Rick Warren, Obama and Race

A reader writes me a hypothetical: What would Barack Obama have thought in the 60s if a president had included a preacher in his inaugural who preached that interracial marriage was a sin?

Most likely the preachers who spoke at inaugurals in 50s or 60s DID think interracial marriage was sinful. They surely must have thought and preached that premarital sex was sinful, so Obama's parents were likely doubly condemned.

Warren's religious beliefs lead him to declare homosexuality and gay marriage sinful. That's his right. And Obama has declared he does not share this view. I don't think we gays win anything by demanding someone be excluded from the inaugural because of what he or she believes. We can and should oppose them on the policy front. But prevent him from saying a prayer?

These blessings don't have the import you give to them. Who gave the invocation at Clinton's inaugural? What did he or she say? How did it shape the outcome of the Clinton Administration?

There is a double standard here and it seems to me to be this one: We supported Obama and were willing to overlook the fact that his pastor claimed white people invented AIDS to kill black people. We believed Obama that Rev. Wright didn't inform his views on that topic. Why are we so unwilling to accept Obama's denunciation of Warren's view of sinful homosexuality? His relationship with Warren is far less substantial than his one with Wright. And on the subject of gay marriage Warren and Obama do agree: one man, one woman. We knew Obama's position on this (sadly) before the election. His reaching out to Warren doesn't surprise me, especially given Warren's work in other areas (aid to Africa, which is important to the President-elect)and that fact that Warren's views on homosexuality are (also sadly)part of the Christian mainstream.

It also doesn't surprise me as I re-read Obama's speech on race.

He said:

"I chose to run for president at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together."

That's Obama's overriding goal. To achieve it he cannot afford to be governed by what he, we or anyone might consider moral purity. Common ground must be found even between fierce foes. This point becomes clearer as Obama talks about black rage -- which he thinks is justified. Nevertheless:


"The anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems...and prevents the African-American community from forging alliances it needs to bring about real change."

Another part of Obama's race speech also offers insight into how he might see Warren. Referring to the most divisive and and outrageous comments of Wright, Obama reflects:

"But the truth is, that isn't all I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another..."

You get the point. Obama is not the type of person who rejects someone completely if he finds one thing he is vehemently opposed to in a person. Human beings are complex animals and Obama recognizes this. That's a welcome relief from the us vs. them mentality that has been disastrous for our country.

Again, I do agree that we can't give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt on following through on policy. I'm more alarmed by Rahm Emanuel's lowering expectations on DADT. That's directly relating to policy, and its far more important than whatever prayer Rick Warren will say on Jan. 20.