Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 4:23 PM
For the last few weeks influential U.S. pastor Rick Warren has been under fire from critics for refusing to condemn the proposed draconian anti-gay laws in Uganda -- which would punish homosexual behavior with jail time or even death and punish those who fail to report gays to the authorities -- despite his longstanding involvement in the country and having had one of the main campaigners for the law as a speaker at his church. Warren had previously said, "It is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations."
But Warren apparently changed his mind and issued a statement condemning the law this morning (video here):
Of course, there are thousands of evil laws enacted around the world and I cannot speak to pastors about every one of them, but I am taking the extraordinary step of speaking to you – the pastors of Uganda and spiritual leaders of your nation – for five reasons:
First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice.
Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.
Third, it would have a chilling effect on your ministry to the hurting. As you know, in Africa, it is the churches that are bearing the primary burden of providing care for people infected with HIV/AIDS. If this bill passed, homosexuals who are HIV positive will be reluctant to seek or receive care, comfort and compassion from our churches out of fear of being reported. You and I know that the churches of Uganda are the truly caring communities where people receive hope and help, not condemnation.
Fourth, ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God. My wife, Kay, and I have devoted our lives and our ministry to saving the lives of people, including homosexuals, who are HIV positive. It would be inconsistent to save some lives and wish death on others. We’re not just pro-life. We are whole life.
Finally, the freedom to make moral choices and our right to free expression are gifts endowed by God. Uganda is a democratic country with remarkable and wise people, and in a democracy everyone has a right to speak up. For these reasons, I urge you, the pastors of Uganda, to speak out against the proposed law.
All well and good, except no one is expecting Warren to comment on every unjust law in the world, just ones in countries where he has an extensive history of involvement, are sponsored by his onetime ally, and concerns a subject that he frequently discusses. After the Ugandan Anglican Church threatened to leave the Church of England, Warren rose to their defense, saying, “The Church of England is wrong and I support the Church of Uganda on the boycott.” So it's not as if he's afraid to wade into Uganda's culture wars.
Warren says that, "some erroneously concluded that I supported this terrible bill, and some even claimed I was a sponsor of the bill." But people only came to these conclusions because of his refusal to comment. Warren might not think it's fair that he was asked about the law, but he's a public figure that many people look to for moral guidance and it shouldn't be an unreasonable demand to expect him to condemn the state-sanctioned murder of innocent people.
Moreover, reports yesterday indicated that the Ugandan parliament had actually removed the most controversial portion of the bill -- the possibility of the death penaly or life infrisonment for homosexuals. So Warren actually waited for the death-penalty provision to be dropped before speaking out against it.
I'm glad that he made this statement and hope that it makes a difference in Uganda, but it's not exactly a profile in courage.
David McNew/Getty Images
Some confusion here, the bishops of the Church of Uganda declined to attend the every ten year meeting of Bishops, the Lambeth Conference, in 2008---a decision taken in protest to the invitation to American bishops. Rick Warren supported their stand.
Warren has also been unfairly treated in this matter---and has been more outspoken than the Archbishop of Canterbury, for example.
But people only came to these conclusions because of his refusal to comment.
It's Rick Warren's fault that people jumped to a conclusion with no information?
Remember the 2008 Presidential campaign? Remember how long it took for Obama to renounce the hate-speech of Reverend Wright? It wasn't because he secretly agreed with him. It was because he wanted the issue to go away. The fact that he had to respond in order to distance himself was an admission that people had associated Obama and Wright. Warren was most likely trying to distance himself in the same manner. Commenting creates a "thou dost protest too much" reaction from many people. Not commenting strives (though does not always succeed) in sending a message of, "this assertion is so absurd that I'm not even going to address it."
Rick Warren,takes a two thousand year old book of fairy tales as literal truth, believes in mythological beings that control the world and believes as true obviously absurd 'miracles' for which there is no proof of factual basis and you're implying that he had credibility to lose?
Way-to-go Rick... Speak up for over 2 billion 'absurd miracle' believers. Hopefully leaders in other faiths and communities will do the same. "Love thy neighbour as thyself..."
@F1FAN
"No proof of factual basis"? What are you trying to say? That we must believe in things only if they can be proven scientifically?
If you are a normal, rational human being you probably believe in the following things, all of which cannot be scientifically proven:
1. mathematical truths and logical truths
2. metaphysical truths (How do you know that there aren't other minds than your own?)
3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value (there is no evolutionary basis for human rights so why is it so important?)
4. Beauty and aesthetic judgements
5. What about assumptions that presuppose the scientific method itself? (The theory of relativity assumes that light travels at a constant speed from point A to point B every time. This can't be scientifically proven.) Science also pre-supposes that numbers exist even though it can't prove it.
The logical conclusion of atheism is that there is no purpose to life, there if you are living for something then it is an illusion that you have created yourself. The result of atheism is nihilism.
As for your "fairy tales" comment. There is a big difference. Fairy tales are nothing in comparison to the Bible. The Bible has historical accounts and chronological accuracy on its side. Plus thousands of witnesses and believers have given up their lives in defense of its truths.
I hope you have a good day sir/madam and I hope you put yourself in someone else's shoes first before you demean them.
Rajan
Canada
Maybe you should heed your own subject heading's advice. While I do believe that the other comments were insensitive and unnecessarily antagonistic, your counter-arguments were pretty specious. A blow-by-blow:
1. Obviously you've never taken advanced mathematics coursework; any intro to number theory tackles proofs of integers and such.
2. You had such a good opportunity here. When Descartes wrote his Meditations, he opened up a huge can of worms that no one has been able to resolve since. The only way that the discourse of ethics could continue was to act AS IF there was anything outside of consciousness. You could easily extend the same argument for God, i.e. we can't know if there is a god, but we should act as if one exists. This, however, is an ethical distinction rather than a factual one. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, Descartes' secondary aim in Meditations, proving the existence of God, was very unconvincing.)
3. The incest taboo. 'Nuff said.
4. Anyone who believes that aesthetics are determined on a factual basis is either (a) still living in the early Renaissance, or (b) a total idiot.
5. Obviously you have never seriously studied physics. There are numerous experiments that show that light moves at a constant speed. Now for quantum particles . . .
Anyone who justifies the bible by saying that a bunch of people believe in it obviously is relying on a shaky line of argumentation. You could probably say the same thing about Greek mythology a few millenia ago, yet one would be hard-pressed to find. Also, nihilism is not the eventual result of atheism; it's the result of the eternal return, whose chief adherents were the Stoics and Nietzsche. Atheists are a more varied group than that. I'm not trying to be a jerk (though this sentence alone may frame me as such), I just don't like it when people make false assertions.
Great information to make a good research!
Web design company
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
(7)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE