'Prophet' Owuor is a hypocrite

[vooke]

• Tweet

How comes he NEVER speaks against the retarded jarluo rites like tero buru and wife inheritance?

He has a fanatical following where these despicable practices are rife. His followers believe in him. He can just preach against them. And stem the HIV tide in the region instead of faking healing it.

Before negroes berate me, didn't Jesus confront culture and traditions that void the Word of God? What about Paul, a highly educated and circumcised Jew speaking against the necessity of the same for Gentiles?

[Omollo]

Does he hold an elective position? Or if appointed, who is the appointing authority? Why should his opinion matter?

How comes he NEVER speaks against the retarded jarluo rites like tero buru and wife inheritance?

He has a fanatical following where these despicable practices are rife. His followers believe in him. He can just preach against them. And stem the HIV tide in the region instead of faking healing it.

Before negroes berate me, didn't Jesus confront culture and traditions that void the Word of God? What about Paul, a highly educated and circumcised Jew speaking against the necessity of the same for Gentiles?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

He probably thinks Deuteronomy 25:5 is correct.  Is there a New Testament teaching that overrides this wisdom?  How does not inheriting a young widow stem the tide of HIV in a region?

Deuteronomy 25:5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A5-10&version=KJV

[vooke]

Omorlo,
Churches are not elected by nobody and they are supposed to be bastions of morality.

His opinion matters because predominantly  Western and Nyanza morons confuse his word for God's; see how he imported idiots to wash Eldoret streets for him. The negro is a person of great influence

Does he hold an elective position? Or if appointed, who is the appointing authority? Why should his opinion matter?

How comes he NEVER speaks against the retarded jarluo rites like tero buru and wife inheritance?

He has a fanatical following where these despicable practices are rife. His followers believe in him. He can just preach against them. And stem the HIV tide in the region instead of faking healing it.

Before negroes berate me, didn't Jesus confront culture and traditions that void the Word of God? What about Paul, a highly educated and circumcised Jew speaking against the necessity of the same for Gentiles?

[vooke]

Termie,
This wisdom forbids childless widows from remarrying outside before 'exhausting locally' IF they have to. There was one, Annas who was married for just 7 years and was single for 77 years or something. Mighty different from savages spoilt for a good sex and nothing...anyway, am preaching to the choir

He probably thinks Deuteronomy 25:5 is correct.  Is there a New Testament teaching that overrides this wisdom?  How does not inheriting a young widow stem the tide of HIV in a region?

Deuteronomy 25:5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A5-10&version=KJV

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Termie,
This wisdom forbids childless widows from remarrying outside before 'exhausting locally' IF they have to. There was one, Annas who was married for just 7 years and was single for 77 years or something. Mighty different from savages spoilt for a good sex and nothing...anyway, am preaching to the choir

He probably thinks Deuteronomy 25:5 is correct.  Is there a New Testament teaching that overrides this wisdom?  How does not inheriting a young widow stem the tide of HIV in a region?

Deuteronomy 25:5: If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+25%3A5-10&version=KJV

I see.  Owuor should be preaching against widows looking outside the confines of the family for replacements.  Do I get you right?

[vooke]

Termie,
He should be keeping slaves just like Abraham

[GeeMail]

Hypocrite is not an easy word on the tongue. Jesus indeed confronted culture, but used the word sparingly (Matt 23) and only to the scribes and pharisees. This was for good reason; they portrayed themselves as Israel's spiritual leaders, yet they rejected Christ and engaged in many other misdeeds. Jesus also condemned cultural practices among the common people, but the Bible records Him using the word 'hypocrite' almost exclusively to the scribes and pharisees (Sadduccees also).

Owuor can and should condemn widow inheritance in Luoland. However, not doing so does not make him a hypocrite, nor does it absolve him from hypocrisy. There are many ills plaguing Luoland (like other areas of the country) greater than widow inheritance (corruption, for example). Principally, they are matters of the heart. Again, why Owuor and not other preachers too? And then what?

I read a small article on the net where a renowned Nairobi religious leader Wanjiru (formerly of ODM) was trading accusations with Owuor. Hypocrisy was mentioned somewhere.

[vooke]

His indifference is shocking. Negro needs to hear these things from an authority. Same as FGM.

