|
Bailo,
Evian, how are you? There are some people who live a positive life. There
are others who live a tenuous and reactionary life. You seem to prefer the
latter. (Haruna)
You
are entitled to your opinion about me. I have nay bother about what you think of
me !] BAILO
Bailo, the reason I suggested you prefer a tenuous and
reactionary life was because while we discuss your position that
homosexuality ought to be outlawed because your religion deems it an
abomination, you blame it on the west and the "Swiss ban on minarets.
That was disquieting to me and I could not believe that you stray ever so
callously in extraneous realms. Consider this: If the Swiss ban minarets
in Switzerland, any possible aversion is as to Swiss muslims or Swiss
citizens who erect minarets. That should not inure Bailo's wrath on his
fellow Gambians of any religion or life persuasion.
|
[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. (Haruna)
It
is call different interpretations. BAILO
Bailo, I agree with you
that I was sharing my interpretation of JDAM's notes. I am pleased
that JDAM has since certified my interpretation as accurate.
JDAM was the purveyor of the notes. It would now appear that among
our two interpretations, yours was in error. I want you to
acknowledge that and grow with the accurate interpretation. We must
never be too proud to admit error. I do it all the time and I am the
richer for it. We are generally not free to assign other meaning to
our fellow's notes. There is enough misunderstanding in the world
not to add to our chagrins unnecessarily by gratuitous
interpretation. My aim was to afford you an opportunity to yield
broader perspective on the fact that if you are capable of
misinterpreting your own brother's (JDAM's) intent and speech,
surely we will be anxious about yielding you global powers to
sit in judgement of all homosexuals in Gambia. Your fellow
citizens.
[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."]
BAILO.
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?
(Haruna)
I
discern that you are very determined to interprete for me LJD’s
perspectives.] BAILO.
I was not interpreting anything for you Bailo.
Just as you shared what you read in JDAM's notes, I also shared what
I read from the same notes. I generally do not get excited
about drinking water for folk.
[No
thanks,] BAILO.
Very well.
[I
am very much capable of interpreting them for myself.]
BAILO.
I understand. But you may err in interpreting other's
perspective. In this case you did.
[Who
are you anyway?] BAILO.
Haruna. Your friend and brother.
[The
Chief Interpreter of the English Language on the G-L?]
BAILO.
NO. I could barely speak English. DaarManso forbid I
try to interprete English for anyone. I'll totally screw you up
Bailo if you let me interprete any language for you. Again, I was
only sharing what I read from JDAM's notes.
[Not
for me!] BAILO.
I don't blame you Bailo. I wouldn't trust me to
interprete English for me.
[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.
(BAILO).
Very
good Bailo. So the question becomes: Is there a Church alongside the
state house mosque at this time?
(Haruna)
If
need be, a church could be built. Communal places of worship are
good for the spritual health of the people.] BAILO.
IF NEED BE? What was the needs assessment involved
when the mosque was built on state house grounds? That same needs
assessment, if any, is what determined a church should have been
built at the same time or NO MOSQUE. In this note by JDAM, the
underlying idea he shared was not (whether each person can build
their house of worship on state house grounds when they become
president. Rather he shared that regardless of the "religion" of any
of Gambia's President, when they decide to build a house of worship
on STATE HOUSE GROUNDS (the people's house grounds), they must build
it for all the constitutive religions of GAMBIA. In other words, the
president him/herself was not significant in the question JDAM
posed. So there should be no need for a Christian to be
President of Gambia for Gambia's christians to practice their
faith. What if Gambia does not get a Christian President, an
Ahmadiyya President, a Jewish President, a Bahai President, or a
HarunaSilo President for a 100 years? You are already aware that
democracy in Gambia is likely to yield a muslim President for some
time to come. Therefore why would you want to wait until you have a
President of another faith before your fellow citizens of that faith
can have equal treatment under Gambia's laws? Bailo I know you will not be pleased with me but what
I realized is that you actually do not intend to appear
discriminatory. I think it is the nuances of language and I wish
JDAM would be more direct from now on. I only wanted to afford you
the opportunity to NOT be mistaken for an extremist through no fault
of your own Bailo. Scout's honor. I have no ulterior motive in
discernments.
