -- bent), see here.

As Bishop Chane of the Diocese of Washington said in his Washington Post Op-Ed, "what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow." I'd say that it's on the agenda now. It could be years before the cultural standards of the Nigerian Church come to America en masse, if ever. But with the confluence of an effort to stifle the civil rights of Nigerian gay and lesbian citizens alongside the stated desire of the Nigerian polity to contain Muslim-versus-the-West cultural struggles and violence, Andrew Sullivan's question appears already to have been answered.

Stay tuned.

Was it the cartoons? cont'd

From ReliefWeb (March 9, 2006):

Nigeria: thousands displaced by religious cartoon riots

As many as 50,000 people were displaced and about 150 killed in a wave of sectarian violence across various Nigerian states at the end of February, sparked by protests over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, according to the Nigerian Red Cross. The majority of deaths occurred in the mainly Christian southeast city of Onitsha, where groups of armed youths attacked Muslim Hausa-speakers from the north in revenge for Christian Igbos killed some days earlier in the north of the country. Spiralling violence spread across at least six states, with thousands of IDPs taking refuge mainly in police and army barracks or churches -- although many later returned to their homes. Widespread destruction of property took place, with numerous churches, mosques and houses burned down. State governments in the affected areas dispatched police and army reinforcements and imposed curfews in an attempt to contain the situation. The Nigerian Red Cross provided principally emergency medical care to the IDPs. Nigeria has a multitude of religious, ethnic and political fault lines that periodically erupt into communal violence, creating a sizeable, albeit fluctuating internally displaced population -- particularly since the return of democracy in 1999. But while the introduction of Islamic Sharia law in a total of 12 of Nigeria's 36 states in recent years has caused tensions, conflict has been less over religion or ethnicity than over unequal access to land and other resources, especially between people considered indigenous to an area, and those regarded as settlers. [emphasis mine]

This report and others suggest caution in blaming the explosive violence in late February on traditional East-West culture struggles, and perhaps least of all on the cartoons. History is replete with tales of local land and power disputes transforming themselves into struggles over "religion."

Indeed, it leads me to wonder. Why would President Obasanjo propose legislation to ban gay marriage when it's already illegal to be gay?

"... the fear of upsetting those on the same side ..."

Another excellent post at Thinking Anglicans by Stephen Bates of the Guardian (March 3, Church of England Newspaper). Quote:

Scarcely a week seems to pass without some new scandal, some outrageous statement or appalling behaviour coming out not of sundry [African] regimes, militias, or armed factions, but from an institution that is fast becoming equally corrupt, the Anglican Church itself.

These are not just any old Anglicans but bishops and archbishops, with scarcely a peep coming out of anyone, least of all their allies in the evangelical constituency, with only a few honourable exceptions. For the rest it is almost as if embarrassment, political correctness and maybe even the fear of upsetting those on the same side in the gay row causes a reticence that is close to cowardice.

Indeed.

Akinola has unambiguously, publicly endorsed Nigerian anti-gay-marriage legislation

Thanks to Thinking Anglicans for pointing out this link, which I saw yesterday on the Church of Nigeria website but didn't bother to explore. It looks like the Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, in his official capacity, has, indeed, made a public and unambiguous endorsement of the Nigerian anti-gay-marriage legislation.

The Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), presided over by Akinola, just released their February 25 "Letter to the Nation", signed by Akinola, which contained the following message regarding the legislation:

The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality.

Of course, the legislation does much more than ban gay marriage. While "homosexual practices" are already illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison (according to the US State Department's 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices section on Nigeria), which makes the issue of gay marriage moot, the new legislation goes much further by banning any speech, assembly or press supporting or defending gay marriage, or "homosexual practices" of any kind.

On March 7, an AAC (Washington DC) letter claimed that the AAC could find no public statement by Akinola endorsing the legislation. On February 27, Rev Akintunde Popoola, Akinola's Director of Communications in Nigeria, speaking to The Living Church, claimed that Akinola made no statement regarding the legislation: "Archbishop Peter to my knowledge is yet to comment [publicly] on the bill."

They are now referred to the recently released "Letter to the Nation", signed by Archbishop Peter Akinola on the Church of Nigeria website.

A minimal compromise could be struck that would diffuse this crisis, a compromise that Akinola could probably endorse.

(If he can't, and if the AAC and other conservative Anglican groups retain their support for Akinola's endorsement of this far-overreaching legislation, then these American groups will have seriously compromised their principles as conservatives, Americans, and good citizens.)

Here's my suggestion for compromise, based on the original Nigerian legislation, and expanded from my post below:

• Limit the legislation to a ban on gay marriage. I hate to admit it, but there is probably overwhelming public support for such a ban, even if it's ridiculous, and like it or not we have to respect their democratic process (such as it is), especially in light of Articles 18-22 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN-CCPR).
  
