Religion | The Non Sequitur
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	birtherismfocus on the familyiron man fallacyObama's birth certificateTonyTony Perkins
The Pontifical North American College, or whoever is responsible for instructing America's Catholic Priestly class, must offer a course in Godwinism: everyone with whom you have even a minor disagreement is a Nazi. This is a move repugnant even to the most stoned college freshman who's just been busted for pot smoking. For him, at least, the phrase "floor fascist" has some modicum of irony. Not so, sadly, for the venerable leaders of the Catholic Church in Chicago. When a persecuted minority wanted to walk by a Church on the public way, they were the KKK. Now, it turns out, the requirement that non Catholics have access to birth control in health plans offered by Catholics and Catholic Institutions (save actual Churches and similar organizations), has one Bishop screaming both Stalin and Hitler (from the Chicago Tribune):
And war, as the good Bishops ought to know, is a last resort. And even it has rules. Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Bishop JenkyCardinal Francis GeorgecatholicismcontraceptionGodwin's Law
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	don't ask don't tellFamily Research CouncilHomosexualitySecret ServiceSecret Service Scandal ColumbiaSlippery Slope argumentsTony Perkins
Appeal to Fear/Threat, General discussion, Religion, Weak Analogy
4/17/2012 John Casey	1 Comment
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George is not the master of analogies by any stretch. Recently, when a persecuted minority wanted to walk by one his churches on a Sunday, they were "Nazis." Now, if someone requires that Health Insurers Provide a certain standard of care regardless of the religious affiliation of the insured employee, it's "identity theft."
Sadly, this remark seems to have followed upon the following (from the Chicago Tribune story):
"The difficulty of public discussion … is that the political is the highest level of public discourse," George said. "Therefore, the primary categories of discussion and mutual understanding are liberal and conservative. But they're not evangelical, Catholic or gospel categories. The categories that count in the Gospel are true and false. The bishops try to be people of God. And those are the first questions we ask is: 'Is it true or false?' Political terms are not adequate to discuss it."
The Cardinal recognizes the seriousness of his words, so this must mean he is just terrible at reasoning. Let's say we change the terms somewhat, and insist that a Jehovah's Witness who runs a hospital or university must, through a private insurer, provide coverage for blood transfusions. Yes, it's against their religion, alright. For them. But you just work for them. You are the janitor in Kingdom Hall, or you're their accountant. Unlucky you. I guess. How dare you steal their identity by wanting blood transfusions during surgery.
But we're talking about contraception for women. Not in the Tribune article, but in the local CBS story, was the Cardinal's very respectful and truth oriented threat: if some women can get the pill, the three percent of Catholics who actually care about this stuff will be forced to take their ball and go home.
“In order to do anything publicly, we’re going to have to cloak it in some kind of explicit religious circumstance that would not make it possible to run big universities and large hospitals as we’ve run them before,” George said.
The cardinal told members of the Union League Club downtown that the Church may otherwise sell its hospitals, pay penalties, or in a last resort, close them altogether, rather than offer birth control. George says offering birth control would be cooperating with evil.
The ad baculum, the appeal to force–that's what the Cardinal thinks the highest level of public discourse is.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	argumentum ad baculumCardinal Francis GeorgecontraceptionJehovah's Witnessesweak analogies
Argument from Double Standards, Religion
Bend my beliefs
3/8/2012 John Casey	An obvious point (forgive me I've been really busy), but how does one properly evaluate views one finds hateful? Here's Growing Pains' star and banana enthusiast Kirk Cameron:
I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years —- without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."
