Indiana Religious Freedom Law
In March 2015, Indiana governor Mike Pence signed a Religious Freedom bill into law that will take effect in July 2015. The backlash from the left was vocal with a correspondingly loud response from the religious right. A friend forwarded me an article from The American Conservative, written by Patrick J. Buchanan. In his article, Mr. Buchanan’s argument is that the turmoil surrounding the bill is about “the replacement of Christian values with secular values as the operating premises of society” Buchanan (2015). Buchanan’s premise is that there is a cultural battle occurring and that religious rights can and should be protected above all else.
The Argument
Indiana, along with 19 other states, enacted a law to protect the right of people to live their lives and conduct their business in accordance with their personal religious beliefs. Indiana’s law prohibits any state laws that place a substantial burden on a person’s ability to exercise their religious beliefs. The laws definition of a person includes institutions, associations, and businesses (O'Malley, 2015). Buchanan believes that Indiana’s law does not discriminate against anyone. It merely provides a shield for those who believe, on a religious basis, that homosexuality is wrong and do not wish to associate with homosexuals or participate in their celebrations (Buchanan, 2015). In his argument, Buchanan ignores the fact that there are other religions and the unintended consequences that might arise when others, besides Christians, exercise their religious beliefs. One wonders, whether there would be such support for this law should a Muslim auto repair shop refuse to repair a woman’s car because the owner’s religious beliefs did not allow women to drive.
It is Buchanan’s view that the outcry over this new law is a sure sign that the cultural wars have come to Indiana. Buchanan lists several people and companies who rushed to express their displeasure in the new law. He only quoted one specific person, Hillary Clinton. Prior to quoting Mrs. Clinton, he commented that she had tweeted from “now empty server” (Buchanan, 2015). This was innuendo with sarcasm by Buchanan to remind the readers of the questions about Clinton’s use of a personal server for her government emails as well as her deleting the emails on the server. Buchanan also quoted Clinton due to her lack of credibility with his audience. He uses the lack of credibility along with the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy to transfer the audience’s feelings for Clinton to the Indiana law.
Buchanan argues that the debate is really a battle between two religions with Christianity on one side and Liberalism on the other (Buchanan, 2015). This is an appeal to popularity for many Christians. Buchanan uses scapegoating to blame liberals for the changing views in society. Buchanan ignores that many Christians have had to change their religious views over the years due to societies changing views on slavery, racial equality, and divorce. While conservatives championed many of the past changes, he blames liberals for the changes currently occurring in society.
Buchanan goes on to question the punishment that Liberalism is trying to place on Christians for following their beliefs and wonders how far it will go. He compares the implementation of Liberalism punishment to the enforcement of Sharia law. He wonders if in addition to depriving business owners of their livelihoods, caning or imprisonment were next (Buchanan, 2015). Here Buchanan uses an appeal to popular beliefs along with a slippery slope argument to provide an emotional point to sway his audience.
Conclusion
It is clear in reading the article that Buchanan knows his audience well and is skilled at using rhetoric and fallacies to support his premise that a cultural battle between Christianity and Liberalism is occurring, which Christians need to win.
While Buchanan uses nearly every type of fallacy available to support his argument, the underlying fallacy of his article, as well as overall discussion, is the false dilemma. These situations rarely need to be the either or position being described. Sadly, this type of argument is leading people to act in ways that may have a negative on their livelihoods. Just not in the way Buchanan is stating.

References
Buchanan, P. J. (2015). Stand Up for Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/stand-up-for-indiana/
O'Malley, J. (2015). A Look at Widely Criticized Indiana Law on Religious Freedom. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/widely-criticized-indiana-law-religious-freedom-30084390