LJD, You stated in your latest contribution to this thread as follows:
"Bailo, Like our friend Mboge, I have not shared any "position", or, "perspective", on homosexuality. I regard his analytical response to you as a cogent clarification of my view." (LJD)
However prior to the above quote, you had summed as follows:
"Needless to say, I reject all public attempts at policing homosexuality.
Our conflicting views on this needlessly divisive issue notwithstanding......................." (LJD)
So therefore I do not agree when you stated that "I "refering to yourself "have not shared any "position", or, "perspective", on homosexuality."] Bailo.
I will yield for JDAM to respond here Evian. This English language can be tricky sometimes. The only thing I will share with you Evian is that I read JDAM as rejecting trespass against individual rights and liberties. That is not a position or perspective on homosexuality even though that word featured. You could replace homosexuality with heterosexuality and you would not see any position or perspective on heterosexuality. Its like saying I reject all public attempts to police abortion or caesarian births and I wouldn't know what your position is on abortion and c-sections. Anyway moving on.
[Whereas I had shared my opinion that homosexuality should be outlawed in The Gambia, your perspective on the
subject-matter is you "reject all public attempts at policing homosexuality."] Evian.
This was not a perspective on homosexuality Bailo. The keywords are public policing. Sharing that homosexuality should be outlawed is a position on homosexuality. Outlawing something means making it illegal. And if it is illegal, it is punishable. How confident are you of yourself to want to punish another for engaging in homosexuality?????? Did Allah tell you to sit in judgement of homosexuality? Show me where Allah told you that. And if he didn't tell you to sit in judgement of homosexuals but you feign that capacity, will you not be an abomination to Allah therefor?
[You asked:
"In the event of a Christian President of the Republic, how would you view a church on State House grounds? No prize for guessing I oppose the Professor's State House mosque on grounds it discriminates against non-Muslims and contravenes our secular Constitution." (LJD)
I think it would be a superb undertaking to build a Church on State House grounds alongside the existing Mosque to also manifest the admirable state of peaceful co-existence between Moslems and Christians in the Gambia.] Evian.
Very good Bailo. So the question becomes: Is there a Church alongside the state house mosque at this time?
[Moslems could have their turn for the 5 daily prayers and Fridays and Christians on Sundays.] Evian.
I don't understand Bailo. Christianity is practiced 7 days a week. Islam is practiced 7 days a week. I don't understand it when you say we could have a church alongside a mosque but that Muslims can worship for 6 days and Christians one day. What kinda salvation is that? And what kinda religions are those? Do you not mean Muslims can worship as they desire and Christians can worship as they desire? Because according to you, one value of having the two houses of worship alongside each other is to showcase hallmark harmonious coexistence in Gambia. So you build the two houses side by side to give that mirage and then you separate the people according to days of worship. Allahu Wakubaru. Your view on religions other than Islam just can't be suppressed Bailo even if you tried cosmetic magic. i want you to come back and ammend this suggestion because I don't think you're this callous and I know you do not intend aversion here.
[I suppose that were the Swiss predominantly Moslems, they would never have banned the building of Mosques with minarets.] Evian.
You stray again. What do the Swiss have to do with a mosque and church side-by-side at Gambia's state house grounds Bailo????? This is what I mean by living a tenuous and reactionary life. Why don't you try to find out why the Swiss zoning commission sees minarets or minarets of a certain type as undesirable in contemporary Swiss society? Please do that and if you don't find their reasons plausible we can discuss that matter. But let's discuss that separately. It has nothing to do with Gambia, muslims, and or christians. In effect what you are saying is that if you perceive muslims being aversed in another country (no matter if you are actually daydreaming) you will retaliate by aversing your fellow citizens of other faiths. Now do you see why it would be dangerous and malignant to put Bailo in charge of policing homosexuality?????
[Mosques, Churches, Synagogues and Temples could be erected whereever on earth for the proximity of worshippers. I do not however think that it would for instance make any sense to build a synagogue on State House grounds since there are hardly any Jews within the Gambia.] Bailo.