It took strong convictions in America to abolish slave culture. The Christians who had been naturally sucked into the practice rationalized it. I read somewhere that the great Jonathan Edwards had slaves. That's what am talking about. I picked on him because beyond doubt he is a rabid critic of all he perceives as ills in the church. He has even attempted to take on national issues such as corruption. Why not cultural BS?

About hypocrites,that's my opinion. One sure thing is, he has faked prophecies all in the name of God

Hypocrite is not an easy word on the tongue. Jesus indeed confronted culture, but used the word sparingly (Matt 23) and only to the scribes and pharisees. This was for good reason; they portrayed themselves as Israel's spiritual leaders, yet they rejected Christ and engaged in many other misdeeds. Jesus also condemned cultural practices among the common people, but the Bible records Him using the word 'hypocrite' almost exclusively to the scribes and pharisees (Sadduccees also).

Owuor can and should condemn widow inheritance in Luoland. However, not doing so does not make him a hypocrite, nor does it absolve him from hypocrisy. There are many ills plaguing Luoland (like other areas of the country) greater than widow inheritance (corruption, for example). Principally, they are matters of the heart. Again, why Owuor and not other preachers too? And then what?

I read a small article on the net where a renowned Nairobi religious leader Wanjiru (formerly of ODM) was trading accusations with Owuor. Hypocrisy was mentioned somewhere.

[mya88]

[Omollo]

I have searched my mind to find the basis for this thread and found none.

I used to swallow the FGM gospel whole until I met some women in Kampala and in Monrovia. They had been cut. Not at the instigation of the parents... the parents were deeply opposed to it! But they had on their own volition gone to be cut. I asked if any aunt or "primitive" relative had influenced them. The answer was no. They were 18, had completed school and decided to be cut! They had patiently waited for the authority of the parents over them to expire before going ahead to do it.

The reasons they gave me were the same ones I hear white girls - some well below 18 - citing for their various bodily mutilations.

Now here we are discussing "wives" without as much as giving a thought about what they think about it. We are using the Mzungu view of how life shal be and proceeding to judge others who base their decisions on a different cultural yardstick. We pretend that those women have no say in the matter.

Why is it a woman friend who lost her husband narrated to me how she had called the brothers in law and gave them one year to decide which among them would inherit her. She was not Luo. In fact she was Duruma. The men - five of them - got scared of the woman because she was highly educated. She surrendered the land and other property to them to keep in trust (and misuse of course) until her sons reach of age. My advice was to completely forget that property because that is what they were after. Her intention of seeking to be inherited was to maintain continuity for the children and to protect their inheritance. She in addition needed a man. To vooke, its all about dictating to women.

You cannot condemn what you don't understand.

[vooke]

Am sure we agree the Church has a role to play in evolving the Negro.

I don't expect him to deliver mya88, am just pointing at the fact that he does not where it matters the most; culture

Wife inheritance is not the ONLY reason HIV is prevalent in Nyanza but it is a factor especially when laced with ignorance

He is indifferent because he has NEVER talked about it

Negro will be Negro but we can nudge him kiasi don't you think?

[vooke]

You know Omorlo,
On FGM, if adults opt for it and are aware of the inherent risks, why not? But here is Negro subjecting pubescent girls to untold horror. Why are we pretending we can't see the difference? It's like forcibly circumcising jarluos vs GoK carrying out the campaign in Nyanza

On wife inheritance, the vulnerable widows under immense societal pressure can't possibly be equated to a widow who opts for bigamy because she is addicted to sex

I have searched my mind to find the basis for this thread and found none.

I used to swallow the FGM gospel whole until I met some women in Kampala and in Monrovia. They had been cut. Not at the instigation of the parents... the parents were deeply opposed to it! But they had on their own volition gone to be cut. I asked if any aunt or "primitive" relative had influenced them. The answer was no. They were 18, had completed school and decided to be cut! They had patiently waited for the authority of the parents over them to expire before going ahead to do it.

The reasons they gave me were the same ones I hear white girls - some well below 18 - citing for their various bodily mutilations.

Now here we are discussing "wives" without as much as giving a thought about what they think about it. We are using the Mzungu view of how life shal be and proceeding to judge others who base their decisions on a different cultural yardstick. We pretend that those women have no say in the matter.