• While Section 6 of the legislation would represent a clear infringement upon the right to religious expression as protected in the Nigerian Federal Constitution of 1999 (and a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the UN-CCPR), I would say that, in the interest of compromise, this should remain untouched, so that ...
  
• Section 7 can (and should) be entirely removed. Any limitation of the speech of an aggrieved minority is completely unacceptable, as it damages the legitimacy of not only the majority but of the government itself.

Finally, speaking to those Anglicans in the US (and I've heard from some of you already) who think that banning speech is within the rights of the Nigerian government because homosexuality is a sin against God, please keep in mind that protection of speech exists not only to promote stability, but also so to guarantee that the potentially correct views of a minority are not utterly quashed.

Examples of commonly accepted American values that are universally accepted today but which were once represented by only a minority of voters:

• A woman's right to vote
• Equal protection for all citizens
• Recognition of the weekend as days off
• That slavery is an evil institution

Now, I'm not in a position to argue to conservative Anglicans about whether there is moral equivalence between repression of homosexuality and the institution of slavery -- but I can say unambiguously, as a concerned American interested in the health of our civil society, that the repression of minority views by means of law, no matter how repulsive the repressed views might be, is a sign of illegitimacy.

A ban on gay marriage, if perceived to be necessary by the Nigerian public, must be accompanied by the retention of the legal means for others to openly oppose it, even leaving open the possibility of its reversal.

See my post below for more.

US State Department has already weighed in

The following press release from the US State Department (2/1/2006), regarding the proposed anti-gay-marriage legislation (pdf) in Nigeria, has just come to my attention:

Nigerian Legislation Threatens to Limit Rights of Sexual Minorities

The United States is concerned by reports of legislation in Nigeria that would restrict or prohibit citizens from assembling, organizing, holding events or rallies, and participating in ceremonies of religious union, based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. This proposed legislation has not been adopted.

The freedoms of speech, association, expression, assembly, and religion are long-standing international commitments and are universally recognized. Nigeria, as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has assumed important obligations on these matters. We expect the Government of Nigeria to act in a manner consistent with those obligations.

As I said yesterday, these rights are the rules we live by -- violate them, and lose legitimacy.

Arguments that shouldn't be hard to answer

I didn't become involved in this issue because of personal religious beliefs. I didn't get involved because of a personal stake in the advancement of gay rights. I got into it because every debate must have "rules," and because the Church, which was once persecuted, should know that viscerally.

We protect the rules because twisting them, even at a temporary advantage, fashions the very weapon that would one day take us down. The "rules" are simple. Tell the truth. Don't lie. Don't change the subject unless the premise is demonstrably flawed. But most imporant, accept beforehand that you may never change the other's mind, and don't incarcerate, hurt, or kill them if you can't. The party that breaks these rules for temporary gain will or ought to be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

It is because these rules are broken on a daily basis in politics that we don't look to Congress or the White House for real debate. "Debate" in government is about power and the shrewd application of short-term advantage toward the attainment of long-term goals. Politics avoids the normal bcklash that comes from breaking the rules because of the near infinity of means available to politicians to avoid blame -- mostly by changing the subject, but most importantly by hiding behind public opinion. If a politician is popular and supported by a clear majority, he or she can do nearly anything they like.

I must confess that my objection to the Nigerian legislation that would ban speech in defense of homosexuality was not because of its the human rights violations it contains. I feel guilty about that. We should be standing up for those rights everywhere -- not just here in the United States.

No, what got my attention was that that the Anglican Church of Nigeria lent its endorsement to the legislation. And because American conservative Anglicans have failed to voice any kind of dismay at that endorsement. Also, I was and continue to be very disturbed by the involvement of Archbishop Akinola in the incitement of violence in the Nigerian south by Christians against Muslims (see here and here).

But really this is about is breaking the rules.

John, writing about the Martyn Minns letter at TitusOneNine, made the following arguments for why the Archbishop is justified in his support of the Nigerian legislation (read the whole thing there). I'll answer parts of John's comment a bit at a time (I hope he doesn't mind -- I picked his comments because I believed them to be both representative and fair):

Bishop Chane goes on to say, "[The Nigerian law] reads in part: 'Publicity, procession and public show of same sex amorous relationship through the electronic or print media physically, directly, indirectly or otherwise are prohibited in Nigeria.'" I am sure the good Bishop is well aware that in certain societies "public show" of not just "same sex amorous relationships" but even "heterosexual amorous relationships" are not encouraged. In such societies, what is the good Bishop suggesting the church do?

Simple, don't endorse those laws. Akinola has the right to stand up for a belief that is central to his position as a spiritual leader in the Anglican Communion -- conversely, his dissenters have the right to voice their beliefs, and neither Akinola nor the government should have the power to give that right or take it away.

