The religion of the source of an argument is not a reflection on its value.

Any atheist author can make arguments about the writings of someone like Aquinas or Augustine by taking into account the work and its context. They might even make arguments that those inside the religion consider valid and would not find for themselves because of habits of interpretation that have not been adequately challenged within the faith. The arguments about the environment, for instance, to which Pope Francis has finally lent doctrinal support, seem to originate in Calvinist Protestant notions of Stewardship, not within the Catholic Church.

Kerry may well understand the relevant parts of Judaism in a more abstract way, or he may be arguing from Isreal's constitution, or international law. We don't know. But we have not been encouraged to consider the actual basis of his judgments (the suppressed premise you are looking for), we have been referred to his religion as a disqualification of unstated arguments before they are introduced.

Facts of personal identity are not arguments, because we have empathic abilities, abstract principles, and relational logic that allows us to realistically consider facts about people different from us in a way that is still fair.

The religion of the source of an argument is not a reflection on its value.

Any atheist author can make arguments about the writings of someone like Aquinas or Augustine by taking into account the work and its context. They might even make arguments that those inside the religion consider valid and would not find for themselves because of habits of interpretation that have not been adequately challenged within the faith. The arguments about the environment, for instance, to which Pope Francis has finally lent doctrinal support, seem to originate in Calvinist Protestant notions of Stewardship, not within the Catholic Church.

So one can have perspective, and even reverence, for an institution and still hold it accountable to other standards or to alternative interpretations of its own stated standards. Kerry may well understand the relevant parts of Judaism in a more abstract way, or he may be arguing from Isreal's constitution, or international laws, which Isreal might have entered into in a way that overrules religious issues. We don't know.

But we have not been encouraged to consider the actual basis of his judgments. We have instead been referred to his religion as a disqualification of his unstated arguments before they are introduced.

Facts of personal identity are almost never decisive in logical arguments. After all, we have empathic abilities, abstract principles, and relational logic that allow us to realistically consider the circumstances of people different from ourselves in a way that is still fair.