Scott Lively and Bryan Fischer Laud Uganda as Christian Nation; Support Anti-Homosexuality Bill

World Net Daily and Scott Lively sang the praise of Uganda’s President Yowari Museveni in an article published November 24. Museveni recently prayed at two events and seemed to repent for Uganda’s sins. His prayer was a recitation of problems with no mention of specific actions on Museveni’s part. However, WND and Scott Lively, who is quoted in the article, believe Museveni’s prayer should be a model for other nations.

This article relates to meetings that occurred in Uganda back in October. The current relevance relates to the fact that Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill is back in the news. The Parliament may consider the bill this week. On that point, Scott Lively opposes the death penalty but lauds Uganda’s efforts to pass the anti-gay bill.

Sunday, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association tweeted his approval of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and signaled the appearance of Lively on his show on Monday.

I think Lively and Fischer are completely wrong. They defend the indefensible. Uganda watchers recognize Museveni’s prayer as a move to pander to the conservative Christians of that nation.

This is not the first African leader to declare his country a Christian nation. For instance, Zambia’s late president Frederick Chiluba declared Zambia to be a Christian nation early in his rule. His rhetoric was much like Museveni’s but the rest of the story is that Chiluba was tried for corruption in a trial that cost Zambia millions of dollars.

Furthermore, there is a mistaken belief at work here. Lively and Fischer believe that national repentance is possible. They take the verses in the Old Testament directed toward Israel as having application to any nation today. This flaw is responsible for much mischief. In the Bible, God was active in making a covenant with Israel. However, whether it be Uganda or the USA, God has not made a covenant. It doesn’t work the same way for a political leader to declare such a covenant.

When a political leader acknowledges God, there is no guarantee of prosperity or success. For instance, the Confederate Constitution gave recognition to “Almighty God” in a way that the United States constitution does not do. That document begins:

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.

The Confederacy invoked “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” but this invocation did nothing for them.

Museveni has invoked God’s blessing before and yet Uganda remains a very poor nation with multiple problems. Lively says Uganda will prosper for their stance on gays. However, Uganda has been a difficult place for gays to live for many years without some obvious divine blessing.

"Jesus says to every human being “ follow Me and you will abide in My ..."

Billy Graham: The Transparent Evangelist
""Why do I have to..." You don't have to do any of that, unless you ..."

Billy Graham: The Transparent Evangelist
"Is that what is happening in China and South Korea?"

Billy Graham: The Transparent Evangelist
"Their main religious surveys covers everyone, regardless of faith or non-faith. They do break down ..."

Billy Graham: The Transparent Evangelist

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Patrocles

    Dr. Throckmorton’s ideas about Israel supremacy (God made a covenant exclusively with Israel) is not evident. The prophet Amos e.g.didn’t believe that, and Amos is an important source of inspiration for liberal Protestants nowadays.

  • Richard Willmer

    Looks like Fischer and Lively are ‘crowing’. Good to see their ‘true colours’ on full display. (Fischer’s assessment of the UG situation is, of course, ‘factually challenged’ – no surprises there!)

    Helpful perhaps also to see on display these two specimens of ‘interefering mzungu’ – who couldn’t really give a dime about Uganda’s welfare, only their own gay-bashing agendas.

    But is the ‘crowing’ premature? The Bill has not yet been passed by the UG Parliament, and would be not become law until the presidential signature were to be applied. Much could happen, especially give the ‘political twist’ of the perceived ‘presidential bid’ by Kadaga …

    It also look like those MPs may be waking up to some ‘realities’ about HIV:

    (No surprises perhaps that increased homophobia and pseudo-religion are helping to drive higher infection rates – and, remember, that 2011 % rate relates to a population significantly larger than in 2004. Maybe God is ‘having a snooze’? Maybe Fischer are and Lively are ‘backing the wrong god’. Either way, this is really tough on ordinary Ugandans. 🙁 )

  • Jim Guinnessey

    These two haters, Lively (Deadly) and Fischer, should be put in a windowless, lightless dungeon next to one another where they can try to outshout and oudo each other with their venomous verbiage. They call themselves Christians? They are anti-Christs.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Hatred in the name of religion is still hatred. Do you honestly think this makes God happy?

  • SGM: Do you really think these men care about what makes God happy?

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Jarred : A very valid question. (Of course, I try to ask myself that kind of question regularly; Lively’s and Fischer’s problem is that they may have ‘stopped asking’ becaus they think they ‘know it all’. Very dangerous.)