Now just listen to yourself Bailo. You said in one breath that there ought to be houses of worship for any religion (you use faith here) anywhere in the world then in another quick breath you determine it maybe senseless (you use your reasoning here to deny another their faith) to have a synagogue because there are not many Jews in Gambia. Wonder why there are not many Jews in Gambia therefore. Do you now see how partisan faithful are ill-equipped to be equal among the religions? And do you then see why it is dangerous to place idiots in charge of policing homosexuality according to their religious idiocies????? So what JDAM shares with you is that given these insiduous biases and tendencies, your Allah himself, everwise, forbids you to sit in judgement of your fellow for your Islam's sakes. No matter the character or religion of the fellow. Allah told you to leave judgements to him, omniscient and omnipotent. You do not do it. And you call yourself a muslim just to steal reason to persecute your fellows. Do you see any dishonesty in that Bailo??????????
[I don't think that our 'secular constitution' has been violated with the building of a place of worship on State House grounds.] Evian.
Bailo, building of a place of worship does not violate secular constitutions. It is the unequal patronnage of any religion over another by a common constitution that is criminal.
[I believe the State could provide resources for the building of faith institutions be they faith schools or churches or mosques.] Evian.
No one argues with you about that Evian. In fact we encourage that. However, when a government discriminates between faiths in the building of those facilities it comits treasonable felony.
[One ought to be mindful not to fall for the secular extremism strand which insists that State and religion should be poles apart.] Evian.
Bailo, it is not secular extremism that insists or even suggests state and religion ought to be separate. It is the common sense in the fact that states may not be able to accord equal treatment for the faiths and because everyone belongs to the state, it would be wise to keep an honorable distance between state functions and individual (religious) functions. There is no such thing as secular extremism. A secular state is an inert state. It is not a state in either direction as to faith. I worry about you Bailo. I think because you imagine a secular extremist out there, and because you live a tenuous and reactionary life, the natural comapss for you is to become a muslim extremist. It is you we must be mindful of. Until we are able to identify secular extremists.
[The head of State of the UK is also officially known as the "Defender of the Faith" meaning Defender of Anglicanism. Similarly, the King of Saudi Arabia is the "Custodian of the Holy Mosques" of Islam. Methinks that's perfectly normal.] Evian.
Very good. We thank you for sharing your view of the UK Prime Minister and the King of Saudi Arabia. I hope we can get back to Gambia sometime.
[Secularism is simply another version of beliefs just like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. It is the new religion!] Evian.
I happen to take this view Bailo but I share with you that secularism is not new. It is also not a religion. It is a set of beliefs based on reason not faith. That is why secularism encompasses all the citizens of a nation where any one religion may not be able to. Do you understand? I'm trying to figure out if you feel welcome in PDOIS??? Why are you in PDOIS Bailo? I think you just like to be serenaded by Halifa. However I don't think you have any clue about what Halifa discusses. It just sounds good to you right?
[Notwitstanding that homosexuality is legal elsewhere,] Evian.
This is one of your problems. You are under the impression that homosexuality is made legal somewhere and therefore because you are naturally a reactionary being, you will make it illegal in Gambia. You make me sick Bailo. Homosexuality and heterosexuality should not be legislated anywhere and that is how we'd like to keep it. Only idiots will try to legislate these two. And they will fail miserably. Did you remmember when Ahmadinejad shared with us that there were no homosexuals in Irang? I bet you believed him right??? Do you know all the members of Ahmadinejad's family????
I'm sure the reason why you want to make homosexuality illegal in Gambia is because they say it is illegal in Irang. You're killing me Evian. I actually enjoy you a lot Bailo. I mean I am baffled that you are indeed a Gambian.
[I believe that it should continue to be illegalised in the Gambia.] Evian.
Hey Allah. This pretense is actually the least of your problems Bailo. I happen to know you have other issues to come to terms with. I will continue to pray for you.
[I think that Harunasilo is for Haruna alone.] Evian.
Yes. And BailoSilo is for Bailo alone. Please don't tell me you're muslim. You wouldn't recognize a muslim if he/she is but naked in front of you. Forget the Hijab. Hijabs, khaftans, chayas, and warambas do not a muslim make Bailo. They're all squirrels trying to get a nut.
Haruna.
From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, 5 March, 2010, 12:24
Bailo
Like our friend Mboge, I have not shared any "position", or, "perspective", on homosexuality. I regard his analytical response to you as a cogent clarification of my view.
And ATT Jr has synthesised my argument admirably.
To recap, what I said was limited to the contention that:
1) homosexuality exists in societies the world over, and that it is not "decadence" exclusive to "Western" communities.
