Good for Rick Warren for condemning the proposed Uganda law that would imprison gays and even execute them — though given his influence in that country, you can certainly argue that the condemnation should have come sooner. I’m puzzled, though, by Isaac Chotiner’s objection to Warren’s decision to attack the law as “un-Christian”:
It is easy to see the practical benefits of Warren addressing the bill in Christian terms, because presumably many of the people he is speaking to are Christian. And yet, there is something disturbing about Warren’s decision to do so. Do arguments like these really have to be made on religious grounds? And how depressing is it that people will turn away from bigotry (and worse) only because they think it might not correspond with the Gospels? … This is a fight worth having, but it is unfortunate that is has to be fought on the turf of people who believe morality comes from a holy book.
Actually, Warren’s statement was explicitly addressed to his “fellow pastors in Uganda” — so all of the people he was speaking to directly were his fellow Christians. And of course if you’re a pastor addressing an audience of pastors, saying that a law violates the letter and spirit of the Gospels is pretty much the harshest possible condemnation you can offer. And is it really so depressing that religious appeals are sometimes more effective arguments against discrimination than secular ones? (The civil rights movement might beg to differ.) Would it really have been a more potent statement against bigotry if Warren had told the pastors, “oppose this bill because it violates Kant’s categorical imperative,” or “oppose this bill because it runs contrary to John Stuart Mill’s harm principle”?
Basically, Chotiner’s point amounts to saying, “it is unfortunate that there are people who believe more strongly in Christian teaching than in procedural liberalism.” That’s a valid opinion, obviously, but it seems like an oddly extreme response to the intra-Christian Warren chiding just delivered.
