I defended Barack Obama when right-wing critics were trying to derail his presidential campaign by tarring him with the incendiary black-liberation rhetoric of his pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright. And no one was prouder when he was elected as the first black president of the United States.
That is why it pains me to have to join the chorus of those now criticizing him for choosing Rev Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration next month.
Rev Warren, of course, is the author of the best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life and pastor of the purportedly progressive megachurch in Saddleback, California. More to the point, he wields so much religious influence in America today that both presidential nominees felt obliged to seek his political blessing.
Unfortunately, Rev Warren recently betrayed whatever reputation he had for social and political enlightenment by proselytizing the notion that:
The redefinition of marriage to include gay marriage would be like legitimizing incest, child abuse and polygamy.
And he hardly redeemed himself by later insisting that he loves gays, which smacks of the canard -“hate the sin, love the sinner” – that narrow-minded evangelicals like Pat Robertson spew from the pulpit to rationalize their bigotry. (Or, as Obama might more readily appreciate, this is rather like a white bigot insisting that some of his best friends are black.)
Therefore, no matter how the president-elect and his advisers spin his choice of Rev Warren for this historic honor, it still reeks of pandering to a bigot for pedestrian political purposes.
I think Rick Warren’s comments, comparing same-sex relationships to incest, is deeply offensive, wildly inaccurate and very socially disruptive…
Being singled out to give the prayer at the inauguration is a high honor. It has traditionally been given as a mark of great respect. And, yes, I think it was wrong to single him out for this mark of respect.
(Congressman Barney Frank D-MA, the first openly gay member of Congress)
For the record, Obama claims that he invited Warren to reinforce his “come-let-us-reason-together” political philosophy. But he could have chosen from amongst thousands of pastors who oppose same-sex marriages but do not espouse Warren’s contemptible and inhumane views of gays – who are still fighting for the civil rights we all take for granted.
Unfortunately, this invitation suggests that Obama is either every bit as naïve as John McCain insisted or even more impressed with his own political righteousness than Hillary Clinton protested. And, frankly, I do not know which is more troubling….
I think [President-elect Obama] overestimates his ability to take people, particularly our colleagues on the right, and, sort of, charm them into being nice… And so, to be honest, when he talks about being post-partisan, having seen these people and knowing what they would do in that situation, I suffer from post-partisan depression.
Congressman Barney Frank
Finally, for a little perspective, imagine the national outrage if then President Bill Clinton, claiming a desire to promote greater academic freedom and intellectual debate in his second term, had chosen Charles Murray, celebrated political scientist and author of the best-selling book The Bell Curve, to lead the nation in reciting the pledge of allegiance at his inauguration?
After all, in this book, Murray imputed scientific reasoning to the eugenic fiction that there is a positive correlation between the white race and intelligence and, naturally, a negative one between the black race and intelligence.
Related articles:
My last word on the Rev Wright media farce