Dear Editor,
Columnist Cynthia Walker is right, she did not attribute the
assertion that
”
just because a religion or faith has a particular tenet does not
mean that tenet should be barred from being replicated in public
policy
”
to me.
Dear Editor,
Columnist Cynthia Walker is right, she did not attribute the assertion that “just because a religion or faith has a particular tenet does not mean that tenet should be barred from being replicated in public policy” to me. At least, not directly.
She did, however, write in her Feb. 11 column that a consequence of my position of basing laws on the Constitution, not on personal faith, is that laws against theft and similar crimes would have to be repealed.
The only way that can be true is if one argues that America must bar public policy from replicating tenets of religion or faith.
So, I’m forced to wonder: If, as Ms. Walker asserted in her recent column, she did not employ the straw-man fallacy, what is the proper name for her false scare tactic of asserting that repealing theft laws is a consequence of basing laws on the Constitution, not on personal faith? Whatever you call it, it’s not a fair or logical argument. I’ll stick with straw-man fallacy.
I’ll also note that the only way it can be a flaw in my argument, as Ms. Walker claimed in her Feb. 18 column, is if it was my argument. It was not.
And I’ll say it again because Ms. Walker keeps clouding this simple fact: In America, we base our laws on the Constitution.
Lisa Pampuch, Morgan Hill
