John McWhorter points out an inconvenient truth to gay activists and the progressive base:
Do [Rick] Warren's un-PC views really merit so much agita over his participation in the inaugural? Let's try a thought experiment: Suppose Obama had invited black megastar preacher T.D. Jakes instead. Jakes heads a 30,000 member Dallas church, reaches millions more with the television show The Potter's Touch, and was designated "perhaps the most influential black leader in America" by The Atlantic. His church runs outreach programs as well as anti-poverty efforts in Africa. Yet like Warren, Jakes dissociates himself from those who "support abortion, homosexuality and other things I see as unscriptural."Still, I suspect that progressives' reaction to Jakes' inclusion would be vastly less indignant. Surely the justification for that view would not be that black people, shall we say, "cling to" religion because of the exigencies of their past and present. No--there would be a sense that for a black preacher, views like Jakes's were something to let pass as "diverse," unsurprising in a pastor of any color, with his presence as an articulate and inspiring figure in black America more important than ideological details at such a momentous event. Why must Warren be fumigated against, then? Because as a white person, he's supposed to know better? What other difference between Warren and Jakes is so crucial?
Overall, expecting Obama to treat social conservatism as beyond the pale proposes that Obama dismiss a frame of reference typical, whether many of us like it or not, of legions of the people we're supposed to be so excited about including in the American fabric. Black he is not, but at the inauguration ceremony next month, Rick Warren will be every bit as much in line with the black American soul as Aretha Franklin.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod, you needn't delve into thought experiments to expose the moral bankruptcy of Obama his minions. Actually, it's the rank hypocrisy of Obama and the left which I find simultaneously fascinating and repugnant. If any Republican/conservative had the same long term personal and professional relationships with the following groups and individuals that Obama did then their political careers would dramatically end and they would become a social pariah and rightly so.
Chandoo brothers: Islamic misogynists and practitioners of Muttah-Islamic sanctioned prostitution, ahem, I mean short-term marriage-who accompanied Obama on his 1981 Spring Break trip to Pakistan.
Khalid Al-Mansour: Mentor to Black Panther Party members, a Saudi Arabian prince, and incredibly and virulently racist towards Jews and whites, yet he felt comfortable and friendly enough with Obama to raise money and use his contacts to help Obama get into Harvard Law School.
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn: Domestic terrorists and O’s and Michelle’s professional colleagues.
Rev. Jeremiah Wrong: O’s racist, anti-Semitic, heretical Black Separatist preacher for more than 20 years.
Raila Odinga: Obama’s BFF and aspirant Robert Mugabe in Kenya.
Besides the other venal people in Obama’s orbit-e.g Rezko, Chicago politicians, and the obvious fact that Obama would NOT pass any serious background check, the only way to illustrate how repugnant Obama’s associations have been is to create a right wing analog. Frankly, I’m not sure even David Duke has as many hate-filled associations as Obama, yet the Press and 63+ million Americans pretty much overlooked the stench of hate surrounding Obama.
So why don’t any of these events and people matter and why didn’t they matter to a significant portion of Americans who voted for Obama?
I’ve been struggling with this question and the only answer I’ve come up with is a statement from Iowahawk, post-election:“In his famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial 45 years ago, Dr. King said "I have a dream that one day my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Let us now take pride that Tuesday we Americans proved that neither thing matters anymore.”
I'm not sure about that last sentence, Rod. Don't know that I'd be brave enough to listen to Pastor Warren's rendition of 'Chain of Fools'.
Amy Sullivan was on Speaking of Faith the week before Rod was on. Her perspective as an Evangelical Christian Democrat was very interesting. She spoke of how Democrats "outsource" religion to African Americans, and I think she has a point. I'm pretty sure McWhorter does as well.
"Overall, expecting Obama to treat social conservatism as beyond the pale proposes that Obama dismiss a frame of reference typical, whether many of us like it or not, of legions of the people we're supposed to be so excited about including in the American fabric."
No. Obama is not expected to treat social conservative as "beyond the pale." He is expected to treat those who lump homosexuality in with pedophilia as "beyond the pale."
John:
If you are discussing this from a Biblical perspective then homosexuality is exactly equivalent with pedophilia in God's eyes, the same with adultery, premarital sex, rape, incest, bestiality etc.
God made each of those "no-nos" in the Bible. Which ones would you like to ask Him to quit viewing as sin? Obviously homosexuality. Which others? I guess only the ones that you discriminate against should still be "sin" according to Warren and Jakes and be legally outlawed. Your so discriminatory. Quit making pedophiles, rapists, adulterers, polygamists out to be bad people who sin worse than homosexuals. Why should laws discriminate against the relationships a polygamist or incestuous couple would like to have? Who made you to be the judge?
EXACTLY. We all need someone, or something, greater than all of us to give us a communal moral direction. For Warren and T.D. Jakes that is the Bible, and so they speak out against homosexuality just like they speak out against adulterey or pornography. You should be ashamed of being an anti-religion bigot and trying to margianlize these decent and respectful men.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.