In our World, today, the secular democratic republic is the respectable default configuration of the nation-state. A pity, then, that it is also wrong, deceitful, and outright damnable. They declare secularism in order to avoid having to agree on ultimate truth or otherwise fight as ultimate enemies; but in due time, this happens anyway, when one does not accept secularism as ultimate truth. They declare democracy, because they want to prevent resort to force; but in due time, this happens anyway, when one does not accept that the democracy is justifiable. They declare a republic in order to sate the envy of those who do not have sovereign office; but apart from being required to be dishonest about intentions regarding succession and political egalitarianism, monarchy by any other name is still monarchy.
Now, I have made a few attempts to get the Government of the Republic of Uganda to answer to my requirement that we step back from secularism, in particular, but since they do not take me seriously until they are threatened, it has come to that point where they have to be threatened, since they have to take me seriously. Perhaps the most-important reason why they have to take me seriously is this: I am serious. Every flood begins with a drop, and in this case the drop is this Declaration of War. It is a lot more terse than my previous attempts, because I am done talking; in the past, it would have been pages upon pages. Nevertheless, this having been delivered—regardless of the reaction to it thus far—the war it declares and speaks of is solemnly on. You have been told. Now the fact is that you (whoever you may be) have just been thrust into a different mindset, and you do not know head or tail of it. Hence this post.
Secularism is incoherent, especially in the case of Uganda, because the nation is aware of God, but is required to ignore Him by law. The motto mentions Him prominently; the national anthem opens with a line calling on Him; the oath of office prays to Him. But in spite of all these things, we are required never to permit religious influence on the state.
Of course, this is not supportable, because if one should claim that his religion teaches that God allows murder and rape—as is the case in islam—we should be able, as a nation, to say that this is not the God we mean in our national references. But this cannot be done in a secular state, and we are going to war to fix that.
Because the Constitution (1995) of the Republic of Uganda has that damnable article 7, no part of it can be salvaged, but is all consigned to the latrine. It is the shortest, clearest, most-direct single article in the entire document:
Uganda shall not adopt a State religion.Incidentally, the first Constitution of Uganda (1962) was not secularist; having been done by the British (who, to this day, are not secularist), it had articles like:
A law of the Legislature of the Kingdom of Buganda shall not apply to any person who is not an African any provision of the law or custom applicable to members of any African tribe with respect to inheritance, marriage, divorce, religion or the personal obligations attaching to a member of an African tribe as such.Therein it announces and sensibly expects that sacralist laws may be passed by the Legislature, but shall be limited only to such people as are properly under the purview of that Legislature (by tribe). That no such laws were passed is a regrettable error; that such laws are now illegal is a casus belli.
The very first election ever organised under that 1962 Constitution resulted in a victory for the two allied parties “Uganda People’s Congress” and “Kabaka Yekka”. The very first congratulation message ever delivered for election victory in Uganda was from Bishop Leslie Brown, at the very first thanksgiving prayer ceremony ever given in Uganda for electoral victory, in which he profusely thanked God and asked the newly-elected Prime Minister, Milton Obote (an Anglican like him and the Kabaka) to use the provisions of the 1962 Constitution and make the Church of Uganda the national church. When Obote did nothing, Bishop Brown organised another thanksgiving ceremony, and once again delivered exactly one message, unambiguously and emphatically: that the Church of Uganda be made the national church. At this time, Obote was already leaning towards the socialism that he later openly professed, and he was more-interested in marxist-style atheism, so he ignored the bishop again—even though, at the time, the Constitution of Uganda was not secularist. Others may perpetuate this apostasy, but we will not; others may tolerate it, but I will reverse it. So help me God.
Unfortunately, Uganda did not actually remain secular. When Idi Amin overthrew Obote, he declared Uganda an islamic state, in February 1972, and emphasised in that statement (published jointly with Qaddafi, then-President of Libya) that he wanted to establish a sharia-compliant Uganda. What was wrong, here, was not that he wanted the supremacy of what he believed to be right and true; rather, what was wrong in what Idi Amin did was that he was casting for islam, which is wrong, rather than Christianity, which is right. Amin-bashing is very popular, but people do not realise that he cannot be condemned justly without a reference to what the ultimate standard of right and wrong is. Unless we can say that the standard of God is such-and-such, anything goes. (Of course, if we disagree on the standard of God, only conflict is left—so be it—which is why the islamic state and the secular state are both supposed to be fought.) We cannot even condemn Amin’s declaration of Uganda as islamic without first condemning the secularist constitution even more.
And this is the problem, ultimately, for the secularist: that even when he condemns, he cannot say why. Many stupid secularists will rush to condemn me; but since all they have is their opinion, and I have the veto of God, they can be safely ignored.
Obote was wrong to refuse Bishop Brown’s requests; Amin was wrong in establishing the wrong sacralism; the Constitution (1995) is wrong in establishing secularism.
No nation-state is actually secular, because every nation-state acknowledges that ultimate authority whose decree is final; what usually passes for secularism actually relies on an implicit god (such as a self-worshipping collective populace that actually believes that its majority opinion is the root and foundation of all law and sound morality).
What sacralist laws allow, on the other hand, is merely clarity that the state is not relativist (“anything goes”) but rather has a specific set of doctrines on God that are recognised as true, and from which flow the laws, the moral standard, and, very importantly, the authority to rule.
