A Government in Thrall to Religion-Thesis

                As I was pondering over which topic to write my rhetorical analysis on, I came to the conclusion that Frank R. Zindler said a lot of things that are a lot easier to relate to than any of the other authors’. That being said, I will be writing on his speech: “A Government in Thrall to Religion.”

            I feel that he did an excellent job playing on the emotions of the rest of his atheist buddies. The points that he made were all very liable for one who doesn’t have any beliefs in a Supreme Creator. It is so easy to relate to what he’s saying because not only did he talk about our country when it was founded, but he spoke about how it is now. We can easily visualize the problems of pollution, the lack of interest placed in the breakthrough of cloning, the destruction of forests, cutback in financing of NASA, and growth as a human race. We see these things happening in front of our eyes. Zindler was clear in proving his point that without technology and the sciences behind the technology, we’d still be in the dark ages fighting wars with pointy pieces of steel. Thanks to the sciences we’ve discovered, living has become more of a paradise. Why not continue making our world and our nation more of a paradise to live in? Zindler uses this appeal to give his readers the animation and motivation to side with what he’s saying. The shots he takes against George Bush rile up all those in favor of science ruling out religion.

            With all of Zindlers logic and emotion it’s really hard to not want to agree with what he says. His speech could legitimately pull “fence sitters,” or those who don’t have strong opinions on the matter, to his side and appeal to a government without religion. 

soooo....I'm not really sure how this rhetorical analysis is gonna turn out. It's hard for me to write about something that I don't agree on. Even trying to place myself in the shoes of the "intended audience" is wayyyy hard because all these articles to me are so far-fetched and unethical. All their beliefs go against mine and I feel like I have to lie to myself while lowering my standard to support what they are saying? I just don't like it. Not sure what to do!! ... :/

"Faith in America"

                The purpose of this speech was to show American voters that electing a president based solely on his religion is a mistake. He wanted to show Americans that he being Mormon created value in his life and that he wasn’t ashamed of who he was. That he could be a great choice for president if the people vote for him.

Pathos-

Governor Romney really focused in on the lives that have been laid down to preserve our rights and freedoms. Here’s an example: “The lives of hundreds of thousands of American’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom...” He’s appealing to the emotions of the reader. Everyone feels a sense of honor and humility towards those that die so we can be free. He also continually talks about God. People are emotionally connected to God and it’s hard to try and contradict him when he’s saying things that they believe in.

Ethos-

Romney gains his credibility by stating that he was governor and showing that he can get the job done.  He also gains credibility through his knowledge of American history. He shows that he understands our country was founded on freedom and that that’s how it needs to stay. He relates to the reader by telling personal stories of his family. Of where they stand, what they’ve done in the past to show how they believe in freedom.

Logos-

He used a lot of references to God and other religions, showing that he didn’t discriminate other peoples beliefs and that they shouldn’t discriminate against his either. Also talking about the Founding fathers and all the history of our country backs up what he says. It’s logic.

Mormon housewife blogger thing....

 PATHOS:

I feel like Matchar really focused on “pathos” as she related really well to the emotions of all who enjoy to blog. One example is when she closes she says that she won’t be inviting the missionaries over anytime soon but she does appreciate how the Mormon ladies uplift her. Everyone can relate to this! Nobody ever wants to talk to the missionaries. People run and hide when they see the missionaries.

                When she talks about the “perfect” Mormon families we all can relate. Lots of people look at Mormon families and think that the kids are perfect. They see happy families and people want happy families. If you see a happy family you want to watch them and emulate the things they do so you can achieve one too. 

                Matchar is very bold. She uses a lot of exclamation marks and questions that play on the readers emotions. The reader wants to figure out what the uproar is all about so they read more.

Reflection Op-ed response

        I really enjoyed writing the opinion editorial because it allows you to express your feelings on a matter while there are really no wrong answers. A strategy that I enjoy while writing is trying to play off of the emotions of the readers. Finding common morals in our culture and lifestyle while using those morals to show the reader the importance of the case that I'm voicing. And the importance of their decision to side with what I have to say. I also tended to write really straight forward showing the audience that there are no fence sitters. There's only one answer, and that answer is mine:) I used the strategy of telling stories and personal experiences to draw common ground for the reader and I, which helps them agree with what I have to say. I didn't have a whole lot of expectations for the opinion editorial, but I really did enjoy it in the end. I enjoyed hearing everyone's arguments and their reasons behind their arguments, and looking at new ways to go about my way of writing. Over all I'd say it was a success.
       

introduction to Style Academy

Austin Fox

1/21/15

            As I watched the videos on sentence structure I liked the advice and feedback given. He shows a few different points of view and how you can write one idea a ton of different ways. It’s really quite fascinating how there can be 20 different people and all of them tend to write the same idea of a sentence in 20 different ways. We are all unique with our own backgrounds and personalities which lead us to write and say things in different manners. I liked the statements made in the imitation video. As we read and really focus in on the writing style of authors/writers we can pick up things we like and don’t like and apply those styles in our everyday lives. We can grow as writers and individuals by mimicking other people and making those styles our style. I feel like the practices might help with breaking bad habits such as: getting over making short choppy sentences, grammatical errors, and even just being a boring writer. So if you want to add a little flair to your writing or become a “master writer” as we might say, what better way to do it than through practice! Practice makes perfect! 

GASCAP

Well I hope this is how you do this assignment....

Michael Moore Fires Back…

G- All snipers are bad.

A- “The enemy are savages”.

S- If we kill people with snipers then we’re cowards.

C- “History will judge us harshly.”

A- Michael Moore

P- “Invading a country…is illegal and immoral.”

Interstate 84 semi-truck crash

G- The man should be dead.

A- He prayed for help.

S- If the semi had slid any further then he’d have been crushed.

C- He survived and the road was closed off due to the car pile-up.

A- Author works for “The Oregonian”.

P- Whitby says, “Thank God for the miracle."