Mr. Shah seems intent on dismissing any American evangelical influence on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and David Bahati. Instead, Shah has his own theory – “idiosyncratic insecurities of David Bahati.”

Isn’t that just a nice way of calling David Bahati homophobic in his own right?

Still, the theory of the bill’s American inspiration is a useful device that enables advocates of gay rights to attack homophobia in Uganda without appearing insensitive to Ugandans or Africans.

What? You mean we don’t think 90% of Ugandans are just plain homophobic?

Shah’s unfamiliarity with Bahati and the facts surrounding the bill lead him to a faulty narrative – one which has opposition coming soley from the left and gay activists because of the black eye it gives to evangelicals.

I’m not sure what ‘side’ of the evangelicals that Shah is on. He used to work with Berger up at Boston and despite his religious convictions Berger has been moving towards acceptance of civil unions or even marriage for gays and lesbians in America. It seems that Shah seeks to strike a medium perhaps in that same place that you, Warren, are in. Perhaps he would dismiss the LaBarberas and Livelys from the ranks of his understanding of what are evangelicals. Not sure what Peter and Scott would say about that. I wonder if Shah even knows what goes on in places like Moldova.

BTW… my comment was deleted from his CT article. I guess I’ve been expressing a little too much ‘attitude’ lately.

Mr. Shah seems intent on dismissing any American evangelical influence on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill and David Bahati. Instead, Shah has his own theory – “idiosyncratic insecurities of David Bahati.”

Isn’t that just a nice way of calling David Bahati homophobic in his own right?

Still, the theory of the bill’s American inspiration is a useful device that enables advocates of gay rights to attack homophobia in Uganda without appearing insensitive to Ugandans or Africans.

What? You mean we don’t think 90% of Ugandans are just plain homophobic?

Shah’s unfamiliarity with Bahati and the facts surrounding the bill lead him to a faulty narrative – one which has opposition coming soley from the left and gay activists because of the black eye it gives to evangelicals.

I’m not sure what ‘side’ of the evangelicals that Shah is on. He used to work with Berger up at Boston and despite his religious convictions Berger has been moving towards acceptance of civil unions or even marriage for gays and lesbians in America. It seems that Shah seeks to strike a medium perhaps in that same place that you, Warren, are in. Perhaps he would dismiss the LaBarberas and Livelys from the ranks of his understanding of what are evangelicals. Not sure what Peter and Scott would say about that. I wonder if Shah even knows what goes on in places like Moldova.

BTW… my comment was deleted from his CT article. I guess I’ve been expressing a little too much ‘attitude’ lately.