    @ Jim : That might be very interesting. Are we allowed to have a hidden camera in there?! (The thing that always strikes me about Lively is his aggression; and it appears to me rather like the ‘aggression’ he ascribes to his ‘stereotypical macho gay’.) On second thoughts: no hidden camera … we do want a ‘family-friendly’ show here!!!

  • Michael Bussee

    Politicians pandering to conservative Christians? Thank God no one does that here in the USA…

  • Now this is a interesting twist of ¨who can bleed the HATE THE LGBT people vote¨ best…MP Janet (Janasty) Museveni, 1st Lady of Uganda, thinks she ought be the next President (after el Papi finishes his reign of stain)…nothing more attractive and quite normal in the Pearl of Africa than a mudwrestling/bloodwrestling bout between Herself the Speaker and Herself the Breedster of State House! Let the games begin.

  • Richard Willmer

    This excellent article in the Guardian highlights Clause 5 of the Bill:

    Let’s take quick look:-

    5 [1] A victim of homosexuality shall not be penalized for any crime committed as a direct result of his or her involvement in homosexuality.

    Think about it. It is saying that someone could say they are a ‘victim’ and then commit a crime (e.g. murder) for which they would be deemed not culpable.

    This clause is a ‘licence to kill with impunity’.

    (I suspect that Fischer may be unaware of this particular aspect of the Bill he says he supports, but if he is, he is condoning murder.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Sorry, the last part of the last sentence above should read “but if he ISN’T, he is condoning murder.”

  • inca nitta

    And who are we to judge Museveni for asking God to help Uganda? Btw, Psalms 33:12 applies to ALL nations, not just Israel.

  • Richard Willmer

    I don’t object to Museveni saying his prayers. But he DOES is more important!

  • Richard Willmer

    @ inca nitta

    Is this your real name? Just asking.

  • Richard Willmer

    Sorry, I’ve had a long day at work, and am not typing very accurately.

    My comment above should have read thus:

    “I don’t object to Museveni saying his prayers. But he what DOES is more important!”

  • Richard Willmer

    Oh bother! “But what he DOES …”


  • inca nitta

    No, this is my pseudonym.

  • Note my understanding. The President assent to the Bill will make it law. However he cannot VETO it per se. Its a private members Bill and so the process is for President to assent or send it back to parliament. After its been sent back twice it can pass without the President’s signature at all. Warren, please correct me if I am wrong. People are talking about VETO and signature being necessary . Wile his signature would make it a quicker process, it does not have to be given in the long run of the process.

  • Diogenes Arktos

    @Richard Willmer: It is my understanding that Lively et al. convinced the Ugandan powers that be to replace the successful condom-based HIV program with an abstinence-based one. As a matter of medicine, the consequences are obvious. Now, what will they do about it with legislation that could fine or imprison medical professionals for doing their jobs?

  • Richard Willmer

    Good question. I can’t answer it – but it’s very clear in the minds of many experts that the Bill will be yet another ‘HIV-disaster’.

  • Richard Willmer

    Melanie is correct: M7 has no veto as such on bills passed by parliament. He can only delay things, and ‘request’ changes – according to the UG Constitution. Mind you, the Bill may well be ‘unconstitutional’ itself …

  • Richard Willmer

    Apparently there is scepticism within the US Dept. of State about the removal of the (‘formal’) death penalty:

    (As I’ve suggested above, Clause 5 [1] could be viewed as an ‘informal’ death penalty.)

  • Melanie – As Richard says, you are correct. If the Parliament passes the bill it will eventually become law. The Parliament could amend it after Museveni sends it back to them, but it will be law in some form.

    It should be noted that Museveni never returned a bill to the Parliament during the last 5 year session of Parliament. He probably will in this case which would give the Parliament time to back off from the more draconian elements of the bill. In other words, the Parliament could pass the bill with all of the harsh penalties and then later remove or modify them. Passage would be a negative development but it would not be the end of the process unless Museveni signs the bill.

  • Dan

    I think that Lively and Fischer are authentic Christians. If their views are horrifying and justify genocide, it is because Christianity is horrifying and justifies genocide.

