Rhetorical Analysis Portfolio (RAP) Blog : Maya

Religion's Role in Anti-gay Bullying: Rhetorical Analysis

Broken bodies, mental scars and tragic suicides are only some of the wounds inflicted by bullies on gay teens at a time in their lives when they are already struggling to find themselves. Though there are many bullies in the United States and the world, there are many more people that stand against bullying in any form. Some of these people are realizing that religion may be a cause of bullying, and that now is the time to put an end to this harmful nonsense.

Bishop Gene Robinson writes effectively and brilliantly on this topic in his piece for the Huffington Post entitled "How Religion Is Killing Our Most Vulnerable Youth," which can be read here. His position as the first openly gay bishop in the Presbyterian Church makes him an authority on both LGBTQ issues and religion. He has experienced bullying himself and his position as a religious leader lends him much credibility. Despite this, he further builds his ethos, or credibility, in several ways. He adds to his argument with outside sources such as Susan Russell and Tom Prichard, who are both respected and knowledgeable on the subject. His sophisticated language and writing speak to his apparent education, and he shows that he did his homework on the subject with his many quotes and examples. These references, serve an additional purpose by adding to his logos, or logic, as the reader can infer that since these credible sources back up his opinion, his opinion must be more legitimate. On this solid ground, he is able to make his argument using bold assertions to state his opinion. He is unequivocal when he says such things as "It is not enough for good people -- religious or otherwise -- to simply be feeling more positive toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people" and "nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives." These make a definitive statement that hits home with the reader.

Robinson uses extensive reasoning throughout his argument as another way to strengthen it. He uses the example of Tyler Clementi's death both to appeal his audience's sympathies and to point out that if Tyler had not been gay, the video and invasion of his privacy would not have affected him the same way. He leads the audience to see that "Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people." His use of Clementi's story can also be considered an allusion, as many are already familiar with it and can use Robinson's article to build off this prior knowledge. He similarly uses logic to expose flaws in the reasoning of people with whom he disagrees: "On the one hand, Religious Right hatemongers and crazies are spewing all sorts of venom and condemnation, all in the name of a loving God." This extreme language grabs the attention of the audience. By attaching this sentiment to a real person, Boyd K. Packer, it shows that he is not fighting invisible enemies, and instead that there is a real problem going on. Robinson also employs the technique of creating a dichotomy within an issue to force bystanders to his side. He first compares gay bullying to racism before saying, "but as long as I am not working to dismantle the systemic racism that benefits me, a white man, at the expense of people of color, I am a racist." This implies that anyone not actively opposed to gay bullying is supporting it, something that could make his audience offended, leading them to take action.

Anger is not the only emotion that Robinson incites in his article. This use of his readers' emotions to make his points more effective is known as pathos, and it is his strongest tool. Many of the examples near the beginning of the essay are meant to make the reader feel sad and outraged. He says, “these were real kids with real names,” to emphasize significance of his examples. The idea of the many teen suicides, especially by people still in middle school, is a depressing fact that Robinson forces the audience to face. The more in-depth discussion of Tyler Clementi also instills unhappiness. These stories, known as anecdotes, illustrate what happens to people in reality instead of hypothetically suggesting that bullying is bad. By hitting his readers personally, Robinson more intimately connects them to his article and thus by reading about these tragedies and reacting to them personally, they have become involved in the issue. Another example that he uses is that of six gay teens that he met, “not one of whom had ever had any formal religious training or influence,” and yet “every one of them thought that [an abomination] was what God thought of them.” Such a strong word as abomination elicits more emotion than for example “bad person,” and Robinson uses this to his advantage.

Strong language also helps set the tone of the piece. Robinson declares “the pain and self-loathing caused by such a distortion of God's will is undeniable and tragic, causing scars and indescribable self-alienation in these young victims." The imaginative and compelling wording makes a memorable impression on the reader, prompting people to read to the end. Robinson's voice through the article ranges from sad to angry to outraged. He treats the topic with respect but is forceful and inspiring in his language and call to action. His multitude of rhetorical tools is implemented to create a rousing, engaging article detailing the importance of religious institutions changing to support homosexuality. Robinson deeply believes in the purpose of his article and this passion combined with his skill has produced an extremely effective plea.

