It has been brought to my attention that I might be wrong about Coren. After considering the matter, I admit I need to at least substantiate my claim—or my suspicions. I would like to think otherwise about Coren, who, as I admitted in my posting, writes brilliantly and once again illustrated that fact over the last couple of days.
Perhaps I was too quick to pin the label on Coren but I did so at the time because of some existing impressions pertaining to Coren’s positions on sodomy, divorce and contraception. Also, I must now confess to a careless misreading of the quote [from the article by Coren] which appeared in my posting. At the time I thought Coren’s comment about perversion related to his views on homosexuality but upon closer examination it is clear he was speaking of polygamy.
In any case, I apologize for prematurely criticizing Coren without offering a reasonable case for the claim. I will look further into the matter and in the very near future post the results of my inquiry. I will also try to present a more detailed description of what I believe constitutes the label "moral relativist."
It would be a very pleasant outcome indeed to discover that I was wrong about Michael Coren.
Please stay tuned.