SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Downside of Rick Warren's Important Speech

THE PLANK DECEMBER 10, 2009

The Downside of Rick Warren's Important Speech

From Bloomberg:

Uganda will drop the death penalty and life imprisonment for gays in a refined version of an anti- gay bill expected to be ready for presentation to Parliament in two weeks, James Nsaba Buturo, the minister of ethics and integrity, said.

Ugandan lawmaker David Bahati presented a private member’s bill on Oct. 14 which sought the death penalty and life imprisonment for gay people in the country. The Ugandan government supports the bill because homosexuality and lesbianism are “repugnant to the Ugandan culture,” Buturo said. Still, it favors a more refined set of punishments, he said. In addition to formulating punishments for the gay people, the bill will also promote counseling to help “attract errant people to acceptable sexual orientation,” said Buturo.

This good twist in a sick story will--one hopes--lead to a further toning down of the bill. Meanwhile, I see via Andrew Sullivan that Rick Warren has come out strongly against the bill, and he should be applauded for doing so. Andrew adds:

What I think is most significant is that Warren called this bill "extreme, unjust and unchristian towards homosexuals". It is absolutely and unequivocally unchristian to demonize a whole group of people and to threaten them with execution simply because of their sexual orientation and their need for love and sex and intimacy and companionship like every other human being. And for Warren to deploy Christian arguments in defense of the dignity of homosexual persons is a big step forward in this debate. I am grateful to him for staying true to the Gospels.

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? If this is the standard for morality, Sullivan can hardly fault people who "stay true" to the most violent passages in the Bible or the Koran. 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.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

"Do arguments like these really have to be made on religious grounds?" Absolutely yes, since his main audience consists of people who cite religious grounds FOR their bigotry. "If this is the standard for morality, Sullivan can hardly fault people who "stay true" to the most violent passages in the Bible or the Koran." That doesn't follow -- especially since a death penalty for homosexuals would in fact "stay true" to the fairly unambiguous text of Leviticus 20:13. This matter absolutely requires prominent Christian voices to criticize it on Christian grounds. Whether he meant to stress a difference or not, Sullivan also phrases it "stay true to the *Gospels*" -- that is, the Jesus-y bits that tend to have rather a lot less of the "God will kill you" stuff than the Old Testament.

- frippo

December 10, 2009 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, two CAPTCHAs needed to post that.

- frippo

December 10, 2009 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rick Warren's only authority to speak on this "fight worth having" is on the grounds that he is a prominent pastoral leader among Christians. No one should care what Warren thinks about the moderation or justice of the Ugandan proposal; religious grounds are the only "turf" on which Warren can speak persuasively. It would be instructive here to adopt the dominant reasoning tool of the Gospels: the parable. An Islamic leader declared that the second-born son of every family in his realm must become a suicide bomber to fulfill God's command of jihad, and that any woman whose second-born son did not volunteer for a terrorist mission would be punished severely. After a long silence, a leading cleric and the largest mosque in the ruler's country condemned the ruler's decree, saying that it was extreme, unjust, and un-Islamic. Would anyone at TNR condemn the cleric for contesting the ruler's decree on religious grounds?

- rhubarbs

December 10, 2009 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isaac's right, except for the next to last word: the Bible isn't a "holy" book. There is no such thing. (Meanwhile, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that I can actually post this comment. I tried commenting on McWhorter's post on Tiger and was told I'm not authorized to comment.)

- williamyard

December 10, 2009 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close