Intolerance and Totalitarianism in the Guise of Social Convention In the course of his interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Piers Morgan expressed an idea that is becoming increasingly more 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. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/piers-morgan-its-time-amendment-bible 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.” This, of course, should raise the question, “Why should your standard be the deciding standard and why should your standard replace every other standard?” If Morgan’s position seems unjustifiably intolerant, perhaps this is because it is intolerant!

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