A Government In Thrall of Religion
Frank R Zindler
A Call to Atheist America: How Zindler Reaffirms Religion must be Expelled from Government
In A Government in Thrall of Religion, Zindler launches a series of strikes against President Bush’s policies and religion, making an emotional appeal for Atheist America to “restore a semblance of sanity” in American politics. This piece is rife with subtle wordings that undermine Bush’s authority, humorous biblical analogies undermining administrative choices, repetitive phrasing and questions that create draw attention to certain issues, structural parallels to the Declaration of Independence, strong images of nature that makes primitive the role of religion, and makes radical accusations designed to arouse strong emotions. By confidently implementing these tools in his article, Zindler creates an emotionally powerful but logically weak call to restore the American government to “the road of reality.”
Subtle Wording
Zindler demonstrates personal biases in his subtle wording. While these wordings strengthen Zindler’s arguments by undermining Bush’s authority and validity of his decisions, it also weakens his argument because it makes his own biases very transparent. REPETITIVE Bush is consistently referred to as “Mr Bush,” as if to indicate he is not worthy of being called the President. He is only referred to as “President Bush” when he is being made fun of, such as when Zindler compares Bush to the “angel…from the Garden of Eden.” By recognizing Bush as a President only to compare him to what Zindler perceives to be a whimsical fictional tyrant, Zindler discounts Bush’s authority as President. Zindler also manipulates adjectives to demonize Bush. For instance, he accuses Bush of siding with “greedy, conscienceless” corporations and “suppressing” funds. The use of these strong adjectives causes the reader to associate the subject, Bush, with these words with negative connotations. For instance, the use of the word “suppressing” in regards to funds implies that Bush is singlehandedly preventing progress that would otherwise been easily carried out.
Government in Thrall with Religion also utilizes biblical analogies in order to poke fun at religion. This provides contrast with the serious subject Zindler is addressing, undermines the seriousness of religion and makes him seem more knowledgeable to his audience. Pertaining to Bush, Zindler says that “He knoweth not what he doeth.” By framing Bush’s ignorance in this context, Zindler makes himself appear as the more knowledgeable of the two. Here, Zindler assumes a position of authority as the narrator of events, describing a small child. WHAT? YOU’RE NOT MAKING ANY SENSE ON PAPER SARAH.
There is a consistent use of repetitive phrases and questions throughout this piece. Zindler attacks Bush’s actions through the repetition of the “If he…[insert synonym for ‘understood’]” in order to point out perceived failings in Bush’s policy decisions. The use of short, impactful repetitions allows the reader to clearly see the failings of the former President. WHY THOUGH? While this is effective emotional manipulation as the reader clearly is able to see the many faults of the President, at times it oversimplifies, summarizing a complex issue in a few words only allowing the audience to see a single perspective of an issue. GIVE EXAMPLE HERE
This piece ends with a repetitious “we must…” call to action. This emotional revival almost takes on a sermonic rhythm of calling “godless Americans” to remedy the malady of religion. While the rhythm and repetition of this technique is emotionally appealing, it fails to make logical sense. For instance, Zindler argues that ignorance spurred by religion “threatens our species with extinction.” What evidence does Zindler have behind this claim? NEEDS SOMETHING HERE BUT I CAN’T THINK RIGHT NOW
Loose Parallel structure to Declaration of Independence
States what the government should look like, then follows this with a list of grievances. Instead of tea taxes, it’s pulling out of cloning projects. The only difference is Zidler ends with a call to action.
Similarly, this speech echoes the structure of the Declaration of Independence. This famed document first has a preamble describing the extraordinary context for a declaration, boldly declares perceived truths of the world, lists grievances against King George, then declares the desired rights. The structure of this article first describes the context—lack of separation between church and state in today’s government, boldly declares the perceived truth that “Nothing fails like prayer,” proceeds to list grievances against President Bush, then declares the desired outcome—for “godless Americans” to change the world. By patterning Zindler’s argument against the document that was one of the first steps of creating an independent America, Zindler infers that this issue holds the same amount of importance as Americans declaring independence from Britain. Likewise by creating this comparison, Zidler effectively makes deep accusations that the seriousness of the tyrannous actions of President Bush are like the actions of King George. CONCLUDING SENTENCE HERE
At times, this speech resembled a creative writing exercise more than a serious speech. Zindler uses many extreme images subjecting religion to being an insensitive and demeaning entity. He calls religious followers “minions…ignorant of everything”, describes faith as a “dark and swelling tide,” and has priests feeding at “monetary mangers created for the public weal.” By comparing religious followers to “minions,” Zindler implies that religious people are simply blind followers of priests and pastors. Zindler confidently and singularly states his case then moves on to his point. This both hinders and helps his argument. Logically, this makes no sense as he provides no evidence to back up his claim but is emotionally impactful as he asserts himself confidently, allowing the audience to place trust in his claims because he trusts himself. MAKE THIS MAKE SENSE. IT MAKES NO SENSE SARAH. By placing priests feeding at “monetary mangers,” Zindler victimizes religious parishes. Priests are victimized because they are reduced to animalistic status, indicating that they cannot think or act for themselves because they are simply animals. While this is clearly a personal opinion with no evidence apparent in the document, it remains powerful because it is a memorable analogy. SOME SORT OF CONCLUSION HERE.
By making radical accusations against religion and the Bush administration, Zindler reassures his atheist audience that his views are indeed similar to their views. Furthermore, however illogical pointed and unsubstantiated accusations such as “religion fosters ignorance” may seem, they do make his speech poignant and memorable. Without substantiated evidence for his claims, Zindler does not tire his listener with listening to his reasoning but assumes the audience can come to agree with him. WHAT SARAH? WHAT YOU ARE WRITING MAKES NO SENSE.
In conclusion, Zindler creates an effective attack on religion and the Bush administration for a primarily atheistic audience. His radical but unsubstantiated claims and powerful imagery serve as a double edged sword; they reaffirm the confidence he has in his positions but logically make little sense. The parallels he plays between the constitution and the bible draw upon emotions of patriotism. For according to Zindler, religion is child’s folly and only the educated have the capacity to stop it from “threatening our species with extinction.”
