Athée Canadien
Enablers
By Veronica
Doug Thomas, president of Secular Connexion Séculaire (SCS), asks the question, “Is There a Line to Draw,” as the Email Topic Discussion for January 23. Thomas’ question and answer,
So, is there a line to draw between those theists whom we can see are peace-loving individuals and the fanatics? There may be, but it must be a blurry and faded one and it’s time theists stepped up and helped us draw it more clearly.
echo Jerry Coynes’ statement in the concluding paragraph to his post, “A bad week for free speech”:
As usual, Muslims who claim not to be extremists stand by silently while their coreligionists try to dismantle freedom of speech via threats of death. The silent ones are enablers.
I reserve a special censure for men and women who attend Catholic services, or send their children to Catholic schools, public or private. They are enablers; they enable The Roman Catholic Church to continue its nefarious activities and spread its damaging propaganda.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Veronica on January 23, 2012 at 11:53 am, and is filed under Christianity, General, Islam. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 1 month ago
When a catholic puts money into a collection box
they enable a hierarchy that denigrates women, helps spread aids and puts the planet at risk by
fighting against contraception.
about 1 month ago
Guilt by association is based on a logical fallacy… you atheists need to educate yourselves in some basic logic.
about 4 weeks ago
While ‘Guilt by Association’ (GBA) can be used as a logical fallacy, it does not imply a fallacious statement. In Fallacies and Argument Appraisal by CW Tindale (a Canadian Author), he speaks about GBA as early as the fourth page. Here, he has the following to say:
Later on in the book, in Chapter 5, he comes back to discussing GBA and ad hominem arguments. He comes up with 4 questions that should be asked when evaluating a GBA argument for fallacy.
Essentially, ‘Guilt by Association’ arguments need to be evaluated for fallacy. They aren’t simply wrong because they happen to be GBA arguments. You have, in fact, made a false ‘Guilt by Association’ argument about GBA arguments. That’s ironic. You also suggested that us atheists ‘should educate ourselves on basic logic’. While I agree, we all should – it appears you should too. How does your foot taste?
about 4 weeks ago
So evaluate. Or are you just being precise inorder to deflect from the OP’s obvious fallacy. Go ahead, defend the posting, explain based on your refs that the OP is not making a fallacious argument.
about 4 weeks ago
Jeff’s right fist is a fallacious argument.
Sorry that I don’t have anything more intelligent to add at the moment, but I think we could all learn a thing or two from Billybob.
Oh highschool… When times were so easy. When we didn’t think this stuff would be applicable in our adult lives. When I used to mooch so much food at lunch.. My favourite period.
about 4 weeks ago
Todd
Thank you for posting a comment on Canadian Atheist and encouraging us to review our understanding of logical arguments.
The topic of this post is enablers; practising Catholics are enablers. Please see Billybob’s comment above. As enablers, practising Catholics are guilty by associating with the Catholic church.
PS To say that we atheists need to educate ourselves in some basic logic is an ad hominem attack.
about 3 weeks ago
The real concern that prompted “Is there a line to draw?” is that too many religious apologists simply deny that extremist who belong to their faith represent them. Fair enough, but do they actually do anything about bringing those people to justice? I think Atheists are ready (maybe too ready) to criticize our own, I just wish we could expect the same standards from religious people in relation to people of their own religion. They are great at denouncing people of other faiths so it is not as if they lack the skill – just the ethics.