Claiming the moral high ground

Vernon had posted: "So I suggest that you (and others) who reject the
biblical account of creation and of earth history (having, in effect,
already judged God, and found him wanting) are being tested by these
'wonders in the heavens'."

I responded: "This is an example of "claiming the moral high ground," a
tactic used by so many fundamentalists. It is disgusting. It is, itself,
morally bankrupt. It portrays its author of being, at best, naive, at
worst, dishonest."

Ian commented (in part): "I agree that Vernon should not have made that
accusation of people on the list "rejecting the biblical account of
creation" when in fact all they reject is his interpretation of it.

But I would ask, when you make condemnatory statements like [the above]
are you not also "claiming the moral high ground"? . . ."

In a word, no. I am simply pointing out the use of a tactic used by all
too many (not all) fundamentalists (as well as some "liberals" as well).
Do I ever use that tactic? I hope not, but I know well that I am fallible
and I hope, that if I do, my offense will be swiftly pointed out to me.
<G>

Had I used that tactic, I might have said, "Vernon, I suggest that you
who so clearly rejects the clear teaching of God and thereby reject Him
... ." Or I could have said, "Vernon, those of us who really understand
both science and theology ... ." But I did not take that approach, for it
would have been foolish hubris so to do.

Ian goes on to say: "You and Vernon will never get anywhere with each
other if you just condemn each other. (This goes for both of you).
What's wrong with something like "Hey, Vernon, I'm really upset by what
you say. I don't reject the biblical account of creation - I believe
it's true just as passionately as you do, but I interpret it in a
different way"."

It is my impression that words to this effect have been offered to Vernon
on a number of occasion in the past. I have seen no evidence that Vernon
has ever considered them.

Claiming the moral high ground is a very effective tactic; it is akin to
the concept of "persuasive definition." (For example, Rush Limbaugh
always combines the word "environmentalist" with the word "wacko.").

In retrospect, however, I suggested that the use of the concept was
"...at best, naive, at worst, dishonest." I may have overstated here, let
me substitute the word "careless" in place of "naive." The use of the
concept makes for great rhetoric and supports the "faithful" in their
preconceived notions; it really turns off an honest (and intelligent)
seeker.

Ian also posted: "There are 3 types of people in the world. Those who can
count and those who can't."

I am clearly of the third type. <G>
---------------
Michael wrote (in part): "Unfortunately Vernon is so stuck and has been
for the four years he's been on this group that he just repeats the same
old thing and implies we are being led by the devil. He told me off
recently. Don't change your ways. I don't always agree with you but who
cares! I get fed up with having to be so circumspect in case I upset
somebody. Have you given up theology Web?"

Has it really been 4 years? Time flies whether or not you are having fun!
As far as TheologyWeb, if I ever get a DSL line (unlikely here at 7400
feet in the San Juans) I might well go back. As it is the best I can get
is 26KB dial service; I am not usually patient enough to wait a long time
for web pages to load. The same comment goes for the RELIGION FORUM on
Compuserve, where I was a SYSOP for about 10 years till they got fancy
(and slow) on me.

Thanks for the support.
--------
Peter Cook wrote (in total): "Thank you, Iain!"

How can I possibly reply to such eloquence? <G>

----
One more item: The news note below speaks to one group, a Topeka Baptist
Church,  who really have all the answers. My daughter and her partner
were part of a demonstration at FOTF in Colorado Springs last Sunday. Dr.
Dobson avoided meeting with them (they had planned to do so peacefully)
by quickly scheduling a "prayer breakfast" in Washington during the time
they planned to come. Even Jerry Falwell did better than that.
"They (Focus on the Family) enable that sin (homosexuality) because they 
have the big lie that God loves everyone. If that's true, then Soulforce
is 
correct, and they should be able to live like the devil himself and still
go to heaven. Soulforce and Dobson are two animals with a slightly 
different coat. All the parts of those two groups are going straight to 
hell, and there's nothing they can do about it."
-- Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokeswoman for the Topeka-based Westboro
Baptist 
Church (www.godhatesfags.com), damning to hell both the gay rights 
Christian group Soulforce and the religious-right group Focus on the
Family.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_373866
7,00.html
Cheers 
Burgy
------