Besides, heterosexual Nigerian couples are not legally barred from public shows of affection, so what happens in other countries is beside the point. Respectfully, John is "breaking the rules" by changing the subject without first addressing the question at hand. John goes on:

The supporters of the law see homosexual behavior as a decadence of the West (like the excesses of the Roman empire) rather than something to be emulated. They support the law because of its "moral" component, which the link (UN) Matt posted, clearly recognizes. The UN covenant also does not recognize or condone same sex marriage or civil unions nor does it provide for homosexuals as a "minority."

And yet the detractors see it as an infringement of their basic freedoms. If the law is enacted, those detractors will never again be able to legally voice their opinions. Remember, the law is not just about banning gay marriage, but about denying the right to defend it, if one so chooses.

As far as the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN-CCPR) is concerned, I have to agree with John that while Nigeria is a signatory, and is bound by that covenant, its articles on speech contain a "public order and morals" exception, much like that found in the constitutions of countries in continental Europe. In fact, the UN-CCPR was based largely on those constitutions in order to guarantee, for example, the right to assemble, but not the right to disturb public order. My attorney wife tells me this is one of the critical ways in which continental European civil rights differ from those of the United States or the United Kingdom.

However, while John focuses on the "public morals" clause of the Articles, I would like to draw attention to another important clause, which provides for assembly only insofar as it protects "the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." In other words, rights can be abridged when public morals are at stake, but only insofar as the political speech of the limited party is not affected, or so my attorney wife tells me.

John is right that the UN Covenant does not recognize same-sex unions, not does it claim homosexuals to be a recognized minority. However, the spirit of the Covenant (and all similar documents) is to protect the rights of individuals against governments. As soon as governments become involved in limiting the right to speech, it loses legitimacy. I strongly recommend the recent short essay by Ronald Dworkin in the New York Review of Books on the "Right to Ridicule." Money quote:

Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture that might be generously abridged or qualified as a measure of respect for other cultures that reject it, the way a crescent or menorah might be added to a Christian religious display. Free speech is a condition of legitimate government. Laws and policies are not legitimate unless they have been adopted through a democratic process, and a process is not democratic if government has prevented anyone from expressing his convictions about what those laws and policies should be. [emphasis mine]

John goes on:

The law itself is clearly better than a Shari'ah law which would have homosexuals and homosexual acts punishable by death. I think [Archbishop] Akinola did very well, considering the circumstances; he supports democratic legislation that the people of Nigeria want, preserves the Nigerian culture, and removes the temptation for homosexual tendencies, while providing an orthodox Christian alternative to homosexuality. In a nation where about half the population is Muslim, not establishing a Shari'ah law for homosexuality is a big victory.

A big victory for whom? President Obasanjo, who introduced the legislation? A big victory for Christians? A big victory for Muslims? A big victory for the Church of Nigeria or Akinola? A big victory for homosexuals living in Nigeria who will now no longer have the "temptation" to be homosexual (that's an assumption about the nature of homosexuality that I don't want to get in an argument about)?

I don't yet understand who wins and how they win. The only political scenario I can think of -- and it's pretty cynical even for an Oyinbo like me -- is that Obasanjo, a Christian, has presented the legislation in order to shore up support among moderate Muslims in the north. Why would he do that? After all, he's constitutionally term limited to two four-year terms as President, which he will complete in March of 2007. It turns out that Obasanjo has for some time now been testing the waters for a change in the constitution (as part of the currently ongoing constitutional review process) that would grant him the possibility of a third term. Muslims are largely dead-set against it. Even John Negroponte thinks its a bad idea.

Besides, I don't think you're going to get an argument from me that Shari'ah is a good thing for Nigeria. But is it likely that Shari'ah is going to become the law of the land? By enacting this legislation (and by the way -- sodomy is already illegal in Nigeria and punishable by 14 years' imprisonment) they are doing nothing but limiting speech. John goes on:

If the state and church are to be separate why does the church keep insisting that it fight social battles? After all, social issues are political and in a democracy, the people (all people) must decide what laws they want. Shouldn't the people of Nigeria have the freedom to make their decisions without being held to some ambiguous "Western" standard and without interference from religious bodies especially those far removed from the Nigerian culture? And weren't sodomy laws in some colonies brought by the European powers in the name of "civilizing the heathen"?

Again, this ain't about sodomy -- which is already illegal -- it's about speech. But by using the word "democracy," John is making my argument for me. Like Dworkin says, "Freedom of speech is not just a special and distinctive emblem of Western culture." Although I don't like it, I'm not going to argue with the Church's endorsement of a law that would ban gay marriage, especially if public support for the law is massive. But I will not sit by and watch the Church endorse the curtailment of that law's dissenters' right to disagree.