Why is it a woman friend who lost her husband narrated to me how she had called the brothers in law and gave them one year to decide which among them would inherit her. She was not Luo. In fact she was Duruma. The men - five of them - got scared of the woman because she was highly educated. She surrendered the land and other property to them to keep in trust (and misuse of course) until her sons reach of age. My advice was to completely forget that property because that is what they were after. Her intention of seeking to be inherited was to maintain continuity for the children and to protect their inheritance. She in addition needed a man. To vooke, its all about dictating to women.

You cannot condemn what you don't understand.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have searched my mind to find the basis for this thread and found none.

I used to swallow the FGM gospel whole until I met some women in Kampala and in Monrovia. They had been cut. Not at the instigation of the parents... the parents were deeply opposed to it! But they had on their own volition gone to be cut. I asked if any aunt or "primitive" relative had influenced them. The answer was no. They were 18, had completed school and decided to be cut! They had patiently waited for the authority of the parents over them to expire before going ahead to do it.

The reasons they gave me were the same ones I hear white girls - some well below 18 - citing for their various bodily mutilations.

Now here we are discussing "wives" without as much as giving a thought about what they think about it. We are using the Mzungu view of how life shal be and proceeding to judge others who base their decisions on a different cultural yardstick. We pretend that those women have no say in the matter.

Why is it a woman friend who lost her husband narrated to me how she had called the brothers in law and gave them one year to decide which among them would inherit her. She was not Luo. In fact she was Duruma. The men - five of them - got scared of the woman because she was highly educated. She surrendered the land and other property to them to keep in trust (and misuse of course) until her sons reach of age. My advice was to completely forget that property because that is what they were after. Her intention of seeking to be inherited was to maintain continuity for the children and to protect their inheritance. She in addition needed a man. To vooke, its all about dictating to women.

You cannot condemn what you don't understand.

vooke is against widow inheritance, among the Luo, and thinks owuor is an asshole for not doing more against it.  It might be that he is not aware what purpose it serves. 

If I were vooke, I would have asked what purpose does widow inheritance serve?.  Then develop the thread from there.  Perhaps contrasting it with the advantages, whatever those may be, of an uninherited young widow.

Looking at his last response, it would appear that he is against societal pressure for it.  Perhaps a backhanded recognition that in fact the women do have a say.

[vooke]

This Negro is always fighting witchcraft, Negro's sole invention. Not cool

[Omollo]

vooke is against widow inheritance, among the Luo, and thinks owuor is an asshole for not doing more against it.  It might be that he is not aware what purpose it serves. 

If I were vooke, I would have asked what purpose does widow inheritance serve?.  Then develop the thread from there.  Perhaps contrasting it with the advantages, whatever those may be, of an uninherited young widow.

Looking at his last response, it would appear that he is against societal pressure for it.  Perhaps a backhanded recognition that in fact the women do have a say.

vooke is crying for the bereaved not even sure they are bereaved.

[Little Bella]

I have several things to contribute on the discussion above:

1) What exactly is unchristian about "wife inheritence"?

PS: I am not asking about what is "uncivilized" or "backward" (not modern) or "un-European"....just what is unchristian, full stop.

-Rape or forced marriages of any sort are unchristian, the relations among the two persons notwithstanding.
-Polygamy is also deemed unchristian

But there is nothing at all in Christianity (or Judaism) that says a woman cannot marry the male relative of her dead spouse, nor a man the female relative of his dead wife. (Mark you, it happens both ways).

So, a few questions:

-Why exactly should Owuor condemn it? Because it is old and mideaval, or because God himself does not want it?

Considering that God commanded the Jews to do it, there really is no way to state flatly that the practice is immoral per se. You may argue it is immoral in some situations based on the reason (that you think) God commanded it of the Jews. Now consider, God commanded male circumcision. But we know the Apostles rubbished it as useless for Christians, threw out the debate by those Jewish christians who insisted on it for non-Jews in the name of God. Owuor would therefore have a hard time lecturing anyone on a moral law that comes only from his human wisdom. After all, Luos may also require that Kyuk, Gusii,Luhya, etc pastors condemn the "unchristian" circumcision of boys by so many Kenyan self-proclaimed Christians.

