A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION
(In response to Emilie Eaton's Oct. 31 column, "Christians love, not abuse.")
Emilie Eaton’s article “Christians love, not abuse” is a fabulous example of the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy.
That “logic” goes something like this (substituting a Christian person in for a Scottish person): A person does a bad thing, and that is condemned. An observer (a Christian) agrees that their action is bad.
It is later revealed the person that did this is bad thing is Christian. The observer then claims that no true Christian would ever behave in that manner (most likely because the observer would not behave like that).
Often, religious people fail to realize that not every person of their own religion acts in a perfectly caring and loving manner.
This is the case with Hana Williams’ death, caused by her parents’ beating her to discipline her. Eaton says she “(doesn’t) know what’s worse — beating a child to death or beating a child to death and justifying that as Christian.”
The justification for this action as a Christian action is stated in this article immediately before her statement of apparent confusion. “Proverbs 13:24 … He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”
Seeing that this is a direct quotation from the Bible, it surely counts as Christian justification for such an act.
Not everybody acts the exact same way, whether it is in a ballet class or in an organized religion.
Riva London Undergraduate
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