Church/state issues in the US revolve predominantly around the 1st Ammendment, and whether the government should be allowed to establish a state religion. The "establishment clause" of the 1st amendment, however, does not bar religious people from voicing their opinions and influencing their government. The views and practices of an aggrieved minority might even be threatened by what the government then does -- but under no circumstance (in the US, the UK, France, or just about anywhere) is that minority's speech limited, nor should it be.

Let the Church fight social battles! But let's not allow the Church to quell speech.

And in the interest of being constructive:

How about this compromise: Akinola endorses the law, but with the provision that it places no limit on speech, assembly or the press? Perhaps, knowing that sodomy is already illegal, he could ask that the proposed punishment for participating in a same-sex marriage be reduced to one year's imprisonment.

I'm sure the majority of Nigerians will publicly support the new law, but can't they handle dissent without putting the dissenters in jail?

AAC letter to Bishop Chane an embarrassment

Washington-based trustees of the American Anglican Council have delivered a letter to Bishop Chane regarding his Feb 26 op-ed in the Washington Post.

Far from answering substance with substance, and thus laying any issues of policy to rest, the AAC has decided -- as have many others -- to treat Chane's op-ed as an ill-behaved personal attack on Archbishop Akinola.

A copy of Chane's op-ed can still be found here. Below, the AAC letter to Chane, as published on VirtueOnline (so far, the only source of the letter):

March 7, 2006

An Open Letter in response to your op-ed piece titled "A Gospel of Intolerance"

Dear Bishop Chane:

In response to your op-ed piece titled "A Gospel of Intolerance" that appeared in The Washington Post on Sunday, February 26, the American Anglican Council of Washington views your comments as a deliberate and unwarranted attack on Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and an attempt to discredit him for his supporting a new law in Nigeria that criminalizes same-sex marriage.

We find no evidence of any sort of a public statement by Archbishop Akinola in regards to these proposed laws. Nigerian Justice Minister Bayo Ojo announced the draft law last week, saying it is in response to President Olusegun Obasanjo's concern over homosexual relations and same-sex marriage encroaching on Africa's most populous nation. An on-line article from the newspaper Nigeria First said, "This progressive legislation is expected to put a check on homosexuality and lesbianism, a deviant social behaviour fast gaining acceptance in Western countries."

This is not the first occasion that you have attacked the recognized leader of the traditional Anglican movement, who is not seeking to victimize or diminish anyone.

Rather than speaking to the substance of statements and principled positions actually taken by Archbishop Akinola on homosexuality, your op-ed piece distorts and belittles his message and his standing as a Godly bishop. And, instead of seeking ways to find unity over the extremely serious issues that divide the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, your public criticism of a respected Godly Christian leader is one of intolerance on your part and a deaf ear and blind eye to what Archbishop Akinola is saying to the decadent Western Anglican churches.

As members of this diocese, we look to our bishop to find unity in the body of Christ on the difficult issues that divide the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. We pray you will amend the situation by making direct contact with Archbishop Akinola.

Faithfully,

The Trustees of the American Anglican Council of Washington, Inc.

Bradley Hutt, Wes Courtney, William Boniface, Rufus Peckham, James Brown, Robert England, John McKendrew, Emily Volz, David Bickel, Nancy Virts

What is particularly frustrating about this letter is that the claims made by Chane in his op-ed were factually correct. What's worse is that the AAC letter seems to suggest that the Nigerian Primate of the Church of Nigeria has no position on the legislation -- this is either factually incorrect, or, like the Kremlinologists who worked to decipher the inner workings of the Soviet Communist Party, we should take every statement coming out of the Archbishop's office with a grain of salt.

Before anything, I think it's important to address some misleading information in the AAC letter. First, a draft of the Nigerian legislation (pdf) was available on January 19, not "last week." Second, sodomy is already illegal and subject to a 14 year prison sentence. This raises questions as to the necessity of the legislation. Third, while the legislation would ban gay marriage and would imprison for five years anyone who engaged in or attended such a celebration, it further bans the advocacy of gay marriage, as well as the advocacy of homosexuality. In other words, it's not simply an empty ban on gay marriage; it also significantly abridges freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, all unambiguously protected by the 1999 Nigerian constitution.

Most important, to suggest that no public statement of the Church of Nigeria's stand on the new legislation can be found is a weasel of the highest order. The Voice of America on January 19, 2006, had this to say:

The spokesman for the Anglican church in Nigeria, Reverend Tunde Popoola [Director of Communications], says the proposed ban is appropriate. The Anglican community in Nigeria has long waged a vigorous campaign against homosexuals, as Reverend Popoola explains.

And Popoola, speaking to the Living Church, said the following on February 27, 2006:

A spokesman for the Church of Nigeria, Canon Akintunde Popoola, disputed this characterization, arguing Bishop Chane misconstrued the text of the bill and Archbishop Akinola’s role in the legislative process. "Archbishop Peter to my knowledge is yet to comment [publicly] on the bill. I have said we welcome it because we view homosexuality as 'against the norm'."

