God is a democrat: an analysis of "The President's 'Social Gospel'" by Cal Thomas

Nicholas Hardin

Mrs. Harmon

AP Lang

28 February 2012

God is a democrat: an analysis of "The President's 'Social Gospel'" by Cal Thomas

In Cal Thomas' essay, The President's 'Social Gospel', the self-righteous condescension reveals his bitter contempt for the current administration. His anger at the way the president turns religion into politics angers him. He tries to persuade the reader that this is wrong. He uses pathos, allusion, and concession to improve his argument.

He uses allusion to provide more credibility to his argument and powerful comparisons. If everyone "[sounded]" like "Karl Marx," our country would be "less successful" than it currently is." He refers to Karl Marx, the inventor of communism, to provide something to compare president Obama to. According to Thomas, President Obama's policies and interpretations are nothing short of communism. Even "Donald Trump" does not "[endorse]" president Obama's lack of "tradition." He chose a party that, until relatively recently, remained neutral. By showing a neutral person's displeasure at something president Obama did gives more credibility to what he says. If one who doesn't care cares, then it has to be a bad thing.

Thomas concedes to several points to give himself opportunities to refute others. "Even" "sources" such as "Plato" partially agree with the president’s statement. He concedes to this point, but it opens a broader topic that he can pick apart and reduce the president’s credibility. He points out that although independent sources agree with parts, they do not intend for their words to be used in the manner that they are used. The "left" "commends religion" when it suits their needs. He points out how religion is good and proper in some political arenas. But later goes on the point out inconsistencies in people’s support of it, thereby undermining the religious "endorsement."

The author appeals to pathos to give the argument a personal effect. The president denies "focus on a Higher Power" and only seeks to fulfill an "earthly agenda." Many people are extremely sensitive about their religion. The word religion often sparks extreme emotional reactions in a reader. It is an extremely personal topic. after hearing a reference to "Karl Marx," "People for the American Way" described the president’s statement as "election-season boilerplate." To an educated person, the name Marx spawns anger. Nothing breeds anger like the election season. Thomas attempts to make the reader angry at president Obama for a statement that seems inherently wrong.

Cal Thomas chose specific rhetorical devices, such as allusion, pathos, and concession, to use throughout his writing. The way he used these devices revealed personal feelings that, to some, gave his argument strength. But to others they could simply show his bias.

Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!

1. John McMurty's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports - especially football - since childhood. When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized. How does the anecdote lend credibility to his argument?

The anecdote assists in establishing ethos. By mentioning that he participated in football himself lends him more credibility in the subject that he is writing about. The reader is more likely to listen to, and believe a writer who has personal experience.

2. Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war. Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?

The comparison is very convincing. He mentions specific examples of how they are similar. Such as how after a football game there is an "injury report" in the same way that there is a "body count" after a battle. The overall goal of both is the same: hurt the other too badly to continue. These obvious comparisons are the reason it appeals to logos.

4. In paragraph 14, McMurty cites a Harvard study showing that some of the more brutal characteristics of football players are valued in the business world. How do the findings support McMurty's argument against the brutality of football?

"Systematically destroying and harming human life" is the whole purpose of football. Squeamishness is looked down upon in football. It teaches players to fight and main others with no regard for them selves or anyone else. A football player must be able to "[accept] inflicted injury." In order to play football one must remove all emotional attachment to things and just keep hurting others. McMurty's rough diction allows him to show that football turns normal human beings into mindless brutes.

7. Who is McMurty's audience? Is it necessary for the reader to understand or care about football in order to understand what McMurty is saying about society? Explain.

McMurty's audience is anyone who is interested in football or the effects of football. The reader does not have to know a single thing about football in order to understand his message. He uses enough detail and good explanation to make his point to any reader. He writes in such a way that the reader gains an understanding of the brutality of football and how it is apparent in modern society.