The Obama camp has attempted to justify the selection of Rick Warren as a way to shine a light on the “wide range of viewpoints” in a “diverse and noisy and opinionated” America.
Frank Rich, NYT Columnist wrote:
Obama should know better, saying the president-elect “knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable. By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
It is true. Liberal writers have been up in arms about Warren’s selection since the announcement was made. So too have evangelical voices, who claim Warren should have rejected the invitation because of Obama’s pro-choice (“pro-death” in their words) beliefs.
But this is perhaps the most visible column yet to come out of the opinion pages that really calls into question Obama’s rationale in choosing Warren, the Saddleback Church pastor who campaigned heavily for the passing of Prop. 8 in California.
In the column, Rich reasons that despite calls from liberal activists to remove Warren from the inauguration, Obama now has to follow through with his decision -- civil-rights icon Reverend Joseph Lowery, an outspoken supporter of gay rights, was selected to deliver the Benediction, though that announcement was rather overshadowed by the selection of Warren.
Frank Rich, NYT Columnist wrote:
Obama should know better, saying the president-elect “knows full well that a ‘viewpoint’ defaming any minority group by linking it to sexual crimes like pedophilia is unacceptable. By the historical standards of presidential hubris, Obama’s disingenuous defense of his tone-deaf invitation to Warren is nonetheless a relatively tiny infraction. It’s no Bay of Pigs. But it does add an asterisk to the joyous inaugural of our first black president. It’s bizarre that Obama, of all people, would allow himself to be on the wrong side of this history.
It is true. Liberal writers have been up in arms about Warren’s selection since the announcement was made. So too have evangelical voices, who claim Warren should have rejected the invitation because of Obama’s pro-choice (“pro-death” in their words) beliefs.
But this is perhaps the most visible column yet to come out of the opinion pages that really calls into question Obama’s rationale in choosing Warren, the Saddleback Church pastor who campaigned heavily for the passing of Prop. 8 in California.
In the column, Rich reasons that despite calls from liberal activists to remove Warren from the inauguration, Obama now has to follow through with his decision -- civil-rights icon Reverend Joseph Lowery, an outspoken supporter of gay rights, was selected to deliver the Benediction, though that announcement was rather overshadowed by the selection of Warren.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?