I see arguments of this form from Christian Nationalists a lot:
1. If we were Christian, we would ban {a bunch of things like feminism}.
2. We really want to ban those things since they're bad.
3. Therefore, we should force Christianity on folks.
This is an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Further, we don't need to force this religion to ban bad things. Christianity, as history has shown, also brings its own bad things.
@philosophy Indeed it is such a fallacy. People seem to believe that If-then statements are equivalences and therefore bidirectional. They are not.
Additionally, even if they were formally correct, the statements are not sound. The designation "Christian" contains mutually exclusive practices based on the actions and words of their members; therefore, their conditional is not sound.
What they mean is, "If I (my group) were in charge, we would ban the things I (my group) is against."
