Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda.
***It strikes me as ad hominem. Let’s allow the religious moderator to weigh in on that. What do you say, RM? Is it an ad hominem argument? Is it a form of antagonism? What are the criteria for determining it so that we don’t have to bug you about such things?
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it? Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat? Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?