Let's be clear -- they feel the legislation is "appropriate" and they "welcome" it.

To claim that this is not an endorsement would be to suggest that Akinola is not in charge of his own Director of Communications, or that he has no idea of what comes out of his office. Popoola was the one who made the announcement that the Primate believed the legislation to be “appropriate”. He spoke on behalf of the Church of Nigeria, which, by proxy, includes his boss, Archbishop Peter Akinola. By analogy, Scott McClellan speaks before the White House press corps on behalf of the President. No one questions McClellan's credentials. Why would we question whether Popoola speaks for Akinola?

The problem for the AAC is that Chane's op-ed is factually correct, and in reality not objectively inflammatory. I know that Chane has not always been fair in his criticism, and that conservative Anglicans have a legitimate beef with liberal Anglicans over their near unilateral decision to permit blessings of gay marriages and the ordinations and consecrations of openly gay, non-celibate priests and bishops. For this reason, I understand why the AAC letter strongly responded to what they believed to be a personal affront to Archbishop Akinola.

However, the following facts in Chane's letter remain indisputable (a couple are at worst arguable):

1. The Anglican Communion is in a bitter struggle.
2. The February 2005 Lambeth Conference uanimously agreed to the following statement: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us." I leave it to the reader to decide what "victimization" means in this case, but I would tend to think that 5 years' imprisonment for defending gay marriage or one's own homosexuality is victimization, especially if endorsed by the Church.
3. Archbishop Akinola, a man of considerable resources and prestige, supported the legislation, which limits the power of the people to petition their government regarding homosexuality and which would curtail press freedoms should the press ever defend homosexuality in any way (the Vanguard online newspaper in Nigeria would become illegal).
4. With respect to (3), Akinola's endorsement of the new legislation amounts to a state-sponsored restriction of speech and various other freedoms.
   
5. Akinola has publicly stated his belief that the Anglican Communion will split, and that this split is largely over the issue of homosexuality (sadly, other issues of orthodoxy, such as the integrity of the Gospel message, is rarely mentioned).
6. Akinola's endorsement crosses the church-state barrier.
7. Thus, outsiders to the Anglican Communion (such as myself) should take notice, especially civil libertarians.
8. The IRD, with donations from prominent conservatives, supports renewal movements in the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran Churches, as well as in the United Church of Christ.
9. It is frightening (to Chane) to consider that if these renewal movements are successful here in the US, similar decisions could be made here that would curtail civil liberties at home. For instance. (NO MENTION OF FUNDING BY THE IRD OR THE AAC OF THE CHURCH OF NIGERIA .)
10. There is disagreement about homosexuality throughout the world. Reasonable people can debate it.
11. The Nigerian legislation crosses the line by curtailing speech, the press, and the right to assembly.
12. The Archbishop's support of the law violates numerous Anglican Communion documents calling for a listening process (I'll let Anglicans debate this point -- I don't much care).
13. The legislation violates Articles 18-20 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (true, it does, but the UN-UDHR is non-binding -- see here for other relevant human rights provisions).
14. Liberals in the Episcopal Church, as well as conservatives, have been silent about the legislation.
15. Supporters (high-profile or otherwise) have not dissociated themselves from the legislation and Akinola's support for it.

In its incautious wording, the AAC letter essentially endorses Akinola's support of the Nigerian anti-gay legislation, while only once addressing the substance of Chane's letter. What was that one instance? -- when they claimed that Akinola never publicly stated his support for the new legislation. This lame argument not only flies in the face of all available evidence, but worse it suggests that even if Akinola were to support the legislation, which they never once discuss in a substantive manner, they would support him.

Was it the cartoons?

I Just read an older blog entry on the Washington Post's website that shows just how many factors lead to the Muslim violence against Christians in the north, and Christian violence against Muslims in the south. Jefferson Morley, who covers the international online media for the Post, had this roundup. For instance:

The Daily Champion says the attacks in the city of Onitsha that killed 22 people today and in Bauchi on Monday were "separate religious crises" and does not link either to the Danish cartoon controversy.

"The Bauchi crisis erupted Monday over the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran by a female teacher in a public secondary school in the state," the Lagos-based news site said. "The attack in Onitsha was reportedly in response to violence against the Igbo in some parts of Northern states."

Morley goes on:

For the Nigerian online media, the cause of the latest outbursts is less the Danish cartoons than the legacy of Muslim-Christian tensions that began long before the European cartoonists caricatured the Prophet Muhammad.

