Which brings me to my other point: Progressives use Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, and various other stories of parents killing their kids because satan told them to or they thought their kids were possessed by the devil. They take a few scattered data points and extrapolate out until we're all dangerous right wing nazis. You see no similarity?
If I have a daughter who is 17 years old who flees my household and goes before a court and begs and pleads not to be returned to my home, then I've done something wrong in raising her. Believe me, I am not worried in the slightest about that scenario.
You keep painting this story as if it's virtually the SAME THING as courts ripping children out of decent homes. It simply isn't. True, there's a certain vague, very superficial similarity. But that's as far as it goes. There's also a certain similarity, a RELATIONSHIP even, between wolves and cocker spaniels. But there are some important differences, too.
For this reason, your arguments are about as valid as suggesting that since the Department of Conservation sets traps to control the wolf population, we should therefore fear government agents kicking our front doors in to seize and euthanize our cocker spaniels. It just doesn't follow.
Which brings me to my other point: Progressives use Tim McVeigh, David Koresh, and various other stories of parents killing their kids because satan told them to or they thought their kids were possessed by the devil. They take a few scattered data points and extrapolate out until we're all dangerous right wing nazis. You see no similarity?
I see a very faint similarity. I see a STRONGER similarity between that and your taking a government ruling that hasn't even been handed down yet in favor of preserving this child's life, and extrapolating it out to imply that US judges are all dangerous left wing nazis who are now going to seize our children from their loving homes... just because one judge will have HELPED a 17-year-old girl escape abuse and death at the hands of those who were supposed to love and protect her.
Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, because I did not use that as a premise in my argument. It is supporting my contention that if they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you, and believe me, there are progressives that would love to teach us ignorant Christians a thing or two.
If I have a daughter who is 17 years old who flees my household and goes before a court and begs and pleads not to be returned to my home, then I've done something wrong in raising her. Believe me, I am not worried in the slightest about that scenario.
Let’s return to your basic contention: “If they can do it to Muslims they can do it to you.”
Do WHAT???
Let’s put me in the same place as Rifqa’s dad.
Let’s suppose my daughter goes to the public school and decides to convert to Islam. Or Scientology.
Now that’s not going to happen, but let’s suppose it does.
First of all, she’s not going to leave my household, because any daughter of mine knows her parents love her.
But let’s say, against all odds, that she decides to go to Florida and immerse herself in Islam (or Scientology, or whatever), against my wishes, and furthermore decides to lie and maintain that she fears for her life, as an excuse not to have to return.
Note that we’re assuming my daughter is a liar. That’s also what you’re assuming about Rifqa, while simultaneously assuming her parents are as pure as the driven snow.
Even though a more rational assumption would probably be that she’s telling the truth.
But let’s make those assumptions.
Would I be okay with a judge ruling that my daughter, given her testimony and fears, should not be forced against her will to return to my home?
Yes, I would.
Nor would I feel that the government had particularly “done” anything to me. I might feel that Islam, or Scientology, had done something to me. I might feel that my daughter had done something to me. But I wouldn’t feel the government had.
Again, we’re NOT talking about the government forcibly removing a child from her parents’ home. We’re talking about the government NOT forcibly intervening to remove a child from where she is, using police force, and place her where she is not.
In fact, I don’t really quite see how you can argue FOR forcible intervention by the government, while simultaneously maintaining that you’re AGAINST and IN FEAR OF it.