In other words, when Kirk Cameron is calling others immoral, and advocating that they pray away the gay, or whatever it is they should do, how dare they ask him to bend his beliefs
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	BananasKirk Cameron
Contradictions, John Hagee, Newt Gingrich, Religion
Another squirmish* in the culture wars
3/30/2011 John Casey	In the category of self-refuting worries (by now noticed by all of the web), here is disgraced former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich:
A secular atheist country dominated by religious fundamentalists. *squirmish
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Cornerstone Churchculture warsJohn HageeNewt GingrichSarah Palinsecular atheist Islamistssquirmish
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	American Family AssociationBearsBryan FischerIraq
General discussion, Plain Bad Arguments, Religion, Things that are false
Not the First Amendment I Know
9/11/2010 Scott Aikin	8 Comments
Over at the American Spectator, George Neumayr is arguing that the First Amendment does not protect the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque" or the burning of Korans. The truth is that the First Amendment protects neither the Ground Zero mosque nor Jones's burning of copies of the Koran. How do we know this? Because under the real First Amendment, the one written by the Founding Fathers, local communities within states were perfectly free to pass laws prohibiting the construction of particular religious buildings or pass laws that banned book burnings.
In fact, on his interpretation, the First Amendment should protect us against the "tyranny of the minorities" when it comes to religious matters. His case is that because the various states had preferred state churches when they adopted the Constitution, there's no way that the First Amendment could prevent explicit state preferences for religion:
Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. This is an interesting and promising point, one that deserves some consideration. The rule restricts, as stated, Congress, not other legislative bodies or the executive branch. But for a very long time, the restrictions on Congress here were taken to be exemplary for how the rest of all governing bodies and governmental executives were to conduct themselves in the US. Taking it otherwise now contradicts stare decisis about the Constitution. Moreover, it runs counter to what the 'free exercise' clause is supposed to protect. In fact, a state must show compelling interest in restricting any religious expression. So what kind of interest does the state have here?
The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists. . . . The rejection of the real Constitution for the phony "living" one explains today's tyranny of the minority. That tyranny has assumed ironically divergent forms in recent days. In New York City, a majority stands aghast as a group of Muslims tries to build a mosque within blocks of the World Trade Center ruins. In Florida, the majority stands appalled but idle before the pastor of a tiny church who launches an "International Burn-a-Koran Day." Both incidents are, in varying degrees, acts of gross and pointless incivility that do not truly enjoy constitutional protections, but all public officials can mumble in the face of them is the cliché du jour that Americans have a "right to be wrong."
Wow. To say that actions that are gross and uncivil do not deserve First Amendment protection is just about tantamount to saying that you don't understand the First Amendment, isn't it? Seriously, most of the stuff in The American Spectator would fail that test, wouldn't it? Moreover, I will never be able to wrap my head around the idea that Constitutions are written to prevent tyrranies of minorities in a democracy. Again, saying those sorts of things should be an easy tell that someone doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Formal Fallacies, Religion, Tony Perkins
Term complements
8/9/2010 John Casey	2 Comments
Figuring out of what's the opposite of what is one of those Sesame Street skills that doesn't often get practiced in a critical thinking or logic course. You get a little of this in the logic of terms if you cover obversion or contraposition. It's a useful skill, I think, just ask Tony Perkins. Speaking of the Federal judge who decided the recent Proposition 8 case in California, he says:
"Had this guy been … an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case," he added. "So I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent."
The logical complement of "homosexual" is not "evangelical preacher."
Besides, on this argument, a married or marriable straight person would stand in the same allegedly biased relation to the outcome as a single gay person. Who does that leave? Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Family Research CouncilGay Marriageterm complementsTony Perkins
The Devil went down to Haiti
1/15/2010 John Casey	8 Comments
On behalf of Americans everywhere, I apologize and condemn these remarks:
ROBERTSON: [S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."
And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. … They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God.
