Christianity and Communism are Incomparable

I am prompted to write in response to an article “Is Christianity doomed just like communism?” by Allan Tacca which appeared in the Sunday Monitor of April 15, 2012. The article in question is interesting to read and I appreciate the creativity of the author in weaving all sorts of ideas to entertain his readers. According to the language of that text, it is more of an informative text rather than anything else. By informative I mean, it is intended only to provide some knowledge and this is juxtaposed to performative texts which intends to put in place either a policy or a working system!
However, there are some incongruences within the text which are irreconcilable. First, the comparison made between Christianity and Communism betrays all the rules of logic. How could Tacca compare a Socio-Political system (Communism) with a religious system (Chrisitianity)? The two have different foundations and motivations and aspirations for their existence. Whereas communism is rooted in human history and is solely attached to that history with mundane aspirations, Christianity trascends human history and projects itself to eternity with everlasting aspirations for its adherents. Christianity and communism are fundamentally incompatible - one a spiritual creed, the other materialist. Christianity lays down that a man’s responsibility to his neighbour is personal, a matter for his individual conscience, while communism decrees that all duties are collective, to be enforced by the state. At first glance, communism may look like the fairer system, and Christianity the more selfish. That’s why Tacca wrote that “…the once ruthless Castros were more polite and flexible than the Pope.” But we have to contend that, communism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible - in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America - for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine. Christianity teaches that each of us is a moral being, responsible for our actions to our Maker, and individually bound to love our neighbours as ourselves. I don’t know what motivated Tacca really to make such an absurd comparison!
Secondly, the reference to Christianity was only denoting Christianity as expressed and practiced in the Catholic Church. The evidence within the text suggest that his objective was a veiled attack on the doctrines, practices and traditions and leadership of the Catholic Church. In the opening sentence he said “…Pope Benedict should not forget that his organisation has also accumulated plenty of soot.”By sarcastically referring to the Church of Jesus Christ as “Pope Benedict’s organisation” is indicative of his impoverished knowledge about the nature of the Church, its history, its constitution, its mission on earth and its ultimate end. Thirdly, he clandestinely, made a lot of bewildering claims against the practices of Catholics that leaves any sober mind questioning why! His passive reference to Msgr. Ngobya with ridicule and cynicism is a sign of deep seated hatred for Catholic practices. He said that: “…A priest here who died 26 years ago has been exhumed and could eventually get elevated to the rank of a saint. Among other requirements, there must be a miracle. Will that miracle be the departed man’s heart, brain and liver that are said to be in pristine shape? What if the miracle is formalin or a fiction? Apparently, he has already been dismembered, and parts of his body will be kept as fetishist relics by Catholic officialdom. Touching his coffin means good luck. We are in the realm of medieval superstition and the occult. It is a very archaic world, a Catholic world.” With such a remark, he relegates Catholic practices to medieval times of supersitions and fetish beliefs. As a novelist and socio-political commentator, what normative criteria does he apply in evaluating religious practices of believers who belong to a certain community of faith? Who instituted him to critique Catholic beliefs and practices? Whom does he represent in this project?
Again, by reading his text, one observes that he participate in a lingering universal discourse which is motivated by militant intellectualism that draws its meaning and existence in critiquing anything Catholic just because it is Catholic. Tacca uses the same language as that used in that anti-Catholic universal discourse that trashes the Church and christianity altogether: He refers to Christianity as “organised religion” and he expresses “rigidity of the Pope towards his flock” and he refers to those distinctly Catholic practices such as “…the marriage of priests and the ordination of women.” He bends so low as to participate in that cheap redundant and stale rhetoric which claims that “…the central beliefs of Christianity – creation by God, Christ’s virgin birth and resurrection, and heaven for us after death – are no longer credible.” I would like to request Tacca, who claims that the central beliefs of Christianity are no longer credible to furnish us with the details of the standard that he applies to consider what we believe and practice as credible or no longer credible. Tacca in his writing behaves like a self-appointed jury who handles a case beyond his competence and jurisdiction. And he thinks that any set of ideas that wobbles in his finite mind is true and worthy of public consumption.
It is prudent and necessary that institutions and communities that provide millions of people with meaning, hope, and support to their lives and experiences be given due respect and a second-thought. Tacca writes with that stinking pride and self-aggrandisement as he attempts to deconstruct the tenets of Christianity without providing any meaningful alternative. He is just an idealist author who writes with less reflection on the significance and consequences of his writings! According to the article of Tacca which exposed his deficient knowledge of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general, I propose that he assigns himself some homework on Christian Theology so that we could engage in a lasting and fruitful conversation.

