The tone of some of the letter struck me as a bit off:
While I find some of the language of the proposed Nigerian law too harsh and unacceptable in our context, sadly there are many other situations that I find even more unacceptable. For example, in Saudi Arabia there are death penalties for women convicted of adultery or for any citizen who converts to Christianity. I suspect that all of us could add to the list of laws that we would deem deplorable – the good news is that in the United States we have the freedom not only to deplore them but to change them. Many in other countries are not permitted either choice.The difference with the Nigerian legislation (which, by the way, has not yet passed!) and other human rights violations in other countries is that the Church of Nigeria is lending it direct support. There is no doubt that Akinola faces significant pressure -- (1) a restive northern Muslim population that wants control of the presidency, (2) a president (Obasanjo) that he denies is actively seeking to change the constitution to allow for a third four-year term, but who clearly is, and (3) a growing split in the worldwide Anglican community over orthodoxy. But he should speaking out against a law that would deny speech, assembly, etc., not for it.
HOWEVER -- I am really glad to see that there is some movement on this from affiliates of the AAC, and I hope that the dialogue continues. Hopefully, this will lead to pressure on the Church of Nigeria to pull its support. If it doesn't, what would that mean for the integrity of Akinola's American associates?