It is going to be a hot Kenya from now to 2012 as Moral Issues will cloud Kenyans minds for the first time..Be Prepared of a war of words between Christian and Secular Moral Philosophy before the war of votes before the war of bullets

Catholic Church represented by Cardinal Njue versus the Chief Justice and deputy chief justice of Kenya Dr Willy Mutunga and Nancy Baraza

It has been 2 weeks of Moral Philosophy Dog Fights involving Western Judeo Catholic/Christian Kenya  versus Western Greco -Roman Secular Kenya .This boxing ring was set up due to the nomination of Kenya’s Chief and Deputy Justices , both of whom are divorcees , divorce being an anathema in Christianity except in the case of adultery.

Atheist Philip Ochieng and Agnostic Rasnah Warah rattled the beehive , this time the Church’s bee hive , specifically the Catholic Church’s Beehive . They put out some pertinent issues about what we would call Pharisee Christianity that is being practiced in Africa and East Africa and Kenya.

This is happening just as the  Anglican’s Church Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams” tours  Kenya under theme “Celebrating Christianity in Kenya “- that is that Kenya is a shining example of Christianity . Well is it ? Not according to Philip Ochieng and Rasnah Warah.

Philip has thrown massive stones at the glass house of the Church stating the following charges. Rasnah’s stone happens to be number 3  :

1. Celibates should not condemn divorcees

2.The Catholic Church is accusing others of the very sins it commits

3.The Catholic Church and Christendom in general made Sexual codes against women

Well let ‘s see if the charges are plausible:

On the issue of Celibacy one should not claim that the Catholic Church’s Celibate Priests have no right to speak up against Divorcees .This what Philip is saying and it is wrong.

Even if the Celibate priests are committing sexual crimes , it does not mean those Celibate Priests who are not committing the crimes should not speak about divorcees .It is just that their word will not bear heavy weight, being unmarried , but nonetheless  they can have an opinion which they can claim is based on facts.They have a right to be heard whether you like them or not.

For example Jesus the man , was unmarried and he talked about divorce how it must be based on infidelity otherwise other grounds would spell any remarriage as adultery.

Paul as far as the Bible is concerned and not Protestant Hot Air , was not married but he talked extensively about marriage and divorce.So anyone who has a view on divorce and marriage and can reason out such issues should not be denied the right to express themselves whether married or unmarried.

On the boomerang effect , yes the Catholic Church has to clean its house because the case of Paedophilia are too many to stay under the carpet.It has the log in its eye because the so called divorcees do not claim to be servants of God but the Priests claim to serve God.

Lastly the issue of a sexual code against women is true and this has stained Christianity for centuries .

In the Massachusetts Witch Hunts conducted by Protestant, King James Version  Bible Christians whom did they falsely accuse of Witch craft  ? the Woman and  a  few ” rebellious men”

In the Victorian  Christian British Empire who had to be circumcised to stop masturbation and lesbianism ? Girls/Women (More proof that the British Empire is a pseudo African Empire by borrowing some African customs only that it is located in a Non African Continent)

In the Christian British  Colonies in Africa, the laws of adultery favoured the man and not the woman .

The last point shows Pharisee Christianity not Biblical Christianity . One thing that angered  Jesus was that the Pharisees found  a woman  in the act of adultery demanding her stoning yet THEY DID NOT BRING THE MALE OFFENDER as required by the Old Testament Law .

Thus the true Bible measures sin for both sexes equally but Pharisee Christianity favours  one sex over the other.That is not justice.

So Philip and Rasnah may not be Christians but they can see a very hateful form of Christianity raising its head day by day and it is that Hate, Judgmental  Religion that killed Jesus and his disciples.

Am I saying that the Church should shut up when things go wrong ? No way .They should speak up as per the word of God .However in these days , the Church’ will be faced with a dilemma either to finish its critics by them taking over Political Power or by being finished by the strong wave of Anti- Christianity. It is a tough time to be a Christian.

Yet despite the tough times we must walk in love and forgiveness and know that God has not called Christians  to run for Political office until Jesus comes .Such a venture is not a spiritual mandate from God but an earthly mandate by man for man.

Arthur Owiti


On what moral pedestal do celibates condemn divorcees?


As a newspaper pontiff, I learned early that if you throw stones, you must expect stones (and become thick-skinned). That is why I reply only rarely to the critics of this column. Sometimes intervention comes from above.

The Israeli ambassador once published in this newspaper a heavy attack on a column published the previous week.

But, as I was girding my loins to reply, Wangethi Mwangi, then the group’s editorial pontifex, came down the stairs to tell me that I could “… not always have the last word …”

A different kind of Jew — Betty Kaplan’s ultra-liberal ilk — might condemn such a step as “censorship”. But I readily granted the Editorial Director his duty to take any action — including against me — that might put his publications on an even keel, in ethical and intellectual terms.
Point accusing fingers

It is a lesson even the Vicar of Christ should learn. His cardinals habitually point accusing fingers at other people for iniquities of which the Catholic hierarchy is a major culprit.

Meek in their faith, their congregations are too timid to ask embarrassing questions.

But last year’s referendum and this year’s history-making method of choosing our judicial chiefs should have reminded them of an ingenious weapon long ago invented by the Australian natives.

If you hurled it with too much force or too carelessly, it could boomerang disastrously on you.

Take this. Because Willy Mutunga is a divorcee, he cannot be the Daniel that our Supreme Court so pines for. This logical non sequitur is thrown to our faces to the point of disgust every day. And we must embrace it because, issuing ex cathedra, it is “infallible”.