The complexity of the Nigeria violence wasn't lost on one Reuters correspondent filing from Abuja who noted, "Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, rumours of a Koran desecration and opposition to constitutional change provided the catalysts for four days of fighting between Muslims and Christians in predominantly Muslim northern cities. Then there were revenge attacks in one mainly Christian southern city. But in Africa's most populous country the underlying causes of sectarian clashes are often political and observers say this round of violence is no exception."

Some in the Nigerian press claim that leaders of the Nigerian Federal and State Governments wish to spin the violence as a predominantly religious conflict without reference to 3rd-term politics of President Obasanjo. Today the Daily Independent (Nigeria) posted a press release (no date, but before 2/23) from the Lagos State Government, who took it a step further to blame the specifically religious conflict on the "unscrupulous and unpatriotic elements" that were instigating it.

From our vantage, it looks as though the Federal Government is more than happy to let people think that it was the Cartoons that caused the violence, and not the deep-seated sectarian tension that has been brewing for a very long time.

It seems to be working. This column from The Tide Online (Nigeria, 3/7/2006) blames the violence entirely on the Cartoons, calls for the Government to find the "masterminds" behind the plot, and neglects to mention the far more violent reprisals in the Christian south.

The Oscar Low Point

The slow-motion interpretive dance of "Matt Dillon" reaching up "Thandie Newton's" dress. It was so wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons -- the Three 6 Mafia interpretive dance didn't even hold a candle.

Brief Outage

Blogger.com has indicated that there was a brief outage during the 11 AM and 12 PM hours this morning and early afternoon. If you recieved a "forbidden" message, please note that this message was not of my doing.

Andrew Sullivan's Iraq War mea culpa

Andrew Sullivan in Time, finally taking some responsibility on behalf of the typewriter-class for leading us into the war:

The specter of Iraq teetering closer to civil war and disintegration has forced a reckoning. ... In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. ... The second error was narcissism. America's power blinded many of us to the resentments that hegemony always provokes. ... The final error was not taking culture seriously enough. There is a large discrepancy between neoconservatism's skepticism of government's ability to change culture at home and its naiveté when it comes to complex, tribal, sectarian cultures abroad.

It is an unbelievable relief to see this in print from Andrew. I have tremendous respect for him, but that respect has always been tempered by his unrealistic belief that democracy can be brought by war, or the far more naive sentiment that regional Middle Eastern democracies will simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps once Iraq is firmly established down that road, like an absurdly strong (and thus virtually infinitely improbable) fit of Brownian motion of the sort necessary to cause dominos to fall in reverse.

Democracies are not stable. They require constant vigiliance, both against those who wish to consolidate power in just a few hands, and against those who wish to stifle the participation of others. To prop up a democracy, by the actions of a few and without the broad support or undersanding of the people, is like balancing a broom on your nose ... or wrapping a plastic bag around your head.

In contrast, non-agressive authoritarian regimes, if left unchecked, are more stable, not less. Had the National Socialist Party in Germany sat on its laurels after coming to power in the 1930s, had they restrained their flaunting of Versailles to just the Rhineland, and had they felt that a policy of "living space" (Lebensraum) was unnecessary for the recovery of German national pride, would the Allies have stepped in to stop them, even if a smaller, no less horrific Jewish Holocaust had ensued? No, authoritarian governments are the most likely to impose domestic order, the most likely to draw investment and speculation, and they constitute the "strange attractor" towards which all other governments tend.

It is for this that I still find some of Andrew's words frustrating:

What we do know is that for all our mistakes, free elections have been held in a largely Arab Muslim country. We know that the Kurds in the north enjoy freedoms and a nascent civil society that is a huge improvement on the past. We know that the culture of the marsh Arabs in the south is beginning to revive. We know that we have given Iraqis a chance to decide their own destiny through politics rather than murder and that civil war is still avoidable.

Don't get me wrong; I too wish to be optimistic. But I have and have had serious reasons to doubt that the Iraq War will ever lead to a systemic, regional, political makeover.

The Kurds now "enjoy freedoms and a nascent civil society that is a huge improvement on the past"; meanwhile, Sunnis look to be locked out of any meaningful control over regional oil revenues, and it looks as if the biggest benificiary of our war will be Iran. Has there been a net benefit? Can there be a net benefit? Will Maxwell's daemon, or some absurdly strong fit of Brownian motion, do the impossible?

The significance of the violence in Onitsha

(A Christian writing pro-Christian and anti-Muslim slogans in Onitsha, photo credit BBC)

Andrew Sullivan, on the Christian violence against Muslims in Nigeria:

In the West, the theocratic tendencies of the religious right have very rarely tipped into violence; and there is no equivalence with the terror of Islamists. But in the developing world, that may not be the case any more. Nigeria is Ground Zero for the new wars of religion.

I think we really have to dig through the dregs of 20th C history to find an instance where Christian-Muslim grass-roots violence has erupted on this scale, and in the midst of international crises over oil supply and civil liberties (I'm not counting all-out wars). But it is the first instance that I have ever read of closely that involved Christian rioters, armed with machetes, clubs, and knives, spraypainting "Jesus is Lord" on the walls of their victims' mosque.