[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. (Haruna)
[Pettiness,
I learnt long time ago, is for the petty-minded. Grow up and
at least be honest to yourself.] BAILO.
WELL I'm sorry Bailo that you determine I was being
petty here. I actually viewed it as very significant and if you read
the last statement, you will realize I was affording you yet another
opportunity to NOT BE MISUNDERSTOOD as extremist due only to your
misunderstandings. I knew that your impression of the Christian
faith is only sunday mass. I knew you did not intend to discriminate
among the religions by only assigning one day to christians and 6
days to muslims. That is why I shared that I would like you to come
back and ammend your statement. Just imagine you are a Christian
Gambian and you're listening to Bailo here. Do you not think you
will come away disappointed in him at the very least??? Tolerance
requires that when we discuss faith, we consider possible offenses
we might inure other those other than ours. I think it was Coach who
shared that Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of
justice or something like that. Do you think a Christian will be
comfortable with Bailo being in any significant official capacity in
Gambia particularly President. And beyond that, you already know we
have a clueless idiot for President. Allah forbid he is within
earshot of your suggestions here. You know it will become law the
next day and will appear as Breaking news on Freedom. Will you be
comfortable with that Bailo?
[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?(Haruna)
I
suggest you do some research on the dynamic evolutionary nature of
conversations. The human mind is not static. BAILO.
I don't understand this one Bailo. I'm sorry. My mind
is static in the cranium. It's always working but it vibrates in
place. It is anchored to my spine. What're you friggin talkin'
about???? I don't need to do no research on Switzerland and her
laws. Switzerland does not interest me that much. Besides I have
enormous confidence in a people who consider lawyers for
termites. What???? Bailo you're too
funny.
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????? HARUNA
You
tend to forget that we all share a global village. The Swiss,
Americans, Africans, Arabians, Mongolians and the rest are all
residents. Please forget about the New World, Old World, First World
or Third World for a moment. Focus on our global village! Good.
BAILO.
You lost me again Bailo. A global village presumes
global neighbours. So how about your next-door neighbour who happens
to be homosexual??? I don't know what you're trying to say Bailo.
I'm dead serious. Perhaps you're trying to play with my mind again
as you like to do sometimes.
[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??????????
Deliberate
distortion of my statements! BAILO.
Well wait a minute. Your notes are right here. Above
mine. How were your notes distorted again???? Please help us grow
with you Bailo. I know I'm slow, but I could swear I did not
misrepresent what you said. Please lemme know.
[Anyway,
I nearly forgot that you are entitled to reach your own conclusions
on my perspectives.] BAILO.
YES. I am entitled to yield my own understanding of
your writings. I am not however entitled to to reach my own
conclusions on your perspectives. At least not while you're still
alive and here with me. This is because you can actually correct my
conclusion on your perspective should I be in error of conclusions.
And your conclusion on your perspective will stand. And I will
acknowledge I misunderstood your perspective.
[Halah
noh satih ! Talk no easy.] Bailo.
You can say that again. Bailo you don't even know how
glad I am that you translated the hal pulaar for me. Without your
generousity, I'd be pulling my hair out trying to find an
interpreter. And they don't come easy this time of day. So I thank
you my brother.
[I
will therefore attempt to interpret for you what I meant by]
BAILO.
OK Hold on Hold on Hold on. You just got through
telling me I should not interprete for you. But you want to
interprete for me. Bailo you make it very difficult for me to trust
you. WHy can you interprete for me and I can't interprete for you?
You're writing English aren't you? Halah noh Satih you
know? You still want to take the liberty to translate for me.
Alright. Let's hear it.
[‘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.
First
there needs to be the relevant community of worshippers before the
construction of a Mosque or Church or Synagogue or Temple.]
BAILO.
OK. And who determines the scope and scale of RELEVANT
Bailo?????? Is it you, the President, or the ummah of the faiths???
Is one family a RELEVANT ENOUGH COMMUNITY? Is zero persons an
IRRELEVANT COMMUNITY? Be careful before you answer this cos I know
you think you're not crazy.
[Resources
are scarce, you know. The reason that there is no synagogue in the
Gambia is because a sizable community of Jews are not present in the
Gambia.] BAILO.