Stephen Colbert also addressed the topic of religion as it relates to gay bullying in the segment of his show called The Word on November 9, 2011, entitled "Bully Pulpit," though his style differs vastly from that of Bishop Robinson. He focuses on a specific law, Michigan's Matt's Law, to illustrate his opinions. His arguments is much more effective when centered on this real example, as Colbert can use the actual text from the bill to make his points. The most prominent rhetoric that he uses is tone, which is mostly sarcastic and ironic. By pretending to be sincerely endorsing the bill he is truly mocking, he exposes flaws in the logic of the bill's proponents and highlights what he finds to be contradictory in it. His ridiculous statements serve to characterize the bill's supporters as unreasonable to the extreme and preposterous, as well as creating a more memorable impression on the audience than a traditional news report. An example from the segment is "that's not me, that's God. The all-knowing, all-loving creator who made all things and hates some of them." By associating people with such a strange and blasphemous sentence, he is discrediting them and placing their reasoning in doubt. Colbert also utilizes the paradox, "righteous bullying," to show that bullying on the basis of religion is in no way acceptable. This logos, or logic, strengthens the segment and vigorously destroys the opposing point of view.

            The unorthodox way in which Colbert constructs his argument is more sophisticated than a simple summary and opinion of Matt's Law. As well as extensive logic, he includes several allusions, which cleverly add to his point of view by providing a common reference point that his audience can understand. One of the quotes he uses refers to the Trojan Horse, comparing the bill to an ingenious, nefarious plot to promote the homosexual agenda, to which Colbert responds with "it is well known that the homosexual agenda is just an insidious plot to prevent gay teenagers from dying. And that Trojans were really gay." It allows him to make a joke and deride his opponents, making them appear insensitive and malicious. He also cites the Bible to show that those that believe they must persecute homosexuals because of the book of Leviticus are ignoring that it also says to condemn people with tattoos, people that wear clothing made of two different materials, women on their menstrual cycles, and anyone that has touched a woman on her menstrual cycle. His allusion is effective because he can rely on the fact that his audience is familiar with the Bible's place in American culture.
            The strong rhetorical tool that Colbert mostly lacks is pathos, the use of emotion. Robinson uses tragic anecdotes of real people that committed suicide to garner sympathy, and while Colbert does tell the story of Matt Epling, it is more to explain the law he is discussing than to influence his audience. He does confront the audience with the problem of bullying and suicide, but does not focus on it much, and it gets lost amidst the humor and logic. The logic itself can inspire outrage and disgust. To characterize the supporters of the bill as monsters, Colbert says "and there may be some out there who are convinced that by inserting into a law written to prevent the suicides of tormented gay children, an amendment that justifies that cruelty, by appealing to God, these Republican Senators are being immoral. And I just worry that next November, those voters might pick on them." It is insulting to think that it is those that are portrayed as defending bullying need protection, and could cause anger and resentment. Though this is pathos, it is more aimed against the Michigan Republicans than bullies themselves, meaning that it does not further that purpose of the segment. Happiness is anther incongruous emotion that the clip inspires through its humor and lightheartedness. This may help his ratings, but Colbert does not effectively use pathos to further the more important anti-gay bullying message as Robinson so artfully does. He also does not make many assertions, which can be compelling and convincing. Non-sarcastic assertions are not common elements of Colbert's show, but they could add something to his argument, especially with the impressive authority he commands.
            Colbert knows that he is a widely watched celebrity and is trying to use his status in the eyes of the public to convey a message that he believes is important. Unlike Robinson, he does not claim any credibility as a religious or bullied person, a status that was beneficial to Robinson, but he has built up his ethos over the years as a provocative and thoughtful comedian and can now reap the benefits. His daily interviews also increase his credibility by association with respected individuals and beloved celebrities. Another way that he increases his credibility is directly quoting the bill and other news sources, as well as showing short videos. It implies that he is informed on the subject and can be trusted to comment on it; it also shows that he is not exaggerating on certain parts of the bill. With a solid reputation, he can use his television to persona to effectively build his arguments, because his audience knows what to expect from him and they respect his show. His voice is apparent in such statements as "if I catch someone bullying, I will twist their nipple until it is as swollen and purple as a plum, yank their t-shirt over their head, and shove them into the girls bathroom, because it has got to stop." Coming from someone else, they would seem shocking and vulgar, but Colbert's audience already understands the way that he uses them. Though his tone and style are factors contributing to his massive popularity, they also could drive people away. These, unfortunately, are the same people that need convinced of Colbert's message, the need for an anti-bullying law that does not exempt religious bullies.

