Randall Balmer: October 2008 Archives

So that is why I found his announcement on October 23 that he supports California's Proposition 8 so disturbing.  Proposition 8, a ballot initiative, seeks to overturn the California supreme court's ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally permissible.

Warren has every right to his views on the definition of marriage, which he insists (not without foundation) is mandated in the Bible.  Millions of Americans - a majority, I'm sure - agree with him.  "If you believe what the Bible says about marriage," he declared on his website, "you need to support Proposition 8."

Warren goes on to note that, by his reckoning, gays and lesbians make up only 2 percent of the population in the United States.  "We should not let 2 percent of the population change the definition of marriage."

Warren, a Baptist, knows better.  The cornerstones of the Baptist tradition are adult baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and the principle of liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state.  Baptists inherited these ideas from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist tradition in America.  And, at least until the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Baptists have always been watchmen on that wall of separation and fierce guardians of liberty of conscience.  Thankfully, Williams's ideas were incorporated into the United States Constitution, both in the First Amendment, which forbade a religious establishment, and in the recurring principle of respect for the rights of minorities.

These have been the guiding touchstones of American life for more than two centuries.  We Americans have sought, at times better than others, to live up to the principles articulated in our charter documents, especially in safeguarding the rights and the interests of minorities - though not perfectly, by any means.  The scourge of slavery and segregation and discrimination remains an indelible blot, and our treatment of women has been cavalier.  But we Americans eventually rise to our better selves and come around to recognize the claims of legal equality for those who, for reasons of gender or race or religion or sexual orientation, cannot number themselves part of the majority. 

And if we needed further warrant for this, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under law" codified that into the Constitution itself.

Many Americans, myself included, understand the California supreme court's decision (and similar rulings in other jurisdictions) as an expression of that principle, an expansion of civil rights to those who have been denied equality for a very long time.  It's not at all at odds with fundamental Baptist principles of liberty and protection from a majoritarian ethic that imposes its standards on the minority.

I challenge Rick Warren, my friend and fellow evangelical, to reconsider his support for Proposition 8.  Warren and all people of faith have every right to hold to their religious views about homosexuality.  But to insist that those standards must be observed by everyone in a pluralistic society is - well, it's not Baptist.

Rick Warren knows better.

In desperation, apparently, Messrs. Hannity, Limbaugh and other principals of the Downstream Media are trying to make hay out of the fact that Barack Obama was known as "Barry" while a child but then opted to use his given name, "Barack," as an adult.  This is suggested as evidence that Obama is, in fact, a Muslim.  An article to this effect, purportedly written by a concerned citizen - "This election has me very worried" - is circulating the internet, advancing this argument.

In this case, I think the Downstream Media may have a point.  Anyone who goes through childhood with a nickname (in this case, "Barry") and then chooses to use his given name ("Barack") as an adult surely can't be trusted and is probably a Muslim.  What further proof do we need?  As nearly as I can tell, no one in history has ever done that, certainly not in American history.   I'm sure that the sainted Ronald Reagan was "Ronald" from birth; no one ever called him "Ron" or "Ronnie."  That would be un-American and probably Muslim.  Gerald Ford was never "Gerry," and Richard Nixon was never "Dick."  I mean, do you think that Herbert Hoover's mother ever called him "Herb" or Herbie"?  Of course not!

This is worrisome indeed. Anyone who goes through childhood and into adolescence with a nickname and then  elects to use his given name as an adult certainly has no right to be president of the United States.

In desperation, apparently, Messrs. Hannity, Limbaugh and other principals of the Downstream Media are trying to make hay out of the fact that Barack Obama was known as "Barry" while a child but then opted to use his given name, "Barack," as an adult.  This is suggested as evidence that Obama is, in fact, a Muslim.  An article to this effect, purportedly written by a concerned citizen - "This election has me very worried" - is circulating the internet, advancing this argument.

In this case, I think the Downstream Media may have a point.  Anyone who goes through childhood with a nickname (in this case, "Barry") and then chooses to use his given name ("Barack") as an adult surely can't be trusted and is probably a Muslim.  What further proof do we need?  As nearly as I can tell, no one in history has ever done that, certainly not in American history.  I'm sure that the sainted Ronald Reagan was "Ronald" from birth; no one ever called him "Ron" or "Ronnie."  That would be un-American (and probably Muslim).  Gerald Ford was never "Gerry," and Richard Nixon was never "Dick."  I mean, do you think that Herbert Hoover's mother ever called him "Herb" or Herbie"?  Of course not!

This is worrisome indeed.  Anyone who goes through childhood and into adolescence with a nickname and then elects to use his given name as an adult certainly has no right to be president of the United States.