I'm not arguing with you Bailo on the scarcity of
resources. You know they're scarce everywhere don't you? More reason
the state ought not be relied on for equity among religions.
Right? What is a sizeable community when it comes to faiths
Bailo? And who qualifies any religion as sizeable??? I guess you'll
ask the imams and HarunaMos what is a sizeable enough Jewish
community to warrant state construction of synagogues on state house
grounds. I see you're subtly abandoning "state house grounds"
because you are not mentioning that phrase here and that is the meat
of your quandry.
[If
Jews resettle in numbers in the Gambia, they may choose to build a
synagogue. Until then, Mosques and churches would continue to be
constructed throughout the Gambia because Gambia’s Moslems and
Christians choose to do so.]
BAILO.
I know you're cute Bailo but you ain't that cute. Just
hold your friggin horses. You have said a mouthful. And I see you
running away from "state house grounds again" without properly
remedying that extremity. Here, you use the word Resettle. Well you
have just friggin compounded your problems. What about Gambians who
wish to explore Judaism??? WHy do you need Jews to resettle in
Gambia to build a synagogue?????? On state house grounds? Islam
didn't start in Gambia and you have Gambians who call themselves
Muslims. And let's say there is absolutely no Jew in Gambia and NO
Gambian is interested in Judaism, how many Jews will have to
resettle in Gambia for there to be a synagogue on state house
grounds??? That is assuming you already have a mosque, a church, a
Seventh day Adventist and HarunaSilo halls, and a Buddhist temple
already on state house grounds. Bailo I suggest you not open another
can of worms. Can we stay with just a mosque and a church on State
House Grounds please??? I'm afraid you're getting in way over your
head at this time.
[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.
(Haruna)
Go
and Read George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Some animals are more equal than
others. BAILO.
Ok I'm confused again Bailo. What do animals have to
do with your fellow citizens and your desire to discriminate against
others of a different faith? I suppose you have somewhere
acknowledged your position on homosexuality is untenable, extreme,
and unacceptable as to Gambia. How we lost that item is confounding
to me but I just want to make sure you don't change subjects on us
and stray into farther oblivion without coming to terms with your
problems.
[Please
no distortion again. Anyway , It is up to
you.
I
still maintain that building of a mosque on State House grounds is
defensible. There are a lot of Moslems making good use of the
facility. The next government could build a Church to cater for our
compatriot Christian worshippers. What is wrong with some
of you?] BAILO.
No what is wrong with you Bailo. Don't tell us som'n's
wrong with us. What is wrong with yew??? Why do we have to wait for
the next President to build a church on state house grounds, having
already built a mosque there?????? That is our friggin problem. And
why do you keep thinking that that decision is the purview of
Presidents???? I don't understand you Bailo. Would you trust an
idiot with your faith???? Whathahell kinda Muslim are you
anyway????
[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. (Haruna)
I
think that you are one such Secular Extremist. BAILO.
Go wash your mouth with soap. I don't even know what a
secular extremist is.
[And
a confused one for that matter] BAILO.
OK I grant you confused cos you confound the hell
outta me all the time. But I'm no friggin secular extremist. I
consider this a tautology. How can you be secular and be extremist
at the same time Bailo? You're crazy men.
[Do
you deny it ? Equality? George Washington took the Oath of
Office with a Bible. I guess there were no Jews and Moslems in the
USA of 1776. Ok fast forward to 2009, Barrack Obama swore the Oath
of Office with a Bible and there are Jews, Christians, Athiests,
Hindis, Buddhists, Confucianists and other religions in the USA.
Have the latter been discrimninated against by the US Government?]
BAILO.
Hangh!!!
Bailo What is you talkin about???? Washington and Obama can take
their oaths on toilet paper for all I care. It is their oaths?
WHAT'S IT TO YOU???? And what does that have to do with yours
truly being a secular extremist. I wasn't even present when they
were taking their oaths. I watched Barack do it on TV. And I think
it is up to Barack what his faith is as it was up to Washington what
his faith is. Bailo what're you smoking at this
time???
[No !
