I think that the Obama speech that we discussed in class on Tuesday was a good example of how rhetoric is used today. The speech does a very good job of addressing all the different audiences that might be listening. The way that it is written makes it feel like he is addressing everyone no matter what their religion maybe, or if they even have one. Also, I believe that the speech does a good job of using recent historical events that have been conducted by past presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson and the constitution. That helps take some of the pressure off the issue of the Mosque because similar things have been done in the past, so it makes it not as big of a deal as everyone is making it to be.
Secondly, Is that the speech, in my opinion, clearly does its job because it worked on me(a little). When I first heard about the Mosque going near the Ground Zero of 9/11 I was shocked. I felt like that would be a complete slap in the face, but after reading this speech my views towards this are not as harsh. That’s why I believe this is a good example of rhetoric today. It was a strategically planned speech that key on certain points in order to change the minds of how people are thinking, and it worked on me.
I do think that article showed a good interpretation of rhetoric, but I still don't agree with the Mosque. I think that this article was done to try and convince people it was okay even though its really not. I believe that Obama was trying to convince us it was okay to put the Mosque there through historical examples that, I thought, had nothing to do with the Mosque directly, just Muslim people and their contribution to the american society. I think Obama tried to beat around the bush, just like he does with everything!
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the problem with putting a Mosque up at all. Would it be a problem if it were a cathedral or synagogue? If not, why? I believe Muslim-American's suffered the most after and due to the events of 9/11 and as Obama said Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than it has members of any other religion.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty I think any religious center thats built as a memorial to 9/11 should be for open worship to all faiths. It would unite us rather than drive us to bicker and hate each other, as is certainly one of the goals of anti-American terrorism.
The idea of rhetoric, as is the case in this speech, is to play off the mis-information of the public. Although the speech does use historical events, the Muslim faith is not on trial, the mosque is. Location is the problem. Obama made the case that Muslim-Americans make great contributions to society, but during the reign of Hitler were there not Nazi's who made contributions to better thier society as doctors and nurses. Not all those who were forced to become Nazis were bad people, but if there was a reccomendation to build a Nazi museum right beside Auschwitz, don't you think that would be a little disrepsectful? Why not move the mosque down state or even a few blocks away? The state of New York has offered up land for free to move the mosque, so why not move the mosque? This very argument about the mosque points out the problem with rhetoric, which is that we as a society stop asking questions, and begin to follow blindly.
ReplyDeleteThe speech is definitely a good example of rhetoric. Whether you agree with what the president is saying or not, the devices he uses can still be seen. Every president has employed rhetoric in order to persuade audiences, and this is no different. It is up to the audience to determine if they agree or disagree with the speaker. In my opinion, I think mentioning historical figures like the founding fathers and bringing up their ideas that helped shape the country is a clever way of justifying the construction of the mosque in ground zero. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the mosque should be built, but that wasn't really the point of reading the article.
ReplyDelete