Liberal Propensity for Grand Pronouncements
A major weapon in the liberal arsenal consists of making their positions sound like obvious truth believed by every thinking person for all of time. Consequently, anyone thinking otherwise must be categorized as a Neanderthal numbskull.
This strategy manifests itself in all its splendor in a Huffington Post article by Clay Farris Naff entitled “In Rejecting Gay Bishop, Methodist Court Shows The Folly Of Relying On Scripture For Moral Guidance.” The United Methodist’s Judicial Council rejected the consecration as Bishop of Karen Oliveto because of her lesbian relationship.
If Naff wanted to argue the merits of homosexual marriage, doing so could at least lead to rational discourse. Rather, he resorts to the tactic cited above, asserting that, “To anyone free of ancient prejudices, the injustice of condemning Oliveto is plain.”
Naff labels moral concerns with homosexuality as an “ancient prejudice.” To accept this position we must enter into Naff’s skewed view of reality. Those ancient dark ages would have been less than four decades ago when the American Psychiatric Association viewed homosexuality as a pathology. By “prejudice” he ignores the majority of the world that still rejects homosexuality, identifying prejudice as anyone who does not agree with him.
Evaluation of that “ancient prejudice” might prompt us to consider the success of our society since abandoning traditional Christian morals related to homosexuality. A summary analysis reveals that our nation has declined in virtually every category, suggesting that those setting our society’s contemporary moral norms may not be that smart after all. Maybe if we reverted to those ancient prejudices our society held as recently as half a century ago our nation might start climbing out of its current moral morass. Perhaps the authors of Scripture did know more than the liberals shaping our current cultural climate.