Friday, April 17, 2015

PCG Hypocritically Defends Gay Man to Belittle Protests in South Africa

So in South Africa there is currently a lot of commotion over a statue of Cecil Rhodes which has since been removed. PCG immediately rose up in defense and published an article by Anthony Chibarirwe defending Cecil Rhodes and condemning the protests.

PCG has a long history of being sympathetic towards the white Apartheid regime and of belittling the current democratically elected government of South Africa. So it is not surprising that PCG's leaders have taken this position regarding these protests.

While acknowledging problems about what Rhodes did, Chibarirwe clearly condemns these protests against him. It glorifies Cecil Rhodes and says that he was a great man.

Here I will not talk about what Cecil Rhodes did politically because, frankly, PCG's leaders are inclined to be sympathetic towards what he did and minimize whatever problems occurred.

But there is one other thing that needs to be mentioned here: It is somehow never mentioned by PCG that Cecil Rhodes, the man PCG here says was so great, just happened to be gay.
Rhodes never married, pleading "I have too much work on my hands" and saying that he would not be a dutiful husband. ... Neville Pickering is described as Rhodes' lover in spite of the absence of decisive evidence. Rhodes was close to Pickering; he returned from negotiations for Pickering's 25th birthday in 1882. On that occasion, Rhodes drew up a new will leaving his estate to Pickering. Two years later, Pickering suffered a riding accident. Rhodes nursed him faithfully for six weeks, refusing even to answer telegrams concerning his business interests. Pickering died in Rhodes's arms, and at his funeral, Rhodes was said to have wept with fervour. ...
His successor was Henry Latham Currey, the son of an old friend, who had become Rhodes's private secretary in 1884. When Currey was engaged in 1894, Rhodes was deeply mortified and their relationship split.

Rhodes also remained close to Leander Starr Jameson after the two had met in Kimberley, where they shared a bungalow. In 1896 Earl Grey came to give Rhodes bad news. Rhodes instantly jumped to the conclusion that Jameson, who was ill, had died. On learning that his house had burnt down he commented, "Thank goodness. If Dr. Jim had died, I should never have got over it." Jameson nursed Rhodes during his final illness, was a trustee of his estate and residuary beneficiary of his will, which allowed him to continue living in Rhodes' mansion after his death. Rhodes' secretary, Jourdan, who was present shortly after Rhodes' death said, "Jameson was fighting against his own grief ... No mother could have displayed more tenderness towards the remains of a loved son". ("Cecil Rhodes", Wikipedia.)
Surely some PCG members must be aware of this matter. PCG condemns homosexuality as sinful. PCG's leaders constantly demonize homosexuals in order to distract PCG members from the problems within PCG. But when one such man is condemned by protesters in South Africa PCG choose to defend Rhodes in order to belittle and condemn the protesters.

PCG's leaders are so determined to vilify democratic South Africa that they have decided to defend a man even though he did things that PCG so often condemn in others.

Why do PCG's leaders choose to favor Cecil Rhodes while condemning homosexuality in others?

If they cannot bring themselves to condemn Rhodes' homosexuality then they should not condemn homosexuality at all.

If they choose to favor Rhodes and ignore his homosexuality then they should extend that same favor to all.

How amusing it is to see PCG's leaders tying themselves up into knots because of their dogmas.


  1. When I was agnostic, it seemed apparent that it was as easy to entrap Christians on the horns of a dilemma as it was to position a checker between two of those of your opponent, leaving him with the opportunity to move one and allow the other to be "jumped".

    When so entrapped, an ACOG member will choose what he believes to be the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, if there is no ultimatum on the table, he will bash and trash that same "lesser". Apparently, in this case, it is less evil to share one's penis with someone of the same sex than it would be to deviate from an extreme conservative agenda. Who could imagine such a thing?


  2. Those of us who have read Roderick Meredith's wrong headed article of the 1960s, The Shocking Truth about Queer Men note with amusement how there was a reference to the Radio Church of God's Virile Man of Honor, Law and Justice, J. Edgar Hoover:

    "In general, as FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover has stated, there is a growing disrespect for ALL LAW and CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY among America's youth. "

    They didn't know about his homosexual lover and cross-dressing propensities at the time.

    I always have to snigger at that.

  3. It is certainly amusing to see to see PCG's leaders caught in this dilemma of their own making.

    1. You forgot to insert an ellipsis after the word "fervour" (first paragraph of your Wikipedia block quote).

      It's interesting, isn't it, how the intended meaning can be easily changed by unfair/improper use of ellipses.

      If only your readers knew that one of the quotes you omitted says, "It is INFERRED, but NOT PROVEN, that Rhodes was homosexual and it is ASSUMED (but NOT PROVEN) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical."

      What a pity!

      Leaving aside your views about the PCG (which I don't intend to debate here), I believe that you honestly have to admit that the article you posted is grossly inaccurate and unfair and that you owe it to your readers (and to the truth) to apologize!

  4. You forgot to insert an ellipsis after the word "fervour."
    It's interesting, isn't it, how the intended meaning can be changed by unfair/improper use of ellipses.
    If only your readers knew that one of the quotes you omitted says, "It is inferred, but not proven, that Rhodes was homosexual and it is assumed (but not proven) that his relationships with men were sometimes physical."
    What a pity!

    1. You are right. I forgot the ellipse. I have corrected this.

      That's why I added a link to the article so that readers like you can verify such things.

      This changes nothing about the point of the article. My point is valid. There is evidence that Rhodes was gay and PCG chose to disregard that in order to condemn protests in South Africa.