This is a dumb line of argument we're having here anyway. I wish that Warren would have the moral compunction to say that governments shouldn't be able to kill gay people just because they're gay, but my faith in his moral compunction wasn't something I was hanging a hat on anyway. So he's a bigger jerk than I thought — whoop-tee-do. The real tragedy here is the law, and those it will directly effect — that is, essentially, everyone in Uganda. That most of the coverage here in the States is focused on some SoCal Mega-Pastor instead of on the very real and heartbreaking things this law will do to the people of Uganda is pretty silly.

Yes, it's true. I will fully agree that I have zero tolerance for people who are ambivalent about a question like “should a government be able to kill people for being gay?” If you find that intolerance of mine the same as the intolerance needed to actually *be* ambivalent about such a question, so be it.

But that is not what happened, Warren stated that he had “serious conflict ” with the policies of Ssempa. The left is just trying to make an issue that he isn't allowing that difference to push him into some form of grandstanding. He stated his difference and is keeping a low key that might pay off in the future. He is allowing the initiative to be taken by those elected by the voters of this country instead of trying to direct it from the pulpit. Screaming anti Ugandan government slogans might hurt the efforts of his ministry to do good for other people in Uganda gay and/or non gay. He is being smart unlike his detractors are who haven't seemed to have put any deep thought into their condemnation of him. But they really don't care, its just part of their effort to make social conservative a scarlet letter as ironic as that is. The far left has become the far right in this.

Fair enough — perhaps I spoke to strongly on that. I still believe there's a false equivalency between the two scenarios.

Yes, it's true. I will fully agree that I have zero tolerance for people who are ambivalent about a question like “should a government be able to kill people for being gay?” If you find that intolerance of mine the same as the intolerance needed to actually *be* ambivalent about such a question, so be it.

As I told you before, I have no idea how much influence Warren would or could have on this legislation. Perhaps, despite working closely with Ugandan leaders on this program that he was invited to start, he has totally zero influence with anyone in Uganda and could not possibly have any affect on this monstrous legislation and it's pointless for him even to try — a waste of time. He has not tried to exert any influence, so we don't know.

Thats right we don't know, so why condemn without knowing? Ignorance makes a poor platform to launch a condemnation from. Anyhow, he has already stated oposition:

“when we learned that his views and actions were in serious conflict with our own,”

I think Warren already made himself clear enough and its degenerated to an intolerant witch hunt of a social conservative.

Can you clarify your thinking for me here, Leonidas?

Simply that some pro-gay rights folk (I mayself am pro-gay rights) have become exactly the the thing they condemn. The far left and the far right are very similar in their intolerance.

As I told you before, I have no idea how much influence Warren would or could have on this legislation. Perhaps, despite working closely with Ugandan leaders on this program that he was invited to start, he has totally zero influence with anyone in Uganda and could not possibly have any affect on this monstrous legislation and it's pointless for him even to try — a waste of time. He has not tried to exert any influence, so we don't know.

Just as a point of clarification, Warren launched his Purpose-Driven Life program in Uganda in 2008. So whatever he said to distance himself from Ssempa in 2007, obviously he was still conducting business in Uganda a year later.

I think there are two replies worth making to your second paragraph. First, Jeremiah Wright's views and Uganda's genocidal legislation are not analogous in any way, A viewpoint, no matter how odious (and Jeremiah Wright's were not odious at all, just controversial) is not the same as, and cannot be compared to, a piece of legislation that proposes to murder human beings because they are HIV-infected and are homosexual. And to even place those two things in the same sentence is, in my view, appalling.

Second reply — regarding your thoughts about confluences of certain degrees of opinion and finding reasons to have a relationship up to a point, and then coming to loggerheads when they no longer agree, and then having to decide how to each individually further their goals and realizing they no longer can change each other's minds after they have decided to each further their goals in their own separate ways: Very interesting, if rather nauseating in the context at hand, but really not relevant. Rick Warren was asked a direct question by a reporter from Newsweek magazine. He was asked to state his opinion on a specific piece of legislation in Uganda that proposes to murder human beings who are homosexual and infected with the HIV virus. He could have condemned the legislation unequivocally as a monstrous piece of legislation reminiscent of Nazi Germany. He chose not to do that. He chose, in fact, to equivocate and give a morally repugnant and dishonest non-answer about how it was not his place as a pastor to comment on political issues.

Edited to add: That was interesting. I meant to add a closing sentence, but I hit some key that posted the comment before I had planned to. But I guess that's really all I have to say.