2) under equal protection doctrine, and law, it is indefensible, religious "moral" imperatives notwithstanding, to use public power as an instrument of oppression against a particular section of any polity.
I should add that as a multi-ethnic, and multi-religious society, the "cultural" argument against homosexuality is quite weak for the simple reason there is no single Gambian "culture".
In the event of a Christian President of the Republic, how would you view a church on State House grounds? No prize for guessing I oppose the Professor's State House mosque on grounds it discriminates against non-Muslims and contravenes our secular Constitution.
I reassure you there is absolutely no danger of my conversion to Harunasilo, but I admit to having broader fears rooted in the counsel of Martin Niemoeller, a pastor of the German Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Nazi era:
"In Germany , the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak
up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me … and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone". .
Gambian security chiefs would attest to the contention that intolerance and oppression in public space has no friends, only sequential victims.
Homosexuality should not excite your thoughts in the context of our public life.
LJDarbo
From: bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thursday, 4 March, 2010, 7:33
LJD,
Thanks for succintly sharing your position on this contentious issue. While respecting your perspective on homosexuality, I beg to permanently differ with you on it.
Highest regards
Bailo
--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 3 March, 2010, 18:04
|
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will
inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
|
Bailo
Thank you for your thoughts.
Your "religious and cultural convictions as a Moslem" are not in doubt, and I applaud your faith in the context of the Islamic religion.
As to "shunning" the "abomination" that, in your view, is homosexuality, I concede you share that perspective with "millions of peoples (Jews, Christians, Bahaians, Hindus, Rastafarians, Atheists, etc) from all over the world".
Referring to your original reaction therefore, there appears to be some contextual difficult in your explicit equation of homosexuality with "Western ... moral decadence ...". Here again, I concede the widely held, if erroneous view, that homosexuality is a "Western" phenomenon. Your difficulty is that for practical purposes, Africa is not the natural home of "Jews, Bahaians, or Hindus". In that regard, is it not more plausible to view homosexuality as of universal prevalence, as a human issue? Islamic teaching on the subject appears to support the contention that as a failing, homosexuality is a universal failing.
For example, the universalism argument appears to be supported by the fundamental precept that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last of God’s prophets, and Islam, the perfection of religions. A careful analysis of this central doctrinal tenet suggests that notwithstanding its geographic delimitations at birth, the Islamic message is for people the world over. The logic of this position is that pronouncements on homosexuality, like the Quranic message in its totality, addresses people in all corners of the world. Again, a demonstration that as a failing, homosexuality is a universal human failing in so far as it inheres - even if among a tiny number - in societies the world over.
On homosexuality, the views of Christianity, and Judaism, are no different to those of Islam, giving us a complete picture of the Abrahamic progeny of religions on this divisive issue. I take no issue with the views per se, but if their practical effect is to discriminate against equal stakeholders in Gambian public space, I reject any assault on homosexuality, and, on homosexuals.
The foregoing is merely illustrative of the universal prevalence of homosexuality, and not a state of affairs that exemplifies "Western ... moral decadence ...".
For me, the thrust of any dispute regarding homosexuality lies in the indefensibility of a differential application of a state’s police power to similarly situated citizens. If YJ is permitted to stroll our beautiful beaches with his female significant other, I see no cogent reason why ATT Jr., and yourself, should be prohibited from holding hands, and kissing, in broad daylight, if you so chose, along Kairaba Avenue.
As preliminaries, I remind you that notwithstanding the population's overwhelming adherence to the Islamic faith, The Gambia remains a secular state. In consequence of that basic reality, no citizen must suffer for reasons rooted in religious outrage.
Additionally, the Constitution, at section 33, guarantees equal protection under the law.
Overall, my query is limited to whether fallible humans, in public life, should sit in moral judgement on matters that are ultimately between a person and God, especially when other vices, clearly more common (see opening quotation), and yet accepted as lifestyle choices, attract similar views from our triology of Abrahamic religions. Would you terminate, or alter, the dynamics of a significant relationship upon discovering a friend, or family member, to be homosexual, if you all along accepted his propensity for adultery and fornication?
Please refer to material below on what "The Epistle To The Hebrews" has to say on the punishment for fornicators, adulterers, and yes, homosexuals, and decide whether we are justified in utilising public power to ostracise people for what they do, behind closed doors, and against God.