Building a Culture of Law-Governed State

Building a culture of a law-governed state


I have read many opinion articles in the New Vision Online and each has a recommendation, an explanation or as the column suggests, each has an opinion about a certain aspect of Uganda’s numerous challenges. I have gone through the list of articles one week, and it is quite diverse with authors making attempts at highlighting our problems and also offering some useful insights. I have found this particular undertaking very exciting and it has renewed my hopes for a future for our children. This is motivated by the fact that if we get more enlightened and informed voices on the salient issues affecting our country, perhaps, we could realise a desirable social change. I have read and critically evaluated the arguments in the following opinion articles:
• Time to revisit Museveni HIV/AIDS approach
• Do human rights abusers and despots live only in Africa?
• Maximum restraint and reconciliation are inevitable
• The increasing commercial sex work: What can government do?
• Time to deliver for girls, women
• A4C actions foreign backed
• Ugandans need skilling
• Use Kony film to up tourism numbers to Uganda
• Step up fight against Tuberculosis
• Political leaders need dialogue, not hostility
All these writings and the ideas expressed therein are good in themselves and they highlight the problems that we face as a country and the possible solutions. This means that many Ugandans are conscious of the challenges that we face as a nation and they try to suggest thinkable solutions that we can apply to overcome them. But they cannot translate into policy action since the constitutional infrastructure is enfeebled by individuals who place themselves above it. I find it that many Ugandan writers use informative language other than the performative which ought to influence policy and the direction of national events.
However I would like to maintain that the one particular aspect which is critically important to the development and stability of any country, but missing in many of our writings and speeches, is the right culture that supports a law-governed state. When the current constitution was enacted on September 22, 1995 and promulgated on October 8, 1995 it created the understanding that finally Uganda has become a sustainable, just, law-governed society founded on constitutionalism. Those of us who believe in the strict following of the rule of law thought that the constitution is the supreme arbiter and guide in all people’s lives and experiences. But on many occasions it has been trashed, altered, reviewed in order to serve some narrow interests. If one follows the events as reported in the media about land grabbing, demonstrations, protests, police brutality, oil deals, power-struggles among politicians and civil servants and the blatant culture of corruption at all levels, is all indicative of a vacuum in our rule-of-law structures.
The Ugandan constitution of 1995 is built on those properties that over a long period have been taken to define the very essence of constitutionalism, that is, constitution-making power of the people and about which there is a broad consensus. If we take the following tenets as basic to modern constitutionalism: First, the claim that the arbitrary will of the political rulers must be submitted to rules. This could be expressed differently as a government under law, a rule that governs the governors or in a more pointed version, the rule of law and not of men. Second, that constitutionalism implies the principle of popular sovereignty. This follows from the premise that in modern societies, of which Uganda claims a position, the ‘people’ is the ultimate of sovereign power; by sovereign I mean being self-determining, self-governing or independent. The third essential element of constitutionalism is the idea of limited government. This means that both the purposes of government, and the instruments available to power-holders to realise those purposes, are de-lineated – something implicit in the term ‘constituted power’. This entails some kind of separation of powers. Again constitutional government calls for rules which define accountability of the rulers to the citizenry.
As Uganda celebrates 50 years of Independence, we, Ugandans must re-invent ourselves as a law-governed society. It has been observed that almost all developed and emerging economies where poverty is virtually eradicated and people are lifted out of poverty, the secret is through the development of a strong law-governed state with individual freedoms, property rights and civil society institutions. If we are to set priorities for the next fifty (50) years of Uganda’s independence, our primary concern should be to build Ugandan values and build a law-governed state as part of the social vision to characterise our national identity. The rest will automatically suit!