I have to say that now I'm seeing more reason for Mrnoface's analogy to Obama and Rev. Wright. Isn't it true that those two men did have a personal relationship (actually much more intimate than anything I've seen indicated about Warren and Ssempe) but at some point Obama realized that some of Wright's opinions were odious and since he would not be able to persuade Wright to change those views he had to break off the relationship. There are of course differences in the types of viewpoints that were at issue there, and the fact that the pastor was the one who broke off the relationship in Warren's case while it was the other way around with Obama, etc, etc. But this one facet of the analogy holds- that two men sometimes have a confluence of a certain degree of opinion and find reason to have a relationship based on mutual agreements to a point, and then at some point come to loggerheads where they no longer agree. At that point, the individuals have to decide how to further their own goals and generally having broken whatever ties they once had they know they aren't going to do that by attempting to change the other person.

That is all I'm trying to point out here…I have no dog in this race, having no great knowledge of or need to defend Rick Warren. He's not my cup of tea, frankly. But having seen that some of the work that his church does seems very worthy, I think it's both foolish and petty for people to demand some kind of symbolic gesture from him which might well have the effect of destroying that work- and I think the basis for your saying that it could do the opposite and actually effect a change in the law in Uganda is completely unfounded.

Warren launched a “Purpose-Driven Life” program in Uganda in 2008 for Uganda's leaders to learn “how to live purpose-driven lives.” He was *invited* to do so by Uganda's highest-ranking church leaders — like the Archbishop of the Anglican Church there.

The Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Uganda, the Most Rev Henry Luke Orombi, recalled initially wanting to invite Warren to Uganda after seeing the Purpose Driven Living programme implemented in Rwanda.

Uganda is the second east African country to invite Warren to bring the Purpose Driven Life and Church leadership training programme to the country on a national scale. The first east African country to adopt the programme nationwide was Rwanda in 2005.

“I asked, why not Uganda as well?” recalled Orombi, who spearheaded the effort to bring different denominations together with business and government leaders to invite Warren.

“Uganda should be a purpose-driven nation as well,” the Anglican archbishop said. “But it takes people of purpose to build purpose driven-churches, purpose-driven communities, and a purpose-driven country. Someday, we will have a purpose-driven continent!”

How do you do something like this without having strong working relationships with key legislators and church leaders? Does it occur to you that Uganda's Christians and church leaders gain enormous prestige and legitimacy in their part of the world from having Rick Warren running his program in their country? Is it possible that Rick Warren does NOT have some level of gravitas and influence by virtue of having accepted an invitation to work with the Ugandan church hierarchy and the Ugandan government to run his signature program in their country?

I mean, I truly don't know what level of influence you're looking for, but clearly the man knows Ssempa and other government and church leaders fairly well. Clearly, he is respected there. What kind of leverage could he have? I don't know. More than I could. More than you could. The point is, he has not tried. I'll repeat that. The point is, he has not tried.

Why are you trying to run nitpicking arguments by me about how well does Warren really know Ssempa and how much leverage does he really have, when it is crystal clear that he *does* have some level of moral clout — I mean, just by the fact of his *being* Rick Warren, world-famous right-wing socially conservative anti-gay rights, best-selling book author megachurch minister. Even if he had never stepped foot in Uganda or met a single leader there.

Why aren't you addressing the point, which is that Rick Warren, who claims to be an avatar of love, reconciliation, peace, healing, and the rest of those Christian virtues, will not directly and unequivocally state his opinion of Uganda's atrocious, murderous, genocidal legislation?

Added: Link for above quote:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/rick.warr…

I would think that any leverage he might have as a result of (a) his ministry in Uganda and (b) his strong connection to and working relationship with legislator-monster Ssempa would be put to better use condemning a law that proposes to murder people for having an illness, jail them for life for the crime of intimately touching the body of another consenting adult, and turn all Ugandans into snitches and informers; than to ignoring the law in order to continue “ministering” to AIDS sufferers before the government murders them.

Think, indeed, Kathy.

His humanitarian work in Uganda doing what, Christine? And what is it this legislation will do, again?

Think, Christine.

Still don't get it? Need a hint? Okay, sure: Alanis Morrissette's hit song, one word title, from her breakthrough album, Jagged Little Pill.

Huh? No one is saying we should 'run' elections, but we can and do comment on the legitimacy or illegitimacy. Most recently we've done so with regard to Afghanistan, where Sen Kerry even traveled to put pressure on Karzai to accept the need for a runoff election, and in Honduras where the result of the coup was pronounced unacceptable.

It's case by case, of course, as to whether or not we get involved- but your blanket statement is demonstrably false. In the case of Iran, for instance, I already mentioned that there were pragmatic reasons that can justify Obama's reticence (most significantly, the fact that US endorsement of opposition would likely do more harm than good.)

Are you really going to compare the two? We do not run the elections of other countries — not our place. We can and do condemn the *actions* of governments once they are elected if they are violating treaties, etc. We create sanctions, we employ other methods of diplomacy. Sometimes, we wage war. This is clearly a different case. This is an action by a government, and it needs to be condemned. I hope that Obama does so as well, calling it out for the human rights disaster that it is.