Not sure what this means

John McWhorter has a piece in TNR in which he argues, among other things, that Rick Warren represents "black views" on social issues better than Joseph Lowery:

Warren opposes gay marriage; 70 percent of black voters in California supported Proposition 8. Warren is pro-life; in 2004, a Zogby poll tabulated that while about half of Americans overall were pro-life, 62 percent of blacks were.

Black Reverend Joseph Lowery, heading up the rear doing the inaugural benediction, has the positions Warren's detractors prefer: pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage. These, however, cannot be treated as default "black" views, because so very many black people of all walks do not share them. Warren and Lowery will represent two variations on black ideology, of which the one Warren represents is arguably the dominant one.

That's true. Of course it's also true that Warren's view on social issues--among Americans at large--is also dominant. But it's much more important to note that the Warren view is 12 percent more dominant among a disproportionately undereducated, impoverished, and hyper-religious group which comprises 13 percent of the country. Shocking, shocking stuff.

Then there's this:

Do 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 megastar preacher T.D. Jakes instead. Jakes heads a 30,000 member Dallas church, reaches millions more with the television show The Potter's Touch, and was designated "perhaps the most influential black leader in America" by The Atlantic. His church runs outreach programs as well as anti-poverty efforts in Africa. Yet like Warren, Jakes dissociates himself from those who "support abortion, homosexuality and other things I see as unscriptural."

Still, I suspect that progressives' reaction to Jakes' inclusion would be vastly less indignant. Surely the justification for that view would not be that black people, shall we say, "cling to" religion because of the exigencies of their past and present. No--there would be a sense that for a black preacher, views like Jakes's were something to let pass as "diverse," unsurprising in a pastor of any color, with his presence as an articulate and inspiring figure in black America more important than ideological details at such a momentous event. Why must Warren be fumigated against, then? Because as a white person, he's supposed to know better? What other difference between Warren and Jakes is so crucial?

Right. Because, the interwebs have been utterly silent on the role black voters in California played in passing Prop 8. And no one protested Obama campaigning with Donnie McClurkin. No that didn't happen.

Jokes aside, this really is a text-book case of shifting the burden of proof. John literally offers no evidence that the scene would play out as he imagined--He just conjures it and then assumes it's true.And then of course there's the capper:

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.

Right again. Because the black soul can be reduced to being against gay marriage. No wonder I can't dance.