Using Religion as a Negative Characteristic

Due to my prospectus deadline looming, this week will have to be a short introduction to a topic that has been on my radar for some time. This trend that I have noticed, mainly in denialist rhetoric, uses religion as a negative characteristic that typifies history or science as "fantastic," "not to be trusted," or based solely on "belief" instead of fact.

Image retrieved from this site.

I am currently working on a paper that links the denialist strategies of Holocaust-denialists, climate-deniers, and creationists (evolution-deniers). This paper will explore the strategic arguments made by each group and the potential means to address them. Although it will not directly address this phenomenon, the frequent presence of "religion" as a negative characteristic has prompted my attention. I hope that this brief inquiry, which will be continued in another post or paper, will delve into these characteristics and this odd, recurrent rhetorical pattern.

One Holocaust-denial page (http://expeltheparasite.com/2013/10/28/the-holocaust-hoax-it-never-happened/) argued that Holocaust-confirmers are wedded to their story of history with a religious fervor. The website argued:

"My guess is that people believe the hoax because they want to believe. It fills some deep emotional need—perhaps to overcome a sense of inferiority compared to the Germans, or to somehow join the dominant group in society. The exact answer is beyond any understanding of this writer—but it is an enormously important question nonetheless in the same way that one should try to understand why people believe in religion. Holocaust belief is a kind of new religion—as irrational and ridiculous as any other religion but enormously appealing. For those who have not totally lost their minds, the following reasons for rejecting the hoax may have meaning" (para. 8).

Belief in religion is characterized as "irrational and ridiculous" despite the author's many Christian symbols, crosses, and references to Christ's sacrifice for the good of the white race.

Image retrieved from this site.

Climate deniers are also quite often religious and base their opposition to environmental protection on Christian teachings. The Cornwall Alliance (CA) is a religiously motivated group that denies the importance of climate change and its consequences as distracting from God's true work. Dr. Calvin Beisner, founder of the CA wrote, “religion is the root of any culture, and environmentalism has become a full-fledged religion in its own right. It is the most comprehensive substitute in the world today for Christianity so far as worldview, theology, ethics, politics, economics, and science are concerned” (Beisner, 2013, p. 1). He described environmentalism, or a focus and care on the environment, as a religion, based not on science, but on faith.

I've written about the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) before regarding a conference paper. The paper focused on ICR's magazine, Acts & Facts, that presents research done in their institute that proves creationism. They advertise their magazine as a tool “to counter the lies of evolution” and include education as one of the three prongs of their mission (along with research and communication). ICR undermines evolutionary science as “conflicting with biblical Christianity” and “detractors” to the true worldview (“Creationist Worldview,” para. 4; 6). They publish research articles that support creationism and also interest pieces about political, social, and cultural issues. In an article about education, author Henry Morris  (1973) wrote, “One of the most amazing phenomena in the histoy of education is that a speculative philosophy based on no true scientific evidence could have been universally adopted and taught as scientific fact” (para. 1). He described evolution as a philosophy that worships that religion of naturalism and humanism. Evolution is “the established religion of the state” that has excluded competing voices because they fear the truth (Morris, 1973, para. 4). Evolution, often called "Darwinism," is a religion that worships Darwin as a deity that scientists follow blindly.

Image retrieved from this site.

The extreme irony here is that groups who deny history or science (such as Neo-Nazis, creationists, and climate-deniers) are often themselves deeply religious, namely Christian. What is the logic in using religion as a negative characteristic when one follows religion oneself? It seems hypocritical for religious groups to undermine their opponents by trying to paint them as religious. In one sense, this places both sides on an equal playing field, treated both as beliefs that should be respected. Another possibility is that by reducing the opposing side to religion, the deniers can claim scientific superiority. Though they may rely on religion in their own beliefs, many groups understand the persuasive and authoritative power of evidence, models, and rationality.

Defining Life: Visual Representations of Life and the Anti-Choice Movement

I've titled this piece specifically in reference to a previous post justifying anti-choice instead of pro-life for the description of abortion right's opponents. The point of the post is to discuss a few interesting manifestations of visual rhetoric in anti-choice arguments that I've recently noticed. The visual tactics of the abortion movement have been documented well by those scholars who have come before me, especially in terms of the photographs and images of aborted and damaged fetuses as resembling born children in appearance and described action (Petchesky, 1987; Lake & Pickering, 1998; Condit, 1990). My first artifact heavily references these visual elements in equating the fetus to a baby. A new service called "3D Babies" allows for parents to upload photographs of their ultrasounds which can then be printed into a doll-like plastic sculpture.