Robinson's article is more effective than Colbert's show in part for this reason. Robinson uses a traditional text to convey his message, which to some is boring compared to Colbert's raucous show, but he knew where to put his message to ensure that the most people could read it. In the more neutral arena of a newspaper, his opinion can influence more people, and more of the intended audience, than can Colbert in his show with a comparatively narrow audience that are already on his side. Robinson treats this serious issue with more respect, and in return, receives more respect. Colbert, on the other hand, is condescending and risks infuriating many people by saying such things as "nice report lesbo," though he means it as a joke. The most offensive part of Colbert's segment was his extended comparison of Jesus to a bully, which would offend Christians, instead of convincing them of the need to stop anti-gay bullying. Colbert's most important tools are humor and tone, which are engaging, but not as effective as Robinson's extensive and tasteful use of pathos, which often has more of a lasting impact on an audience. Two differences between print and television that Colbert takes advantage of is the affect of his live audience and the text on sidebars. He can make shorter jokes in his sidebar for laughs from his audience that boost the excitement of his piece, something Robinson is unable to do. But as a whole, Robinson is more focused on the importance of his message and his rhetoric is more powerful and effective than that of Colbert.

The Golden Rule Pledge is an organization that, like Robinson and Colbert, recognizes the problem of anti-gay bullying based on religion. Their website, found here, is well designed in order to promote the message that Christians should work to stop anti-gay bullying because the Bible teaches love and respect for all people, even if they are considered sinners. Their main doctrine is one of tolerance rather than hatred, and they are conscious in the design and content of their website to better promote their important message. The homepage is relatively uncluttered and each section has well defined boundaries. There is a search bar as well as different tabs and boxes to display news or features. The easy, intuitive design is testament to the respect given to the subject and a focus on the reader, as illustrated by the simple, easy format on the "Contact" page. By making the site user friendly, they are able to influence a greater number of people. This deliberate idea of helping the audience could be considered pathos, use of emotion, as they are avoiding associating certain emotions, such as frustration, with their website.

Boxes on various topics dot the home page; they group similar information to make it easier for a viewer to browse. Another feature of the site is a news feed that is not frequently updated, but is pared with a comments section that is thoughtfully written by ordinary people. Personal testimony of this kind can be much more moving than carefully tailored statements from organization leaders or disinterested reporters. The posts are written in everyday language, which is more suited to a large audience, as opposed to a sophisticated academic appeal or a brief written in legalese. While this can be good, is also prevents the site from having a well-defined tone, which is not necessary, but can be striking and moving. Much of the site's pathos come from these posts that detail anecdotes and experiences of people truly struggling or involved in the fight against bullying. The comments show how the website allows people to connect and stand in solidarity. One post by Betty Tetik says “I just found your web site. I wanted to tell you about a book I am having published … for 4 to 8 year olds … about bullying. I believe it follows the golden rule. I will send you a free one if you will send me your address.” The notoriety of the site may make the book more popular than it might be otherwise, helping to spread the idea of the golden rule; this is an example of the important networking it provides. In another post, Britt Poteat writes, “reading this, made me smile so big to know that someone was impacted on day of silence.” The site can help provide strength and support to struggling bullied teens, homosexual or not. This important function of the site is taken seriously, as is its duty to help churches teach a more tolerant message that authoritatively condemns bullying.