Needless to say, I reject all public attempts at policing homosexuality.
Our conflicting views on this needlessly divisive issue notwithstanding, I see nothing to diminish my respect and admiration for your courage on key questions of our public life.
LJDarbo
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS"
Fornicators And Adulterers God Will Judge (13:4)
INTRODUCTION
1. In today's society, the honor and sanctity of marriage is under
constant attack...
a. Divorce is acceptable, made easy through "no-fault" laws
b. Adultery is considered normal, faithfulness to one's spouse as
unrealistic
c. Among religious and political leaders, many say that standards
against sexual immorality are antiquated
2. Even in the church, sexual immorality is a major problem evidenced
by...
a. The high number of divorces among Christians
b. The frequent reports sexual failings among preachers, elders, and
other Christians
3. This is not to say there are not those who still hold marriage in
high esteem...
a. Many people still believe sex is for marriage, and marriage is
for life
b. I've been blessed to have:
1) The example of my wife's grandparents, married 77 years
2) The example of my grandmother, widowed with six children when
only 30 years old, remaining single for over fifty years
3) Parents and in-laws who both were married over 50 years each
4) Three brothers, who along with myself are still married to our
first wives
4. In truth, our culture today is not that much different from the
society of the first century...
a. Where divorce and remarriage was rampant (women were known to
date events by their husbands; e.g., "Yes, that happened during
husband #5.")
b. Fornication was acceptable, adultery barely frowned upon
5. But Christianity offers a true contrast of standards regarding
morality...
a. Through clear and unequivocal teaching - 1 Co 6:9-10; Ga 5:19-21;
Ep 5:3-5
b. The same sort of teaching is needed today, which is why we need
to carefully heed the text of today's lesson:
"Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but
fornicators and adulterers God will judge." (He 13:4)
6. The verb "is" is not in the Greek, leading some to translate the
first phrase as:
a. "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage
bed be undefiled;" (NASV)
b. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept
pure" (NIV),
[Why should we honor marriage, and keep the "marriage bed" (a euphemism
for marital relations) pure? Because God will judge those who violate
it!
To see how, let's first define the terms used in the last half of this
verse...]
I. DEFINITION OF TERMS
A. "FORNICATORS"...
1. The Greek word is pornos {por'-nos}, from which we get
"pornography"
2. It is a general word for unlawful and immoral sexual
relationships (Barclay)
3. It includes any kind sex outside of marriage: pre-marital,
extra-marital (adultery), homosexual, etc.
B. "ADULTERERS"...
1. The Greek word is moichos {moy-khos'}
2. It means to have unlawful intercourse with another's wife or
husband (Thayer)
a. This may be while they are still married...
b. Or even AFTER they are divorced if not for the right reason
- cf. Mt 5:32; 19:9
3 So a person can be guilty of adultery either:
a. By having relations with another's spouse
b. By marrying someone who either:
1) Did not put their first spouse away for fornication
2) Or was put away by their spouse for ANY reason
C. "GOD"...
1. The Supreme Being, eternal and holy - Re 4:8
2. Omniscient and Omnipresent - Ps 139:1-12
3. Loving, yet just - cf. Jn 3:16; He 10:30-31; 12:29
D. "WILL JUDGE"...
1. The Greek word is krino {kree'-no}
2. "the act of condemning and decreeing (or inflicting) penalty
on one" (Thayer)
[Marriage should be held in honor, because the Bible makes it clear
that God will condemn and somehow inflict penalty on those who are
fornicators and adulterers who do not repent!
But why will God judge fornicators and adulterers?]
II. WHY GOD WILL JUDGE FORNICATORS AND ADULTERERS
A. BECAUSE THEY DESTROY THE LIVES OF OTHERS...
1. They destroy marriages
a. Either their own, by their infidelity (trust is often
destroyed)
b. Or others, by committing adultery with another's spouse
c. Sexual immorality is a major cause of divorce, which God
hates - Mal 2:16
2. They destroy families
a. Where divorce occurs, families are shattered
b. The children usually suffer the most, often with severe
emotional problems throughout their lives
c. Jesus warned about despising the needs of children - Mt 18:
5-7,10-11,14
3. They destroy friendships
a. Read carefully Pro 6:30-35
b. It is difficult, if not impossible, to restore good
friendships after one has violated another's spouse
B. BECAUSE THEY DESTROY THEIR OWN LIVES...
1. Read carefully Pro 5:1-14
a. You lose your honor (your reputation is destroyed)
b. You lose your wealth (ever hear of alimony?)
