Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
A Christian Wrote This?
So I'm writing this little piece about "The war on terror" and for fun did a little Google search for "The War on Christians." Up pops a link to a christian site called "The Traditional Values Coalition" (I won't give them the benefit of a link).
The second paragraph of their post reads:
The campaign to destroy religious freedom has already started in Canada with the passage of C-250, a bill that adds "sexual orientation" to Canada's hate crime laws. The legislation was pushed by anti-Christian legislator Svend Robinson. This activist has recently been picked up by police for shoplifting a $50,000 piece of jewelry to give to his sex partner.
If you read this correctly, the "christians" are, by a rational person's standards, endorsing crime against gay people. If not, why would they complain about an amendment to an anti-hate crime bill that protects gay people.
To distract the susceptible reader from their endorsement of the hate crime, they throw in the fact that one of the amendment's supporters has been "picked-up" for shoplifting. This of course has no bearing on the hate crime bill, so why did the "christians" include it in their post?
One reason is the "shoot the messenger" or "ad hominum" attack. If the person delivering the message is "bad" then the message is also "bad."
Another, more subtle reason speaks to the intellectual capabilities the author assumes of the reader. (/snark/ for the target christian reader - If I need to parse that sentence for you, you potentially fall into the class of thinker the "christian" author was targeting). If you read the statement without intellectual rigor, you are likely to conclude that gay people are criminals. And, as many of us tend to do, are also likely to deny a criminal the same rights as a non-criminal. Connecting these two ideas and the author's desired conclusion is clear; gay people are criminals so crimes against them are not hate crimes.
Again I ask, Did a "christian" write this?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Whose logic is at fault?
by a rational person's standards, endorsing crime against gay people. If not, why would they complain about an amendment to an anti-hate crime bill that protects gay people.
This is a pretty cheap shot and shows how many liberals are quite happy to pick up on sloppy logic used by their opponents and yet are blind to their own use of it. An attack on legislation to prevent X is not endorsement of X. Anyone who understands a little logic should be able to figure that out. I'm sure there are many reasons you might complain about such an anti-hate bill without endorsing anti-gay crime. For example you might complain about it because it's already illegal to commit crimes so why should there be a special rule for crimes against gay people?
Ok so maybe my logic is flawed
You'll have to read the "article" yourself instead of my quote from the article. But you've missed the whole point of my post.
What purpose was served by telling the reader
immediately following the claim
The information about the activist has no relavance to the claim that that religious freedom is under attack in Canada. It is no more than a distracting ad hominum attack designed to confuse and distract the weak minded reader. It is maniuplative, shameful behavior and any highshool debate team would see right through it.
Unfortunately, enough Americans lack the critical thinking skills required to parse the statement. These people walk away with the intended impression that gays are trying to destroy religious freedom.
Let me ask the question a third time, Did a Christian Write this? Sadly, yes. But not one of the christians who loves all people. No a different breed of christian wrote the "article". A hating, fearful, divisive, and manipulative one.
Rationalizing at A Rational Being
Cross posted at
Rationalizing at A Rational Being