French doesn't see schools posting Ten Commandments as "respecting the law"

Analyzing the article

The New York Times
anecdotal reasoning

Our Analysis: 1 Fallacy


There is a certain irony in the bravado about the Ten Commandments from Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana. On Saturday he told attendees at a Republican fund-raiser, "I can't wait to be sued." Clearly, he knows that the Supreme Court previously ruled against mandatory displays of the Ten Commandments in the classroom...

A Louisiana law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public classroom in the state defies this precedent...

David French argues validly that Gov. Jeff Landry's bravado about being sued for mandating Ten Commandments displays in classrooms overlooks the 1980 Supreme Court ruling in Stone v. Graham, which deemed such actions unconstitutional. The governor's assertion that respect for the rule of law stems from Moses, the original lawgiver, misconstrues the basis of the US legal system, which is grounded in the Constitution and its interpretations by the courts, rather than religious texts or figures. ​French however relies on some anecdotal reasoning that somewhat undermines the general validity of his complaint.

• The author essentially calls out the governor of Louisiana for an appeal to tradition fallacy. The governor is using the tradition of the Ten Commandments being the original law to justify their display in classrooms.


"If you want to respect the rule of law," [Governor Landry] told the guests, "you've got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses." To teach respect for the rule of law, he's defying the Supreme Court? That's an interesting message to send to students.


The governor, as quoted here, may indeed be guilty of a fallacy because the age or tradition of a belief does not necessarily make it valid or true.

The author also accuses the governor of inconsistency in signing a bill calling for a practice that the Supreme Court has already ruled against (in the 1980 Stonce v. Graham case), in the name of "respecting the rule of law."


These are fair call-outs by the author.

1. anecdotal reasoning • The author uses a personal experience to draw a general conclusion about the impact of the Ten Commandments displays on students.


I happened to grow up in Kentucky and went to classes before the Ten Commandments were ordered removed, and I can testify that the displays had no impact on our lives.


It would be acceptable to share the personal anecdote if the author were providing broader evidence of the generalization, and the anecdote was merely to provide color. But instead, the author leverages the anecdote for a general conclusion, which is not a valid argumentative move.

References

Comments

In order to participate in the conversation, head over to your account and setup a Screen Name
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign in.
In order to participate in the conversation, you must sign up or sign in.

Disclaimer

Note that there being one or more apparent fallacies in the arguments presented in this article does not mean that every argument the arguer made was fallacious, nor does it mean there are not other arguments in existence for the same or similar position that are logically valid. Also note that checking for fallacies is not the same as verification of the premises the arguer starts from, such as facts that the arguer asserts or principles that the arguer assumes as the foundation for constructing arguments. For more about this, see our 'What is Fallacy Checking?'

NO AI TRAINING

Without in any way limiting the author’s [and publisher’s] exclusive rights under copyright, any use of this publication to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.

Greetings! Kindly review our privacy and cookie policies to assess your preferences regarding cookie engagement.