Some will protest, saying “You should not force your religion on anyone!” But we aren’t, either; rather, we are requiring that, for instance, if the state were to take any moral position (against corruption, say, or homosexuality, or mutilations) that it should be clear and well-known who, as God, would be the foundation of these rulings on morality. Any law or system not founded on an appeal to God is not founded at all, because I can—and do—challenge it as a baseless fad that is worthless because it goes against the sound truth of God. So now they may say “But perhaps you are convinced that your Bible is right; what of others who aren’t?” Would that they said that to the secularists! —For do you think that only secularists see their ideal as so good and so true that whoever does not agree should be required by law to shut up? Or, is it only parliamentary-democrats who are allowed to force their views and style on everybody else? On the contrary, I say clearly: if you disagree with me, when I say that the Bible is true, then you are wrong, and no different from anybody else who challenges the basic law of the land. The Bible can—and should—check and correct even the majority opinion. Under us, it will.
Besides: Christianity is true, and provably-so, and everything opposite to it is false, and provably-so. If it is about having the correct state religion, you have to have Christianity—and this is provable.
And, anyway, Uganda is a Christian nation, even if it may not be a Christian state. In-between the Uganda Martyrs, on the one hand, and the wars that established the Ugandan entity in history, on the other hand, there is no room for confusion. Obviously Uganda is not just from 1962—otherwise why would the Christians of 1884 be called Uganda Martyrs, and to what non-existent entity was the independence being accorded in 1962? It is absurd to think that Ugandan history begins in 1962; and yet when you check that history, you find that Uganda is a Christian nation. Whether many like it or hate it, this fact of the national identity is so true that it has been the main influnce on Uganda’s historical evolution, from the first time “Uganda” shows up in recorded history, to even those political parties which were active at the founding of the Republic. This is part of our heritage, even in a way secularism will never be. This is our history. This is the distinction of our fathers from all the unwashed masses of nations that surround us. This is our pride: that we, generation after generation, will contend earnestly that Christ be sovereign over this land.
The current Constitution has no mention of God at all. It quotes the national motto, the national anthem, and the oath of office—all of which predate it by many decades—and these happen to be the only times that the Greatest Subject is mentioned at all. It is literally a godless document.
I will not pretend with you: the need to accomodate people among us who do not accept the truth is what must have driven us this far from God whose salvation of Uganda is written out unambiguously in the nation&rsquos; history, because it is not that we do not know how He has graciously called us out of the darkness, but rather that we are afraid of being at variance with those who prefer the darkness (or the lies of heretics); but it is policy for me that light does not tolerate darkness, but drives it out. If indeed we disagree on this one point, for sure let us fight, because I have no room for you (and, presumably, you have no room for me). How long shall you shift between two opinions? —But if Christ is Lord, bow to Him.
Imagine that the very first sentence in the 1995 Constitution is
All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution.I cannot fathom how I or anyone else could be required to live under this every day, and respect it rather than fight against it, when our every prayer ends with this direct address to God:
For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, now and forever. Amen.Amen. Power does not belong to the people. It belongs to God. Wherefore I exercise no sovereignty according to a document that starts off by disavowing both the sovereignty of God over all things (going on to make absolutely no mention of Him) and leaves no room for the crown rights of King Jesus; rather, I say (as in Daniel 4), “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He will.” And if God yield the kingdom into my hand, I dare you to take it out. (And, no, I cannot be blamed for what befalls you then: you rebelled against the authority of God, and indeed one that had declared as much to you.)
What happened between 1884 (when Uganda was, at the time, pagan and sacralist) and 1995 (when Uganda was Christian and secularist) is an important part of the national history. In that time, Uganda was at points Christian and sacralist. After all, while it was under the British, it was considered not just Christian, in keeping with the history which before had first got the Europeans interested in Uganda, but also Anglican in keeping with the laudable principle that it was a realm of the Protestant crown.
That’s the other thing: no sovereign authority successfully expresses legitimacy unless it explicitly references the One from Whom comes all authority. So I say:
Cognizant of the weightiness of the matter under consideration;Who shall stand against me? By whom shall I be corrected? Who can contend with my claim, rooted as it is in the decree of God Himself? If God be for me, who can be against me? And this, you see, is why the secular authority cannot survive.
and aware of the high offence that it would be to take the name of the Lord God in vain;
by the power vested in me by God Almighty, I hereby announce and enact that:
the secularist Constitution is abolished, and the secular Republic is illegitimate.
More wars have been fought in Uganda to defend the Christian nation from those who would overthrow it, whether into paganism or heresy; and, because it is once again an unfortunate necessity, we have to fight again. What cannot be denied is that such war is a well-established tradition in Uganda, and that the Protestants have ultimately triumphed each time. That it is the doctrine of all the Christian World can be proven by a cursory check; that it is the tradition of our forebears is admitted even by those who do not approve of it. More-importantly, even when Idi Amin subjected Uganda to islam (like Kalema before him), he was not wrong in what he did, but only in what he believed—for Uganda was created for the Son of God, and not for that unitarian heresy which, because it denies the Father and the Son, has no place in the country.
In the history of Uganda, the Protestants (“Abapoto”) have twice got in league, unequally-yoked, with heretics of different kinds, when they sought to establish a state that was submissive to the Lord. In each of those cases, they sinned greatly. Never, never ever should it ever be heard that the children of light were lying with the devadasi of Baal-Peor; and if it is, may a Phinehas rise up and run through our camp, striking to the left and to the right. Now we shall arise, with arms borne in righteousness, and our victory shall be a final victory, establishing sound doctrine into perpetuity, by covenant and statute, over the blessed country of the Nation That God Loves.
As a revolutionary, I am simply fighting to establish such state as I believe to be correct. If it had been marxism that I believed to be correct, I would fight to establish it; if it had been democracy or secularism or republicanism that I believed to be correct, I would fight to establish it. But I happen to believe in Christianity as perfectly-correct, so I fight to establish it.
O Uganda, may God uphold thee.