c. You lose your health (via STDs, perhaps even AIDS)
2. Adultery and fornication is indeed a sin against your own body
- cf. 1 Co 6:18
a. There is emotional damage (wracking guilt)
b. There is social damage (ostracized by others)
c. There is physical damage (venereal disease)
C. BECAUSE THOSE WHO ARE CHRISTIANS ARE ESPECIALLY GUILTY...
1. They have taken members of the body of Christ and made them
members of a harlot - 1 Co 6:15-16
2. They have taken their body, a temple of the Holy Spirit, and
given it to a child of the devil - 1 Co 6:19-20
3. As Christians, who have been...
a. Made in the image of God
b. Redeemed by the blood of Jesus
c. Made a temple of the Holy Spirit
...they have allowed their lusts to bring them as low as
animals!
[When God's HIGHEST CREATION, because of purely selfish reasons,
destroys marriages, families, friendship, even their own selves, we can
understand why God WILL JUDGE such, and why Paul wrote what he did to
the Corinthians:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will
inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
But HOW will God judge fornicators and adulterers?]
III. HOW GOD WILL JUDGE FORNICATORS AND ADULTERERS
A. HE WILL JUDGE IN THE FUTURE...
1. They will not inherit the kingdom of God - 1 Co 6:9-10; Ep 5:
5-7
2. They will suffer eternal torment - Re 21:8
B. BUT HE ALSO JUDGES IN THE PRESENT...
1. They become God's enemies - cf. Ja 4:4
a. While this passage likely speaks of spiritual adultery, it
would apply to literal adultery as well
b. Adulterers are estranged of God's fellowship, care and love
c. True peace and joy cannot be theirs
2. They receive in their own bodies what they rightfully deserve
- cf. Ro 1:24-27
a. Those who engage in such immorality do indeed "receive in
themselves the penalty of their error" (e.g., syphilis,
gonorrhea, herpes, AIDS)
b. But such is only a FORETASTE of the torment fornicators and
adulterers will receive, if they do not repent!
CONCLUSION
1. There are many good reasons to honor marriage and keep the "marriage
bed" undefiled...
a. The bond between a man and a woman whose relationship is built
upon trust and love
b. The joy, peace, and love that children in a strong family enjoy,
and deserve
c. The value of strong families in shaping our communities in which
we live
2. But we have focused on God's judgment on those who destroy this
important fabric of our society, and how it gives new meaning to the
phrase "be sure your sin will find you out" (Num 32:23)
a. It is almost impossible to keep immorality secret
1) Physical infirmities will more than likely bring it to the
surface eventually
2) Or loose lips will!
b. Even if one succeeds in hiding their immorality in this life, not
so in the life to come!
3. To close on a more positive note, let's offer some hope for those
who have been guilty of adultery and fornication...
a. You may not be able to escape the physical consequences of your
actions
b. But you can be forgiven, and escape the eternal consequences!
As we consider once again what Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, a
city known for it loose morals...
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will
inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
We now notice the next verse...
"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were
sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Co 6:11)
The gospel of Christ promises wonderful blessings to all sinners who
will come to Jesus in faith and obedience!
Have you been "washed", "sanctified", and "justified" in the name of
the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God? (Ac 2:38; 22:16; Ti 3:5)
|
From: bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, 2 March, 2010, 16:22
|
LJD,
Your usual gentlemanly approach of discussing issues of interest to you is inspiring.
Before answering the question that you posed me, I would like to state that my position on homosexuality is foremost guided by my religious and cultural convictions as a Moslem. As such, I believe that homosexuality is an abomination to be shunned and not to be encouraged. However, I also believe that the type of sexual activities that consenting adults engage in within the confines of their bedrooms or private domains should not fall within the purview of any person or authority. What ought to concern someone else is what is practiced or displayed in the public arena.
I am please to have similar sentiments on this issue with hundreds of millions of peoples (Jews, Christians, Bahaians, Hindus, Rastafarians, Atheists, etc) from all over the world.