Why ? Because everyone knows that Obama is a professed
Christian and would therefore have to use the book of scriptures
that he believes in i.e Bible. Similarly, a future US Moslem
President would be allowed to take the Oath of Office using the
Qur’an as a future Christian Head of State in the Gambia could take
his/her Oath of Office using the Bible. So what is the fuss about a
Mosque at State House.] BAILO.
Woh woh woh! Bailo, are you ok?????? Ok let me try it
this way: An oath is to the person. It addresses an individual
right. Building a house of worship on state house grounds is an
equal treatment under law issue. There is really no fuss about a
mosque on state house grounds. What fuss there is is the
criminality of discriminating against citizens of other faiths.
Bailo, I actually have a solution to Yahya's idiocy. I encourage you
to see the schematics of the Savannah Academy complex at www.thegdp.wordpress.com
click on Savanna Academy and scroll to the
bottom to view the schematics. I can't believe you are comparing a
President taking an oath of office with a mosque only on state house
grounds. This is why I say you make me sick.
[Don’t
you believe that Moslems working at State House are entitled to
‘strive and work and pray’. Why can’t they pray in a Mosque
on State House grounds ? You think because there is no church
for Christians alongside the Mosque ? Maa Lakum ? Kayfa
Tahkumun ? What are you anyway? A Moslem or a Munafiqoon.
Allah knows best.
I am neither a Muslim nor a Munaafiq (Munafiqoon is
plural). I am a HarunaMo. And DaarManso knows best. No one is
talking about Muslings and their entitlements. We couldn't care less
about that. We are talking about discriminating against citizens of
other faiths. Get that through your friggin skull. I don't know why
you wanna change the subject all of a sudden. You make me
sick.
[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. (Haruna)
[The
Queeen of England, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of
State of the UK; The Prime Minister of of the UK is the head
of Government. Still, we are all global villagers.]
BAILO.
SO what do you want me
to do? Flip Sommersaults for the global villagers? What're you
talking about Bailo. You and the queen and the Prime minister can
all go to hell. What's that got to do with
anything?
[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?
(Haruna)
You
might be having numerous self-inflicted nightmares
about PDOIS. Relax and calm down, PDOIS shares more in common with
your Party than they differ. Except the patronage
politics of course. That one you share with the APRC. Did you know
that Halifa is from the Arabic word, Khaliph meaning trust. I trust
Halifa. He would rather die than let Gambians down. And you ?
You would rather die than have someone else use the GDP acronym for
their Project. How dare Celestine ! Do you know that Soccer
(Football) is another religion. Ask the Brazillians.
BAILO.
Don't try to be cute with me. Stay on
the subject of homosexuals and discriminating among the faiths.
Unless you now acknowledge your global village errors.
Remmember if you try to sweep this under the carpet without dealing
with it, I'll cut you into pieces with a pick-axe if you come to me
talkin about banning friggin gays and lesbians again. I'll let
Halifa deal with you in PDOIS. You're not gonna be there long anyway
with these extremist views.
[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.
The
Lesbian union in Mali made you sad. And now I
made you sick. Please don’t vomit here. Go into your toilet out of
sight of the kids as well. I had no intention of
making you sick but If your sickness persists, consult your GP or a
faith Healer.
[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. (Haruna)
Ameen !
[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. |
I am a Moslem, Masha ‘Allah and am thankful of
Allah for being one. I am also a sinner and
repenter. Alhamdulillah! I pray : Rabbanah
Innana ammana faghfirrlanah Zunnbannah Wa Qinnah Azzabannari.
Ameen. BAILO.
SO REPENT YOU MUSLING
SINNER Gaddammit!!
Haruna. Bailo you can be so
funny men. I think I just wasted 28 minutes of my time with you here. Tell
me it ain't so.
--- On Sun, 7/3/10, Haruna Darbo
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From:
Haruna 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: Sunday, 7 March,
2010, 18:03
Bailo,
Evian, how are you? There are some people who live a positive life.
There are others who live a tenuous and reactionary life. You seem to
prefer the latter.
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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou, Mali. I
say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in Mangambougou,
Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
From:
Lamin Darbo <[log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in
Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in
Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in
Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
From:
bailo jallow <[log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: The first recorded Lesbian marriage in
Mangambougou, Mali. I say happy gammy!
To: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[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
| | ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
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 Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] href="mip:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
|