We are supposed to judge even our secular rulers by certain extremely senseless strictures once imposed on the Church by European patriarchy — sexual rigidities, which have no religious or scriptural roots, but belong wholly to pre-Christian paganism, superstitions re-imposed by such demented patrisms as the Witch-hunts of Spain and Massachusetts and the Victorian pruderies that nearly derailed England’s sexuality.

Like female cut

All the laws against bigamy, fornication, adultery and prostitution were necessitated by the triumph of patriarchy over matriarchy.

Like patriarchal Africa’s female cut, “chastity” was demanded so as to suppress female sexuality so that the male could be sure that the child who was now inheriting his property and power was really his blood.

This is the root of Euro-Christianity’s ungodly misogyny. It is what informs the teaching that, after you “tie the knot”, you cannot untie it even if one spouse becomes a snake. In Marriage and Morals, Bertrand Russell — a male and a European, yet one of the world’s most objective moral authorities — condemns the ban on divorce as radical evil.

That Christendom’s entire sexual code was aimed only at the distaff side is self-manifest. Against females, those laws are implemented a hundred times more vigorously than against males. In the 21st century, it is an extremely sad commentary on our moral and intellectual education.
Patriarchal despotism

But why do our mothers, sisters and daughters put up with this atavistic thoughtlessness — especially in Europe, where, throughout the 20th century, women fought so valiantly to end patriarchal despotism?

Why do the priests themselves display such myopia in their own gender bigotry?

I take goodness to fellow humans — especially to our sexual offspring — as the kernel of all morality. On what moral pedestal, then, can a “celibate” machismo condemn a divorcee? I grant that divorce can deliver the joint offspring into excruciating suffering. That alone is why I might discourage it. Yet Catholic priests wallow in sex even behind the reredos.

But, because a whimsical European pope recently imposed celibacy on Rome’s priesthood, the priests procreate happily without ever taking any responsibility for their offspring. That is the cardinal question for Rome. What gives the celibate priest John Njue the moral authority to judge the divorcee Willy Mutunga?


Wearing earrings hardly more ridiculous than donning a wig

By RASNA WARAHPosted  Sunday, June 12 2011 at 18:29

I wore a nose-ring long before it became fashionable in the West.

I had my nose pierced when I turned 18, perhaps to symbolise my coming of age.

But what I did not know then was that my nose-ring would be the cause of much panic at American airports.

As a student in the United States in the 1980s, I was routinely searched by immigration officials at Logan airport in Boston.

When it happened for the third time, it dawned on me that the only reason I was being searched so thoroughly was because US immigration officers assumed that my nose-ring was some kind of code for drug smugglers.

This was the pre-9/11 days when drugs, not terrorists, were public enemy number one.

I decided to remove the ring in my third year at university just to ease my passage through immigration.

But upon my return to Kenya, nose-rings had started to become fashionable so I had my nose pierced again.

Yet nose-rings have always been fashionable in other parts of the world, particularly in Asia and in some parts of Africa.

Women in northern India and Pakistan have been adorning nose-studs for centuries.

In Africa, both men and women have been piercing their bodies for decorative purposes for the longest time.

Here in Kenya, Pokot men used to wear aluminium nose pendants. Maasai men wear necklaces and anklets.

Some tribes in Mali and Cameroon also believe that ornaments placed in the nose, ears and mouth protect them from evil or supernatural forces.

So when did body-piercing become so abominable in Africa?

The advent of Christianity on the continent had a lot to do with it as did British colonialism, both of which imposed dress codes on the natives in order to “civilise” them.

Hence, today, you will find African men wearing woollen suits and ties even in countries with sweltering climates.

Kenyans suffer from this syndrome more than other Africans. At international conferences, I can always spot the Kenyan from miles away.

He will be the one in a suit. His West African counterparts, on the other hand, will be seen in gorgeous and elaborate African attire.

And until Nelson Mandela made the printed shirt fashionable, our MPs wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a khanga.

The question of what one can or can’t wear is one that has recently surfaced in France, where girls in public schools have been forbidden from covering their heads.

Head-gear has always been a sensitive issue in certain religions, particularly Islam and Sikhism. Sikhs are required by their religion to grow their hair and wear a turban.

But thanks to Osama bin Laden, many have had to cut their hair in order not be mistaken for an al Qaeda operative.

And now in Kenya, we have made a mountain out of an ear-stud. The person nominated to be Chief Justice happens to wear an ornament in his ear.

As far as I know, wearing an earring in this country is not illegal. So why the hullabaloo?

I believe it is because conservative Christians have given more meaning to the stud than it deserves. They are not so worried about the stud than what it symbolises.

Dr Willy Mutunga has admitted to be a follower of Islam and African religions.

God forbid if our chief justice has a religion other than Christianity. And even worse, that he believes in African traditions and religions.

If those are criteria for not holding public office, then I will probably never be nominated.

I wear a stud in my nose, and I am an agnostic who gave up on organised religion years ago when I realised that religious leaders, like the rest of us, could be immoral and flawed.

Organised religions also do not appeal to me because they tend to discriminate against women. I believe that the power of God resides in all of us and no one religion has a monopoly on that power.

I want to rely on a secular and just judicial system that protects me against evil forces. If Dr Mutunga can do that, then he is my man.

And the first thing I would want him to do when he is appointed is to ban judges from wearing those ridiculous wigs.