-Even if it was contrary to Christianity (and it is not, unless Christianity is synonymous with modernity or Europeanism), why is it Owuor's duty alone? I am 100% sure that the Catholic Church has more followers among the Luo than Owuor. Not to mention SDA, Anglican, Legio Maria etc etc...the works. Why is this Owuor's duty only? Because he is a luo? Secondly, Owuor's following is vast across the various tribes. I dont understand why he has a special duty to cater to his Luo flock over his non-luo folk. In other words, you are making his tribe central to him as a pastor. That does not seem right. Remember, there is neither Jew, nor Greek, nore slave, nor freeman....etc etc I am sure you know the verse.

2) Just how prevalent is this practice, anyway, really? I have Luo in-laws through many "corners" of our family and among all of their families (extended), I have heard of only one incident where it happened. And it was a girl who married the husband of her elder sister (deceased). Mark you, I though it was a wise move in that particular situation. Her sister had left behind two small children who would have ended up in the hands of a woman who may not have felt any sense of genuine affection for them. Her children adore her (You would not know if no one told you "mom" is not really mom) and the two families stayed together. Now, grown, very happy and well-adjusted young adults, no one thinks twice about this having been the right move for this particular family. On what basis would Owuor (or yourself) lecture this family? That this is not how your particular family does things?

Rape or force ought to be condemned, but i would not venture to condemn cultural differences in the name of God. What God thinks of as intrinsic evil has nothing to do with what various cultures think are good or bad. God has no problems with people marrying the spouses of their dead siblings. The modern approach to dating and courting is just that, modern. Arranged marriages, "spouse-inheritence" or other forms of matching couples are wholly acceptable ways, as far as Christianity goes. Neither is more Christian than the other. The only thing that matters to Christianity is that (1) a true consent is given (or else the marriage is not a real marriage/sacramental/christian). (2)no "unlawful" coupling takes place (incest, polygamy, gay marriage, or "marriage" with a non-human (it happens in some places India!) etc etc).

Thereis danger here in engaging in an age-old vice that christians have been (unfortunately) perpetrating on other Christians that churches have offered apologies for and are trying to make ammends for: one culture imposing itself on another in the name of Christianity as if the faith is the same thing as a particular human culture among thousands of human cultures.

FGM is clearly harmful. It is therfore contrary to charity to do it to children and christians can legitimately be against it in the name of charity).

Besides such fundamandos, no one has the right to impose cultural mores on people who do not belong to that culture.

On another note, the laws of the Mosaic covenant have nothing to do with Christianity, as Christians are not Israelites. It was a contract entered into by God with a specific people, the Hebrews (Hence the "chosen people" moniker). Neither Jews nor Chriostians believe that non-Israelites are bound by the terms of that covenant, though both believe that parts of that covenant were part of the natural universal law binding on all humans (like thou shalt not kill).

[Omollo]

I say a big halleluia to this!

I have several things to contribute on the discussion above:

1) What exactly is unchristian about "wife inheritence"?

PS: I am not asking about what is "uncivilized" or "backward" (not modern) or "un-European"....just what is unchristian, full stop.

-Rape or forced marriages of any sort are unchristian, the relations among the two persons notwithstanding.
-Polygamy is also deemed unchristian

But there is nothing at all in Christianity (or Judaism) that says a woman cannot marry the male relative of her dead spouse, nor a man the female relative of his dead wife. (Mark you, it happens both ways).

So, a few questions:

-Why exactly should Owuor condemn it? Because it is old and mideaval, or because God himself does not want it?

Considering that God commanded the Jews to do it, there really is no way to state flatly that the practice is immoral per se. You may argue it is immoral in some situations based on the reason (that you think) God commanded it of the Jews. Now consider, God commanded male circumcision. But we know the Apostles rubbished it as useless for Christians, threw out the debate by those Jewish christians who insisted on it for non-Jews in the name of God. Owuor would therefore have a hard time lecturing anyone on a moral law that comes only from his human wisdom. After all, Luos may also require that Kyuk, Gusii,Luhya, etc pastors condemn the "unchristian" circumcision of boys by so many Kenyan self-proclaimed Christians.

