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.
"If we are Christian then we would ban x"
"We are banning x.
"Therefore, we are Christian"
Saying "We should establish Christianity as the official religion" is a different proposition entirely from "We are Christian."
And that's not even the argument high level Christian Nationalists (ex. Stephen Wolfe) or theonomists (ex. R.J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen) would make. If anything you are the one making the fallacy with your strawman.
@SuperSnekFriend Your "logic lesson" is unnecessarily nitpicky. It's literally an affirming the consequent fallacy.
If {become Christian Nation}, then {ban bad things}.
To {ban bad things},
then must {become Christian Nation}.
You're being retardedly nitpicky because I introduced the word "should." Even if not affirming the consequent it's fallacious either way.
If this is a straw man, then explain why we specifically need to be Christian, because that problem remains open.
