In a written response to news of the murder of gay Ugandan activist David Kato, Scott Lively has issued a soggy volley in his defense. It's a weird and maddening attempt to set himself free from what he did in Kampala, which was to essentially pour gasoline all over an already incendiary matter and then hand the Ugandan people a lit match.
In his statement, Lively (who's lately tried to change his public image) not only lets himself off but also stands over the shoulder of the Ugandans and condemns violence.
It has since been reported by the New York Times that the local police do not believe this was a hate crime but a robbery. This has not deterred the Times, and the rest of the "mainstream" media from using this crime to advance the "gay" narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads invariably to violence and murder of homosexuals. This is propaganda, not journalism and it is a false premise. Society has the right and duty to discourage harmful conduct and lifestyles and for its citizens to to do so in a responsible fashion can never fairly be construed as incitement to hatred or violence. New York Times
The Ugandan newspaper which "outed" the Ugandan homosexual activists under a banner saying "Hang Them," clearly WAS an incitement to violence and I join the rest of the civilized world in condemning it. The Ugandan court was right in declaring it illegal
The investigation of this case is not completed, and it might yet be shown that Cato death was a hate crime. If so, the Rolling Stone newspaper may bear some responsibility for its actual incitement to violence.
For liberals to reach further however to claim that responsible criticism of homosexuality, such as my 2009 seminars in Kampala, constitutes incitement to violence is unfair and opportunistic. It is not wrong to speak against homosexuality any more than it is wrong to speak against other behavioral disorders such as alcoholism and bulemia, or other sexual sins such as adultery and polygamy. Anyone who were to take such criticism as permission to hurt another person is simply crazy and you can't silence all legitimate criticism of a social problem because some crazy person might misconstue it.
Ah, but it's Sunday. So, okay: grace is free and unmerited, and we all make mistakes. But we don't get to do what he's done here and then get to double back and be the arbiters of morality. Not without soul-searching and apologies and wrong relationships set right, if that is even possible in this case.