More Liberal Angst About Rick Warren

Frank Rich, one of many cranky liberals at the NY Times, has to contribute his 800 words to the Rick Warren inaugural invocation. I thought this little snippet was interesting:

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.

Since he’s not about to rescind the invitation, what happens next? For perspective, I asked Timothy McCarthy, a historian who teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and an unabashed Obama enthusiast who served on his campaign’s National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Leadership Council. He responded via e-mail on Christmas Eve.

After noting that Warren’s role at the inauguration is, in the end, symbolic, McCarthy concluded that “it’s now time to move from symbol to substance.” This means Warren should “recant his previous statements about gays and lesbians, and start acting like a Christian.”

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

It's funny how many times during this little kerfuffle that non-Christians have counseled Christians on how they're supposed to act as Christians. Sort of like me counseling Tiger Woods on how he should play golf. It makes about as much sense.

You can read the whole anguished rant if you must here.