I thought the French were in league with the Devil.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Posts navigation
Religion | The Non Sequitur
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	birtherismfocus on the familyiron man fallacyObama's birth certificateTonyTony Perkins
The Pontifical North American College, or whoever is responsible for instructing America's Catholic Priestly class, must offer a course in Godwinism: everyone with whom you have even a minor disagreement is a Nazi. This is a move repugnant even to the most stoned college freshman who's just been busted for pot smoking. For him, at least, the phrase "floor fascist" has some modicum of irony. Not so, sadly, for the venerable leaders of the Catholic Church in Chicago. When a persecuted minority wanted to walk by a Church on the public way, they were the KKK. Now, it turns out, the requirement that non Catholics have access to birth control in health plans offered by Catholics and Catholic Institutions (save actual Churches and similar organizations), has one Bishop screaming both Stalin and Hitler (from the Chicago Tribune):
And war, as the good Bishops ought to know, is a last resort. And even it has rules. Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Bishop JenkyCardinal Francis GeorgecatholicismcontraceptionGodwin's Law
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	don't ask don't tellFamily Research CouncilHomosexualitySecret ServiceSecret Service Scandal ColumbiaSlippery Slope argumentsTony Perkins
Appeal to Fear/Threat, General discussion, Religion, Weak Analogy
4/17/2012 John Casey	1 Comment
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George is not the master of analogies by any stretch. Recently, when a persecuted minority wanted to walk by one his churches on a Sunday, they were "Nazis." Now, if someone requires that Health Insurers Provide a certain standard of care regardless of the religious affiliation of the insured employee, it's "identity theft."
Sadly, this remark seems to have followed upon the following (from the Chicago Tribune story):
"The difficulty of public discussion … is that the political is the highest level of public discourse," George said. "Therefore, the primary categories of discussion and mutual understanding are liberal and conservative. But they're not evangelical, Catholic or gospel categories. The categories that count in the Gospel are true and false. The bishops try to be people of God. And those are the first questions we ask is: 'Is it true or false?' Political terms are not adequate to discuss it."
The Cardinal recognizes the seriousness of his words, so this must mean he is just terrible at reasoning. Let's say we change the terms somewhat, and insist that a Jehovah's Witness who runs a hospital or university must, through a private insurer, provide coverage for blood transfusions. Yes, it's against their religion, alright. For them. But you just work for them. You are the janitor in Kingdom Hall, or you're their accountant. Unlucky you. I guess. How dare you steal their identity by wanting blood transfusions during surgery.
But we're talking about contraception for women. Not in the Tribune article, but in the local CBS story, was the Cardinal's very respectful and truth oriented threat: if some women can get the pill, the three percent of Catholics who actually care about this stuff will be forced to take their ball and go home.
“In order to do anything publicly, we’re going to have to cloak it in some kind of explicit religious circumstance that would not make it possible to run big universities and large hospitals as we’ve run them before,” George said.
The cardinal told members of the Union League Club downtown that the Church may otherwise sell its hospitals, pay penalties, or in a last resort, close them altogether, rather than offer birth control. George says offering birth control would be cooperating with evil.
The ad baculum, the appeal to force–that's what the Cardinal thinks the highest level of public discourse is.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	argumentum ad baculumCardinal Francis GeorgecontraceptionJehovah's Witnessesweak analogies
Argument from Double Standards, Religion
Bend my beliefs
3/8/2012 John Casey	An obvious point (forgive me I've been really busy), but how does one properly evaluate views one finds hateful? Here's Growing Pains' star and banana enthusiast Kirk Cameron:
I should be able to express moral views on social issues, especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years —- without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach 'tolerance' that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I'm in the public square."