-Even if it was contrary to Christianity (and it is not, unless Christianity is synonymous with modernity or Europeanism), why is it Owuor's duty alone? I am 100% sure that the Catholic Church has more followers among the Luo than Owuor. Not to mention SDA, Anglican, Legio Maria etc etc...the works. Why is this Owuor's duty only? Because he is a luo? Secondly, Owuor's following is vast across the various tribes. I dont understand why he has a special duty to cater to his Luo flock over his non-luo folk. In other words, you are making his tribe central to him as a pastor. That does not seem right. Remember, there is neither Jew, nor Greek, nore slave, nor freeman....etc etc I am sure you know the verse.

2) Just how prevalent is this practice, anyway, really? I have Luo in-laws through many "corners" of our family and among all of their families (extended), I have heard of only one incident where it happened. And it was a girl who married the husband of her elder sister (deceased). Mark you, I though it was a wise move in that particular situation. Her sister had left behind two small children who would have ended up in the hands of a woman who may not have felt any sense of genuine affection for them. Her children adore her (You would not know if no one told you "mom" is not really mom) and the two families stayed together. Now, grown, very happy and well-adjusted young adults, no one thinks twice about this having been the right move for this particular family. On what basis would Owuor (or yourself) lecture this family? That this is not how your particular family does things?

Rape or force ought to be condemned, but i would not venture to condemn cultural differences in the name of God. What God thinks of as intrinsic evil has nothing to do with what various cultures think are good or bad. God has no problems with people marrying the spouses of their dead siblings. The modern approach to dating and courting is just that, modern. Arranged marriages, "spouse-inheritence" or other forms of matching couples are wholly acceptable ways, as far as Christianity goes. Neither is more Christian than the other. The only thing that matters to Christianity is that (1) a true consent is given (or else the marriage is not a real marriage/sacramental/christian). (2)no "unlawful" coupling takes place (incest, polygamy, gay marriage, or "marriage" with a non-human (it happens in some places India!) etc etc).

Thereis danger here in engaging in an age-old vice that christians have been (unfortunately) perpetrating on other Christians that churches have offered apologies for and are trying to make ammends for: one culture imposing itself on another in the name of Christianity as if the faith is the same thing as a particular human culture among thousands of human cultures.

FGM is clearly harmful. It is therfore contrary to charity to do it to children and christians can legitimately be against it in the name of charity).

Besides such fundamandos, no one has the right to impose cultural mores on people who do not belong to that culture.

On another note, the laws of the Mosaic covenant have nothing to do with Christianity, as Christians are not Israelites. It was a contract entered into by God with a specific people, the Hebrews (Hence the "chosen people" moniker). Neither Jews nor Chriostians believe that non-Israelites are bound by the terms of that covenant, though both believe that parts of that covenant were part of the natural universal law binding on all humans (like thou shalt not kill).

[vooke]

Wife inheritance is not widows remarrying. Widows/widowers can remarry 1001 times. Wife inheritance is something else.

1. The husband's responsibility is purely sexual and he has zero obligation on the kids of the first ,marriage.

2. It is procured by force. A woman will not be allowed to marry elsewhere unless she LEAVES the ancestral land

Now,kadame, if your equity and moral bells don't ring, I will gladly aks if if you mind subjecting you to these conditions. If you don't, then Owuor should not be concerned.

Next, let us avoid confusing Levitate marriages and Luo wife inheritance. The only similarity in both is marrying close relations of the deceased.

Who said it is Owuor's duty alone? What kind of question is that? He is also against witchcraft. Why is it so? Is it his sole duty? Just about every other sect there is against witchcraft. They were long before Owuor started fighting witchcraft. Why does he do it?

I have several things to contribute on the discussion above:

1) What exactly is unchristian about "wife inheritence"?

PS: I am not asking about what is "uncivilized" or "backward" (not modern) or "un-European"....just what is unchristian, full stop.

-Rape or forced marriages of any sort are unchristian, the relations among the two persons notwithstanding.
-Polygamy is also deemed unchristian

But there is nothing at all in Christianity (or Judaism) that says a woman cannot marry the male relative of her dead spouse, nor a man the female relative of his dead wife. (Mark you, it happens both ways).

So, a few questions:

-Why exactly should Owuor condemn it? Because it is old and mideaval, or because God himself does not want it?

