I don't see how you can argue with Alexa's statements. She states clearly that atrocities have been committed under the banner of Christianity by man
Apparently you didn't read all the posts. My complaint never has been whether or not people have committed atrocities in the name of Christianity. I was upbraiding her for her claim that the atrocities were caused by the Christmas story:
I really like the Christmas story, whether it is true or not really doesn't matter to me. I love the story of a baby, treasured by the world, whose birth was foretold by an angel, and heralded by a beautiful and magical star. It is a classic story of good and evil, and would be even more wonderful if it hadn't caused some people through the ages to do such awful things.
In my first post I objected that the use of "cause" was dubious logic. This is at least a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The Christmas story can hardly be said to "cause" people to do evil. Flawed human nature can be a cause, but that isn't what she said. If Alexa didn't mean to write "caused", she hasn't said so; and since she has let her animus for Christianity be known in the past, I think it's quite fair to call her on it. This way of using "cause" can be a clever rhetorical trick; by implying that something "causes" evil, you are establishing that it does just that, causes evil. Cause implies the power to effect or retard action. If she mispoke, let her say so. And if not, then let's see her develop a chain of causation that begins with the Christmas story and ends with evil deeds. |
