Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Intolerance and Piers Morgan's Recommendation to Amend the Bible

December 31, 2012 by Daniel Mann

In the course of his interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Piers Morgan expressed an idea that is becoming increasingly common:

  • “The Bible and the Constitution were well-intentioned, but they are basically inherently flawed,” Morgan said.  “Hence the need to amend it.”
  • “My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible,” he said.

While it doesn’t seem that Morgan is ready to launch a crusade, at least for now, to legally change the Bible, his statements carry troubling assumptions:

  1. The gold-standard by which every other truth claim is critiqued is the modern cultural consensus. Implicit in Morgan’s statements is the notion that this standard should trump everything else, even the Constitution.
  2. Perhaps even more troubling is the underlying attitude that everything and everyone else must be coerced into conforming to this standard. If their philosophy, worldview, or religion fails to conform, them it should be changed. No room for diversity here!
  3. Divergent points of view will no longer be tolerated. Conform or else!
  4. This represents the imposition of one totalitarian secular religion upon everyone. This initiative is usually justified in the name of “neutrality,” “not offending others,” and “human rights.” However, human rights must necessarily be defended by invoking a rationale for unchanging, objective and universal principles. However, Morgan didn’t try to articulate any rationale, as if to say, “Don’t give people an occasion to think. It might just upset all of our plans.”
  5. It also assumes that by imposing one uniform morality upon all, a better world will emerge. It says in effect, “Heck with your religious freedom.”

This, of course, should raise the question, “Why should your standard be the deciding standard and why should it replace every other standard?”

If Morgan’s position seems unjustifiably intolerant, perhaps this is because it is intolerant!

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Evaluating Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism

Comments

  1. Joshua Gibbs says

    January 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    His argument makes perfect sense once you understand that he believes that the Bible isn’t actually the Word of God and probably doesn’t think that anyone really disagrees – if it was made by men then why can’t men change it? We really shouldn’t be surprised that people raised in a mixture of secular humanism and liberal theology think like this.

  2. Connor McGinnis says

    December 31, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    Anyone read the Queen James Bible yet? So sad…

  3. Jonathan says

    December 31, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    Creating God in one’s own image. What’s next? The Elites’ Bible for Oppressing the Poor? LOL.

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance