Christopher Orr is disturbed by Rick Warren making the case against the Ugandan bill on religious grounds. Douthat is puzzled:

[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”?

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.