In other words, when Kirk Cameron is calling others immoral, and advocating that they pray away the gay, or whatever it is they should do, how dare they ask him to bend his beliefs
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	BananasKirk Cameron
Contradictions, John Hagee, Newt Gingrich, Religion
Another squirmish* in the culture wars
3/30/2011 John Casey	In the category of self-refuting worries (by now noticed by all of the web), here is disgraced former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich:
A secular atheist country dominated by religious fundamentalists. *squirmish
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Cornerstone Churchculture warsJohn HageeNewt GingrichSarah Palinsecular atheist Islamistssquirmish
Share this:TweetPo
cketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	American Family AssociationBearsBryan FischerIraq
General discussion, Plain Bad Arguments, Religion, Things that are false
Not the First Amendment I Know
9/11/2010 Scott Aikin	8 Comments
Over at the American Spectator, George Neumayr is arguing that the First Amendment does not protect the building of the "Ground Zero Mosque" or the burning of Korans. The truth is that the First Amendment protects neither the Ground Zero mosque nor Jones's burning of copies of the Koran. How do we know this? Because under the real First Amendment, the one written by the Founding Fathers, local communities within states were perfectly free to pass laws prohibiting the construction of particular religious buildings or pass laws that banned book burnings.
In fact, on his interpretation, the First Amendment should protect us against the "tyranny of the minorities" when it comes to religious matters. His case is that because the various states had preferred state churches when they adopted the Constitution, there's no way that the First Amendment could prevent explicit state preferences for religion:
Six of the thirteen states that signed the Constitution ran established churches. It is a historical fact that the First Amendment was written not to suppress those state churches but to protect them. Those six states would have never signed the Constitution otherwise. This is an interesting and promising point, one that deserves some consideration. The rule restricts, as stated, Congress, not other legislative bodies or the executive branch. But for a very long time, the restrictions on Congress here were taken to be exemplary for how the rest of all governing bodies and governmental executives were to conduct themselves in the US. Taking it otherwise now contradicts stare decisis about the Constitution. Moreover, it runs counter to what the 'free exercise' clause is supposed to protect. In fact, a state must show compelling interest in restricting any religious expression. So what kind of interest does the state have here?
The notion that the First Amendment requires individual states to treat all religious believers equally was invented out of thin air by judicial activists. . . . The rejection of the real Constitution for the phony "living" one explains today's tyranny of the minority. That tyranny has assumed ironically divergent forms in recent days. In New York City, a majority stands aghast as a group of Muslims tries to build a mosque within blocks of the World Trade Center ruins. In Florida, the majority stands appalled but idle before the pastor of a tiny church who launches an "International Burn-a-Koran Day." Both incidents are, in varying degrees, acts of gross and pointless incivility that do not truly enjoy constitutional protections, but all public officials can mumble in the face of them is the cliché du jour that Americans have a "right to be wrong."
Wow. To say that actions that are gross and uncivil do not deserve First Amendment protection is just about tantamount to saying that you don't understand the First Amendment, isn't it? Seriously, most of the stuff in The American Spectator would fail that test, wouldn't it? Moreover, I will never be able to wrap my head around the idea that Constitutions are written to prevent tyrranies of minorities in a democracy. Again, saying those sorts of things should be an easy tell that someone doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Formal Fallacies, Religion, Tony Perkins
Term complements
8/9/2010 John Casey	2 Comments
Figuring out of what's the opposite of what is one of those Sesame Street skills that doesn't often get practiced in a critical thinking or logic course. You get a little of this in the logic of terms if you cover obversion or contraposition. It's a useful skill, I think, just ask Tony Perkins. Speaking of the Federal judge who decided the recent Proposition 8 case in California, he says:
"Had this guy been … an evangelical preacher in his past there would have been cries for him to step down from this case," he added. "So I do think [his homosexuality] has a bearing on the case. But this is not without precedent."
The logical complement of "homosexual" is not "evangelical preacher."
Besides, on this argument, a married or marriable straight person would stand in the same allegedly biased relation to the outcome as a single gay person. Who does that leave? Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Family Research CouncilGay Marriageterm complementsTony Perkins
The Devil went down to Haiti
1/15/2010 John Casey	8 Comments
On behalf of Americans everywhere, I apologize and condemn these remarks:
ROBERTSON: [S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."
And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. … They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God.
I thought the French were in league with the Devil.
Share this:TweetPocketShare on TumblrEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading...	Posts navigation