Considering that God commanded the Jews to do it, there really is no way to state flatly that the practice is immoral per se. You may argue it is immoral in some situations based on the reason (that you think) God commanded it of the Jews. Now consider, God commanded male circumcision. But we know the Apostles rubbished it as useless for Christians, threw out the debate by those Jewish christians who insisted on it for non-Jews in the name of God. Owuor would therefore have a hard time lecturing anyone on a moral law that comes only from his human wisdom. After all, Luos may also require that Kyuk, Gusii,Luhya, etc pastors condemn the "unchristian" circumcision of boys by so many Kenyan self-proclaimed Christians.

-Even if it was contrary to Christianity (and it is not, unless Christianity is synonymous with modernity or Europeanism), why is it Owuor's duty alone? I am 100% sure that the Catholic Church has more followers among the Luo than Owuor. Not to mention SDA, Anglican, Legio Maria etc etc...the works. Why is this Owuor's duty only? Because he is a luo? Secondly, Owuor's following is vast across the various tribes. I dont understand why he has a special duty to cater to his Luo flock over his non-luo folk. In other words, you are making his tribe central to him as a pastor. That does not seem right. Remember, there is neither Jew, nor Greek, nore slave, nor freeman....etc etc I am sure you know the verse.

2) Just how prevalent is this practice, anyway, really? I have Luo in-laws through many "corners" of our family and among all of their families (extended), I have heard of only one incident where it happened. And it was a girl who married the husband of her elder sister (deceased). Mark you, I though it was a wise move in that particular situation. Her sister had left behind two small children who would have ended up in the hands of a woman who may not have felt any sense of genuine affection for them. Her children adore her (You would not know if no one told you "mom" is not really mom) and the two families stayed together. Now, grown, very happy and well-adjusted young adults, no one thinks twice about this having been the right move for this particular family. On what basis would Owuor (or yourself) lecture this family? That this is not how your particular family does things?

Rape or force ought to be condemned, but i would not venture to condemn cultural differences in the name of God. What God thinks of as intrinsic evil has nothing to do with what various cultures think are good or bad. God has no problems with people marrying the spouses of their dead siblings. The modern approach to dating and courting is just that, modern. Arranged marriages, "spouse-inheritence" or other forms of matching couples are wholly acceptable ways, as far as Christianity goes. Neither is more Christian than the other. The only thing that matters to Christianity is that (1) a true consent is given (or else the marriage is not a real marriage/sacramental/christian). (2)no "unlawful" coupling takes place (incest, polygamy, gay marriage, or "marriage" with a non-human (it happens in some places India!) etc etc).

Thereis danger here in engaging in an age-old vice that christians have been (unfortunately) perpetrating on other Christians that churches have offered apologies for and are trying to make ammends for: one culture imposing itself on another in the name of Christianity as if the faith is the same thing as a particular human culture among thousands of human cultures.

FGM is clearly harmful. It is therfore contrary to charity to do it to children and christians can legitimately be against it in the name of charity).

Besides such fundamandos, no one has the right to impose cultural mores on people who do not belong to that culture.

On another note, the laws of the Mosaic covenant have nothing to do with Christianity, as Christians are not Israelites. It was a contract entered into by God with a specific people, the Hebrews (Hence the "chosen people" moniker). Neither Jews nor Chriostians believe that non-Israelites are bound by the terms of that covenant, though both believe that parts of that covenant were part of the natural universal law binding on all humans (like thou shalt not kill).

[Little Bella]

vooke, I said "Owuor's duty alone" because you have singled him out as bearing some kind of special duty, for which reason he is a hypocrite. Is there a reason you have picked on Owuor if, as you say, it is not his duty alone? Aren't all pastors in Kenya hypocrites, then? I have never heard a single person preaching about this, ever.

Secondly, I am not sure I buy your "procured with force" argument. Women are basically forced to marry to have some land (or "public face") in basically all Black cultures. No male in Kenya who is not a Luo has any choice in remaining uncircumcised. They basically have to chop off their skins to survive the social pressure that will follow them everywhere, as assuredly as taxes. Why doesnt that kind of "force" bother you, and why aren't you equally calling preachers to task for not being bothered by it?

About the "not a marriage" only sex, sounds like what the Gusii used to do back when wife inheritence was still a norm (not that long ago, my grandmother was "inherited"). I am not sure it happens exactly that way any more or as prevalently as you made it sound. Hence my wonderment as to why you think Owuor has a special duty to go an a crusade about it.