Anglican silence equals African deaths
This Reuters article spells out why it is so important to defeat the proposed Nigerian legislation that we've been discussiong on this blog for more than a year now. And why it is so maddening that Rowan Williams, Martyn Minns, et. al. have been silent in order to avoid offending Peter Akinola.
Two excerpts:
"But nearly a quarter of a century into the epidemic, there is a wall of silence that surrounds AIDS and same-sex practices that may prove to be a significant obstacle to conquering the disease," according to the 124-page report by New York based- non-governmental organization.
and:
"Homophobic stigma, the denial of homosexuality, and legislation that criminalizes same-sex behavior, all serve to push the issue of same-sex HIV transmission further underground, and drastically limit HIV services," (Cary Alan) Johnson (the author of the report) said.
(Hat tip: Matthew Hunt.)
The thing that saddens me most is that +KJS has also been silent.
Why?
Posted by paigeb | March 8, 2007 6:01 PM
PaigeB, I agree. Jim, your not including KJS in the Williams, Minns et al. list looks like the same rump-covering you point out with Time and Akinola. KJS is hemmorhaging moral authority with her continued silence.
Posted by RebstockTSSF | March 9, 2007 8:25 AM
Fair enough. I would very much like to hear from her as well. I don't think she has any influence with Akinola, whereas the other two may, but your point is still valid. Thanks.
Posted by Jim Naughton | March 9, 2007 8:44 AM
posted for Richard Lyon:
KJS has made several statements about the need to make sacrifices in order to remain at the table of the Anglican Communion. One of her primary rationales for being at this table is the opportunity to advocate for global human rights.
We have here with the Nigerian legislation a very important human rights issue on which she has chosen to remain silent. I find it plausible that one reason for her silence is a reluctance to upset the delicate political balance in the primates group by open criticism of Akinola. If she doesn't have the latitude to take a stand for human rights when numerous other religious and political leaders are, what's the good of being at the table?
Posted by Jim Naughton | March 9, 2007 11:56 AM