The Rev Fleming Rutledge, one of the first women to be ordained to the Episcopal priesthood, speaks out on the "genuine theological emergency" this represents:

The use of the earliest Christian confession, Kurios Iesous (Jesus is Lord) in such a context simply staggers the imagination. Issues about sexuality are very important indeed but must be set aside in this genuine theological emergency. This is not about barbarous, primitive Africans. This is about the universal human capacity to move rapidly from relatively peaceful co-existence with others to murderous mob action in a matter of days when certain conditions are present, and to appropriate even the most sacred religious beliefs for lethal purposes. The 20th century is full of examples -- the Afrikaners in South Africa, Gentiles all over Europe in the Nazi era, segregationists in the American South, Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, the Hutu in Rwanda who murdered Tutsis in their churches with frequent cooperation from the clergy.

Even so, there is something particularly horrifying about this example from Nigeria. The use of the name of Jesus Christ to celebrate destruction and murder is beyond sickening. This is the Name of the One who voluntarily gave himself up to a tortured death to show us how to forgive our enemies and not to seek vengeance. Bishop Tutu of South Africa led his people in non-violence for more than thirty years under conditions of utmost provocation. Let us fervently pray that Archbishop Akinola is made of similar metal -- for the sake of Nigeria, for the sake of the Anglican Communion, for the sake of the Gospel around the world, for the sake of the Name of the Crucified One.

...

A friend has sent this link to a statement by Abp. Peter Akinola. I find it profoundly disappointing. ... I look in vain in this statement for any sign of a transforming cruciform theology. It has a truculent sound, as if he were saying: if you're going to beat us up, we're going to let loose our young men to beat you up. This is not encouraging. I am comparing it in my mind with something that any of the recent Popes might have written, for instance. I think of Lech Walesa in his great early days, Martin Luther King -- not to mention Desmond Tutu. There was no doubt about these leaders' strength and determination, but it was clear to everyone that they intended to rein in their troops. They were enabled to exhibit dauntlessness while at the same time still teaching us about what a distinctively Christian witness looks like. When a Christian leader speaks truth to power, it should have that unmistakable note of trust in an invincible unseen Power that arms its servants with alternative weapons. [her emphasis]

There you have it: a genuine theological emergency on top of a clear violation of human rights. The conservative Anglican communion needs to wake up to the fact that recents actions by the Archbishop of Nigeria represent a problem far beyond the distinctly American or northern struggles over orthodoxy.

In comments I've seen from conservative American Anglicans, I've been disappointed by the nearly complete lack of sensitivity to what Rutledge called the "invincible unseen Power that arms its servants with alternative weapons." If you've ever seen it in action, it gives you goosebumps, bristling with the power of actual righteousness, not the righteousness of mere orthodoxy. Romans 12 (and Proverbs 25):

²⁰On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." ²¹Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Of cartoons and civil war

An excellent and balanced article from the Church of England Newspaper (Andrew Carey) on the link between violence, religious tensions, political instability, a coming census in the context of heated tribal struggles, and the statement of Archbishop Akinola that preceded Christian violence against Muslims in Onitsha. Money quote:

After several days of violence burned and charred bodies could be seen in the streets and over 30 were said to have died. "This cannot be Nigeria today. We have been living side-by-side with our Muslim brothers for so long. Why should a cartoon bring us to civil war?" asked one shocked pastor.

One thing I learned from the article that I did know before was that the Christian violence in Onitsha was prompted when "a busload of the bodies of Ibo victims killed in the north were returned home."

What are the "human rights" we're talking about?

I think it's important to spell out the nature of the international and domestic civil rights obligations that Nigeria must meet. It is in the context of these obligations, and according to our sensibilities as human beings, that we must judge the ethical or moral rightness of the decision of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria to support legislation that would ban public declarations or statements advocating homosexuality. Let me be very clear about this: Akinola can make whatever statements he wishes to his Church -- he has every right to declare the sinfulness of homosexuality. But to support what would amount to imprisonment for anyone who disagreed with him (let alone engaged in homosexual intercourse or same-sex marriage) might "shock the conscience" of anyone with eyes to see.

First, I wish to clarify one aspect of Bishop Chane's op-ed to the Washington Post. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) is not binding, as there are no signatories. It is not a treaty or convention in any traditional sense -- it is simply a statement of purpose on the part of the United Nations to direct attention to the need for protection against potential human rights violations, and Nigeria is under no obligation to follow it. Here are Articles 18-20 of the UDHR, just for reference (I don't think anyone's actually quoted these yet -- nor do I think that anyone will fundamentally disagree with the spirit of these provisions, as they apply to both Akinola and his Nigerian detractors):

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

These are non-controversial -- they're like a Unitarian sermon; no reasonable person could disagree. In a post-WWII and Cold War-dominated world, this declaration was critical to developing a much needed sense of political "right" and "wrong." They also enumerate international rights that are consonant with our own American sense of what is and isn't acceptable in a civil society.

