The black Rick Warren
Tuesday December 23, 2008
Categories: Homosexuality, Race
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...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
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.
Somehow I doubt that...
Many white liberals, in their attitude towards American religion, are profoundly unaware of their own racist double-standard. White Christians serious about their religion are dangerous, especially in the sphere of public discourse. Serious black Christians are simply endearing and add multicultural color to the rainbow of diversity. Their lively churches, though antiquated in belief, provide crucial support to struggling communities. By contrast, white churches, with their dour preachers, are threats to liberty and the pursuit of pelvic fulfillment that must be checked.
It's condescending and offensive beyond belief.
"It's condescending and offensive beyond belief."
What is? Your calling black Christians "simply endearing...add[ing] color..."? Yeah that must be it.
Why can hardly no one on this blog comprehend a simple post? I didn't call black Christians anything; I characterized others' opinions of them.
What's offensive is how some white liberals pass up absolutely no opportunity to denounce religion whenever a conservative white Christian voices an opinion, yet fail to take with any seriousness the same beliefs held by a black Christian. The former are viewed as a serious threat; the latter are not taken seriously at all and get a pass, with a condescending wave of the hand and appreciative comments about their music and dress. It's offensive to both.
Wait: you're calling those who protest Obama's invitation to Warren to his inauguration rascist?
You've got to be kidding.
Reverend Wright was 86'd from the Obama's life awhile ago during this journey to the White House. He's a black preacher and he would not be welcome nor invited.
I predict a major political shift due to divisions both parties have over immigration and the new anti-traditional rights exemplified by gay marriage.
The republican party currently pro business and home of family values voters will lose its biz cred and become anti immigration, and protectionist. (Huckabee and Palin)
The democrat party will pick up pro business supporters and limit its social welfare stance (like clintons welfare reform).
The shift will come about because of tough economic times -> rise of protectionist sentiment.
Obama will come under attack from the far left and minorities will began to question their allegiance to the republican party. As tough economic times settle in the republicans will begin to successfully woe them anti immigrant/protectionism.
I didn't call black Christians anything; I characterized others' opinions of them.
You set up a straw man and labeled it 'What Liberals Believe'.
Sean,
My bad. Mea mal. Mea culpa.
I think that it is more interesting that Warren's very mainstream Evangelical views are being called hateful and extreme. It is a way of moving the bar, so that the views of traditional Christians can be labeled as WAY to the right and dangerous. The kinds of views that should be suppressed, with force if necessary.
I love this response to McWhorter on TAPPED.
"That's true. But if we're just measuring who best represents black ideology based on views of gay marriage and abortion, then Rick Warren is more representative than Barack Obama. But I don't see anyone on Georgia Avenue wearing Rick Warren t-shirts, so there's probably more to it than that."
Google Donnie McClurkin-Obama.
That controversy was ALL over the media, and it was just 2 months ago.
Cripes.
I love it when conservatives pretend to know everything about liberals.
Sean, you said:
"Many white liberals, in their attitude towards American religion, are profoundly unaware of their own racist double-standard. White Christians serious about their religion are dangerous, especially in the sphere of public discourse. Serious black Christians are simply endearing and add multicultural color to the rainbow of diversity."
Hey, Sean. I like your post. Speaking to the central point you are making, I completely agree. I don't think you were setting up a "straw man" I think you were correctly characterizing an attitude that appears to be common among "some liberals" or "some white liberals."
I attend a very liberal Episcopal congregation, and I can tell you that there is a very concerted effort by some in my church to "understand" conservatives and traditionalists when these are people of color (such as the Bishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola) and next to no effort to "understand" the conservative Episcopalians (who are mostly white) who live in our backyard (literally, in the DC metro area).
If I were to describe the "current buzz" in my church, it is all about "conversation with the other" as long as the other does not include conservatives, especially white conservatives. This is a failing in (at least) my liberal church.
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.