    BTW, here’s Scott Lively on November 24, 2012, taking credit for persuading God to cause an explosion in a strip club. That explosion injured 18 people. This is the essence of the Christian mindset:

    “For about two years I have been including imprecatory prayers in our church services and Bible studies at Holy Grounds Coffee House. Imprecatory prayers are Old Testament prayers for the defeat and destruction of the enemies of God and his people. A New Testament variation on these prayers is to ask God to save the people but destroy the institutions. Our prayers, part of our seven year campaign to re-Christianize the City of Springfield, have included an appeal to God to destroy the works of Satan in this city. We have specifically included the strip clubs in these prayers.

    Yesterday the three story Scores strip club on Worthington Street was completely obliterated in a gas explosion, right down to the ground.

    I believe this was the hand of God at work in answer to our prayers. We are giving Him all the glory and praise for this occurrence, since it is only by His power that any of our prayers can have any effect.”

  • Richard Willmer

    I think Lively and Fischer are heretics. They worship ‘bits of the bible’ and ignore the core teachings of Christ.

  • Dan

    Christ and the Apostle Paul reaffirmed the Old Testament, so you can’t run away from it. Also, there is plenty of murder and genocide in the New Testament, including the mob-style killing by God of Ananias and Sapphira and the slaughter of billions of people killed in horrific ways in the Book of Revelation. In Christian terms, Lively’s joy at a gas explosion that injured 18 people is mild stuff.

    Lively is not a heretic. He is a true Christian.

  • Richard Willmer

    No, Dan.

    Christ FULFILLED the OT in his Summary of the Law: “Always treat others as you would want them to treat you*; this is the Law and Prophets.” (JB Matt. 7 : 12)

    (You yourself have referred to the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ in earlier comments you have made.)

    (* I would not claim always to do that, although I quite like being ‘robustly challenged’, even by the likes of Lively – with whom I’ve had a few ‘little chats’!)

    After his Conversion, Saint Paul never advocated violence or murder. He displayed certain prejudices, to be sure (don’t we all!) …

    Don’t forget that the OT contains ‘historical’ books. Just because a particular writer attributes something ‘nasty’ to God does not mean that this is what God ‘approves of’. Look at Christ Crucified – that’s where God’s true nature is manifest. Of course, we Christians ‘get it wrong’, but that does not change God into ‘a creature in our image’.

    Fischer and Lively are IMHO heretics (and Lively has called me one, as you might imagine!). (I wish them no material harm, of course, though I do unashamedly seek to undermine the ‘credibility’ of their ilk.)

  • Richard Willmer

    I would add that many many Christians would share my view. It certainly would be good if they articulated that view more robustly …

  • Dan

    Just because a particular writer attributes something ‘nasty’ to God does not mean that this is what God ‘approves of’.

    That is another way of saying that the Bible has errors. But if what you call the “historical books” have errors, then you can have no confidence that the others are error-free. You can say that you should look to “Christ Crucified” to determine God’s true nature, but you are getting your information about “Christ Crucified” from the same Bible that you admit has errors. So you have no way of knowing whether the discussion of “Christ Crucified” in the Bible is riddled with error and/or bears any resemblance to reality.

    You see, this is exactly why true Christians like Fischer and Lively understand that once you allow for any error in any of the 66 books of the Bible, you destroy the Christian faith. You either take it all or you will always have doubt that, as to any teaching, you may be reading not the word of an all-knowing deity, but the the rantings of some primitive human scribe.


    The Apostle Peter oversaw the double murder of Ananias and Sapphira, who failed to turn over to the mob, I mean church, all of the proceeds of a real estate sale. The actual trigger man was God Himself (a triune being which includes Christ Crucified).

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Dan

    I think you make the same basic errors as the ‘fundies’ in both your assessment of the writings that comprise the Canon of Scripture and your philosophical approach. But you draw a different conclusion (one for which I would have rather more sympathy than for that of the ‘fundies’).

    Every writer of every text was a human person. Like all human persons, they have their ‘agendas’. It is the job of the Church to keep refining and living out the true message contained within these writings – and that job (which we often don’t do at all well, I’m afraid) is an on-going enterprise because no human person or community of human persons can possess the whole truth. We will never ‘get it all right’ – just as those writers long ago did not ‘get it all right’.

    P.S. I’m not sure that your interpretation of Acts 5 : 1 – 11 is entirely justifiable, by the way! I detect some ‘imagination’ on your part coming into play, if I’m honest.

  • Richard Willmer

    Also one should be aware that it is not appropriate to treat ‘the Bible’ as a single text – it is a collection of different texts written by different people at different times for different audiences and for different reasons.