          Beyond connecting people already committed to their cause, the website for the Golden Rule Pledge serves to educate people not yet fighting for their cause. The section titled "About Golden Rule Pledge, found here, is misleadingly named, but is a good example of how the site functions. Rather than actually explaining what the site does, it currently displays information about Day of Silence along with links to a printable hand out, shown at right, for people participating in this day of awareness. This Day of Silence helps to raise awareness to people not cognizant of harmful anti-gay bullying. Another page is devoted to “Bullying Prevention Resources” and can be found here. It is a source of free, downloadable lessons that refute the practice of bullying and are specifically tailored to Sunday school students. These resources are real solutions to the issues that The Golden Rule Pledge raises, and show the sincerity of their professed goals. At the bottom of the page is a list of quotes praising the sources above. The endorsements and strength of conviction boost the ethos of the site, increasing the chance that the sources will be used, which is the goal. Another factor contributing to the site's authority is its connection to Warren Throckmorton, a college psychology professor, writer, political advocate and co-founder of the Golden Rule Pledge. The site uses logos to create this ethos: educated people are generally given more credit and by linking such a respected figure to the site, it is deemed more credible by association. His blog includes posts about both LGBTQ matters and other political topics and can be found here. Along with the blog link is a second link to the Facebook page of the Golden Rule Pledge. This is a clever and effective approach, as it allows them to communicate simply and often with their fans in an environment that they already frequent. People can be alerted to special dates such as Day of Silence and Pacer Center's Unity Day without the hassle of going to a special site and the idea becomes incorporated in their life along with their friends and Farmville. It, like the site itself, facilitates connections between like-minded people, effectively furthering their goals to spread awareness and the mentality against anti-gay bullying.
             Its status as a living, ongoing presence is more dynamic and impactful than the one shot that Colbert and Robinson have to affect their audiences. But while it has the advantage of visibility to its audience, Colbert and Robinson make a stronger first impression, Robinson through his pathos and Colbert through his tone. The Golden Rule Pledge relies on its contributors to supply these things, and this amalgamation does not form as cohesive an argument as do the other sources that are designed to portray a certain, tailored message. The Golden Rule Pledge has its strength in numbers and constantly newed material, but Robinson would be more convincing to a religious person who is conflicted on the issue of how to treat gays, because his argument is not spread out through multiple pages and links, and he hits his reader with more pathos. The Golden Rule Pledge acts as a resource for religious leaders to teach youth why bullying is wrong, which could have more impact, but requires more effort than reading Robinson's article or watching Colbert's segment, which is part of the strength of short texts and video clips. The Golden Rule Pledge does go farther in accomplishing the goal of preventing bullying than does Colbert, as Colbert is too offensive and not geared towards the right audience. Interestingly, all have a solid amount of ethos, and none could be described as untrustworthy, though Colbert is probably the most visible and recognizable. The Golden Rule Pledge may be extremely skilled at its mission of spreading awareness, but its lack of traditional rhetoric hurts its ability to make a lasting impression on its audience. Both Colbert and Robinson do not suffer from this affliction and are more potent in a rhetorical sense than the website of the Golden Rule Pledge.
            Overall, Robinson has the most effective article, and it follows that his most used technique, pathos, is the most powerful rhetorical tool. Having already eliminated The Golden Rule Pledge, Colbert stands as a strong competitor, but his lack of pathos and his focus on the wrong audience are faults that Robinson does not have. While both understand the awful reality of anti-gay bullying based in part on religion, Colbert uses it to his own advantage for a funny skit, while Robinson attempts to make real change by reaching out to the very people that might contribute to the bullying and trying to make them understand and stop doing harm. Robinson has much more at stake in this issue than does Colbert, and this conviction can be felt by the audience, whereas Colbert is less respectful in tone. Though Colbert is brilliant, it is Robinson's use of pathos that elevates his article and makes it more compelling than Colbert's video. Though both use logic and have great ethos, Colbert's goal is to critique society and produce laughs, but Robinson is intent on changing reader's minds and making a difference in people's lives. To reach these people, he appeals to them emotionally, because though people are deeply divided on LGBTQ issues, everyone can agree that teen suicide is a tragedy. By creating a common reaction in his readers, Robinson unites them with the victims of bullying in a universal fight to end the suffering and violence. It is a reaction from the heart, not from the head, that people react most strongly to, and on such a controversial and lamentable issue, pathos, especially in the form of anecdotes, is the most effective form of rhetoric. With this knowledge, Robinson competently pulls together many heart wrenching anecdotes, references that boost his credibility and assertions backed by logic to create a passionate and compelling argument. Colbert has his strengths in his liveliness, sarcastic tone and humor based on reasoning, but hardly an ounce of pathos, his video remains entertaining, but less effective than Robinson's.
   Though Robinson has written the piece rhetorically, all three contribute to the ecology of the movement against anti-gay bulling. None specifically reference each other, but they work together because they all build on the common idea that religion should stop being a factor of anti-gay bullying. Bishop Robinson’s article is authoritative and compelling, but The Golden Rule Pledge is also an invaluable resource, regardless of its lack of rhetoric. Colbert has the right mindset and does not sanction bullying, but his tone and the way he mocks the people he should be trying to reason with could actually do more harm than good in the struggle to change religious minds. Despite this, is it incredibly encouraging to see prominent people such as Colbert championing this cause, along with the energetic and focused efforts of Robinson and the Golden Rule Pledge. Though they contribute in different ways, all are dedicated to stopping suffering among undeserving teens. Though they may be far away and unreachable, it is a good thing to have so many allies.