Now regarding your question, I would firmly discourage any local or external attempt towards influencing Gambian laws to have homosexuality or same-sex marriage recognised as perfectly legal. I do not however think that anyone found guilty of such a vice should be ‘beheaded’. Re-orientation in a correctional facility might be the best solution.
In conclusion, I do not support the legalisation of same sex marriages or homosexuality from a moral, cultural and natural perspective.
Cheers
From: Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, 1 March, 2010, 1:44
|
Bailo
Assuming your position is accepted, what manner of conversation would you recommend between The Republic of The Gambia, and its homosexual community?
I am proceeding on the basis that like in the Malian example, some members of homosexual Gambia may insist on living with their significant others in a marriage, or in relationships akin to a marriage.
Is your concern, and, or rejection of homosexuality restricted to moral condemnation, or do you consider it proper for the law to punitively intervene?
LJDarbo
Bailo
Thank you for your thoughts.
Your "religious and cultural convictions as a Moslem" are not in doubt, and I applaud your faith in the context of the Islamic religion.
As to "shunning" the "abomination" that, in your view, is homosexuality, I concede you share that perspective with "millions of peoples (Jews, Christians, Bahaians, Hindus, Rastafarians, Atheists, etc) from all over the world".
Referring to your original reaction therefore, there appears to be some contextual difficult in your explicit equation of homosexuality with "Western ... moral decadence ...". Here again, I concede the widely held, if erroneous view, that homosexuality is a "Western" phenomenon. Your difficulty is that for practical purposes, Africa is not the natural home of "Jews, Bahaians, or Hindus". In that regard, is it not more plausible to view homosexuality as of universal prevalence, as a human issue? Islamic teaching on the subject appears to support the contention that as a failing, homosexuality is a universal failing.
For example, the universalism argument appears to be supported by the fundamental precept that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last of God’s prophets, and Islam, the perfection of religions. A careful analysis of this central doctrinal tenet suggests that notwithstanding its geographic delimitations at birth, the Islamic message is for people the world over. The logic of this position is that pronouncements on homosexuality, like the Quranic message in its totality, addresses people in all corners of the world. Again, a demonstration that as a failing, homosexuality is a universal human failing in so far as it inheres - even if among a tiny number - in societies the world over.
On homosexuality, the views of Christianity, and Judaism, are no different to those of Islam, giving us a complete picture of the Abrahamic progeny of religions on this divisive issue. I take no issue with the views per se, but if their practical effect is to discriminate against equal stakeholders in Gambian public space, I reject any assault on homosexuality, and, on homosexuals.
The foregoing is merely illustrative of the universal prevalence of homosexuality, and not a state of affairs that exemplifies "Western ... moral decadence ...".
For me, the thrust of any dispute regarding homosexuality lies in the indefensibility of a differential application of a state’s police power to similarly situated citizens. If YJ is permitted to stroll our beautiful beaches with his female significant other, I see no cogent reason why ATT Jr., and yourself, should be prohibited from holding hands, and kissing, in broad daylight, if you so chose, along Kairaba Avenue.
As preliminaries, I remind you that notwithstanding the population's overwhelming adherence to the Islamic faith, The Gambia remains a secular state. In consequence of that basic reality, no citizen must suffer for reasons rooted in religious outrage.
Additionally, the Constitution, at section 33, guarantees equal protection under the law.
Overall, my query is limited to whether fallible humans, in public life, should sit in moral judgement on matters that are ultimately between a person and God, especially when other vices, clearly more common (see opening quotation), and yet accepted as lifestyle choices, attract similar views from our triology of Abrahamic religions. Would you terminate, or alter, the dynamics of a significant relationship upon discovering a friend, or family member, to be homosexual, if you all along accepted his propensity for adultery and fornication?
Please refer to material below on what "The Epistle To The Hebrews" has to say on the punishment for fornicators, adulterers, and yes, homosexuals, and decide whether we are justified in utilising public power to ostracise people for what they do, behind closed doors, and against God.
Needless to say, I reject all public attempts at policing homosexuality.
Our conflicting views on this needlessly divisive issue notwithstanding, I see nothing to diminish my respect and admiration for your courage on key questions of our public life.
LJDarbo
--- On Sun, 28/2/10, bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, 28 February, 2010, 16:53
|
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
|
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
|
|
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
|
|