As I said above, the UDHR is non-binding -- but the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR, 1976) is, and Nigeria joined the Covenant on July 29, 1993. However, while the CCPR establishes a similarly worded, and even expanded, set of rights, as listed here in Articles 18-22 (sorry for the length, but it's worth reading), it lacks teeth. Specifically, as I've highlighted (bold) below, it protects a nation's right to limit certain enumerated rights "to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." In other words, a nation may deem the rights of a group to be null if that group's activities endanger public morals. On the other hand, nations are further permitted to limit the rights of certain groups if the actions of those groups are perceived to endanger of the "fundamental rights and freedoms" of others. I don't know the history of the "public morals" clause and why it was included, and I don't know any of the legal opinion on how these two competing demands, but this qualification is ultimately a disappointment for those seeking unequivocal protection of all forms of speech, assembly, and otherwise, from the UN. I'll let you decide:

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
1. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
2. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 22

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.
3. Nothing in this article shall authorize States Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or to apply the law in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention.

What of the Nigerian Constitution? I've talked about the 1st Amendment of the US constitution in other posts, but that's ultimately irrelevant to Nigerian law, as many have pointed out. But Sections 38-40 of the Nigerian Constitution enumerate the same protections as our 1st Amendment with no mention of the need occasionally abridge those rights to protect "public morals":

Section 38

1. Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if such instruction ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own, or religion not approved by his parent or guardian.
3. No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that community or denomination.
4. Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to form, take part in the activity or be a member of a secret society.

Section 39

1. Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.
2. Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, every person shall be entitled to own, establish and operate any medium for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions: Provided that no person, other than the Government of the Federation or of a State or any other person or body authorised by the President on the fulfilment of conditions laid down by an Act of the National Assembly, shall own, establish or operate a television or wireless broadcasting station for, any purpose whatsoever.
3. Nothing in this section shall invalidate any law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society:
   
1. for the purpose of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of courts or regulating telephony, wireless broadcasting, television or the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
2. imposing restrictions upon persons holding office under the Government of the Federation or of a State, members of the armed forces of the Federation or members of the Nigeria Police Force or other Government security services or agencies established by law.

Section 40

Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not derogate from the powers conferred by this Constitution on the Independent National Electoral Commission with respect to political parties to which that Commission does not accord recognition.

This is the constitutional law in Nigeria as it stands.

According to the Nigerian Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2006 (pdf), the following would become illegal:

1. Same sex marriage (well, homosexual intercourse is already illegal, so the whole purpose of this legislation appears clouded, until I read the following set of prohibitions)...
2. The performance of private same-sex marriages in any place of worship, no matter the denomination.
3. The public or private establishment of gay organizations (Spokesman Popoola said that the law does not prevent private clubs -- he was factually incorrect).
4. Advocacy in print and electronic media.

All of this is subject to 5 years' imprisonment if those accused of these acts are found guilty. And let's not forget the law that sentences offenders to 14 years' imprisonment for "sodomy."

The Ethics and Morals I'll leave to you, but I would hope, at least, that most would state unequivocally that the rights of disagreeing parties to advocate their respective positions must not be abridged, especially with a prison sentence. It is that protection that allows to have this debate in the first place -- we must allow that debate to occur freely elsewhere, lest we make a mockery of our own principles.

Some conversations I've had regarding Nigeria

Some conservative Anglicans I've conversed with since I started blogging on Nigeria have felt that the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, let alone our own 1st Amendment, is irrelevant to any obligation we may have to protect the civil rights of homosexual Nigerians. (I should note that even a non-homosexual advocate of their rights, such as myself, would be put in prison for five years if he or she spoke out while visiting the country.) Some, such as the Rev. Martyn Minns (and here), couch their support of Archbishop Akinola's endorsement of the new Nigerian legislation in terms of the different civil rights "contexts" that Nigerians and Americans find themselves. When I object to that kind of moral relativism, others accuse me of hypocrisy (even though I've never had any position other than that human rights should always be protected) simply because those same conservatives have accused many in the Episcopal Church of moral relativism for supporting the ordination and consecration of non-celibate gay priests and bishops. (I should point out that this final argument regarding hypocrisy is exactly backwards -- if conservative Anglicans have historically argued against moral relativism, then they should maintain that argument in all cases.)

Enough! We are not having the right debate. The Nigerian legislation exceeds the bounds of this long-running and highly contentious struggle over orthodoxy. Now it has become a debate on the very nature of civil society, and whether that society can be made to support peace rather than strife.