Retrieved from 3D Babies.

These dolls reflect the argumentative tactic of representing life as starting from conception. Due to the physical resemblances of a fetus to an infant, the doll represents a visual argument for the protection of the fetus as one would protect a child. This image is described on the website as a 23-24 week old baby "measuring 8 inches from crown to rump." At 24 weeks, the fetus is nearing the end of the second trimester, so is nearly considered a viable fetus that could survive outside of the womb. Because of this, third trimester abortions are currently illegal in most countries. Consequently, abortions at this stage in the pregnancy comprise less than 1.3% of all abortions. The likelihood of a fetus looking like this doll when aborted is very low. This decision, then, is strategic in that the fetus is as far along as possible without being illegal to abort, thus appearing much like an infant. 91.8% of fetuses are aborted in the first trimester, (or less than 13 weeks) which makes their appearance closer to an embryo, only called a fetus at 12 weeks.

Retrieved from this blog

These visual choices are strategies to associate a fetus with an infant, one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable population on the planet.This is paired with cries to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The power of the visual and the associations that come from it can serve to overpower logic and the verbal by calling upon the aesthetic and the visceral. This is in part the strategy of laws that require ultrasounds before allowing access to abortions. The law provides a visual connection that the woman/mother and fetus/child share. If one sees the ultrasound images, one might be less likely to abort, directly associating the images on the screen with a potential life that cannot be avoided. The efficacy or ethics of this law could surely be debated, but the point I'm making here is the ingrained power of the visual to elicit emotion and its role as an anti-choice strategy. Facing visually one's actions is tantamount to removing agency if it clouds the judgment of agents. The intended purpose of this law is certainly to halt abortions or at least give women pause (or immense guilt). The woman, then, cannot make a personal decision of her own thought without the visual pressures of the potentially aborted fetus. The ultrasound and 3D doll images present that problem: that the fetus is a potential life, baby, and child experienced and seen as true.

The 3D doll can be purchased by whomever might want one, and I would hope that it would not be used as a persuasive tool to encroach upon agency. The larger issue for me is the laws that force the power of visuals on women making important, stressful, and life-changing decisions. Certainly images and narrative hyperbole about well developed fetuses (past the second trimester) being aborted are questionably moral actions. One cannot, however, stop them from being used in public forums, protests, and billboards. Something that should not be allowed, however, are deceptive images and unnecessary invasive practices forced upon women before receiving a potentially life-saving medical procedure.

As an informed public, scholars, and voters, we must all consider the potentially deceptive qualities of visuals and the arguments that they are making. For the ongoing abortion controversy, visuals and they employment are extremely important in helping the anti-choice movement portray women seeking abortions as murderers and masking invasive, sexist laws as protective statues. There are many intriguing documentaries about this issue, specifically as realized in America. I would particularly recommend Unborn in the USA that does directly discuss the visual strategies involved in the debate.

Aristotle, an amendment

On our makeshift Christmas Eve last night, my significant other asked me, would I rather sit down and share a meal with Plato or Aristotle? My mind immediately picked Aristotle, as his writings on rhetoric created and have forever impacted my field of study and my own personal interest in rhetoric. There are many aspects of communication and rhetoric that find their roots in Aristotle's writings, but there has always been one aspect of his teachings that has bothered me. I believe my first issue was learning about the distinction between types of rhetoric in my Classical Rhetoric class in undergraduate. Aristotle detailed the separation of rhetoric into four aims or goals: to inform, to entertain, to seek truth, and to persuade. When one thinks of rhetoric, one primarily thinks of the classic, Aristotelian definition: the ability to see and understand in any situation, the available means of persuasion. This prioritizes "to persuade" as the most important and valuable aim of rhetoric. Without going into too much detail on the nuances of rhetoric, this is the aspect with which I have dedicated my education and (I hope) my future career into researching, teaching, and advising about. I began thinking to myself, though, what really separates these aspects? Is persuasion truly that different from informing, entertaining, and seeking truth?

I would like to argue and state here, that persuasion should actually be a heading for all of these aims, an end goal for each of the subsequent three types, with entertainment, information, and truth-seeking as methods and types of persuasion. Persuasion becomes a more generalized term that all three methods of communication have in common: imparting words, meanings, and nonverbal cues to a consumer and receiver with the attempts to create understanding, acceptance, and a desired response. In an expansion of Stuart Halls, "Encoding/Decoding" piece, I would like to amend that words, messages, ideas, are not passed simply for the sake of passing, but that every word, meaning, idea, or gesture, has a purpose in its sending. The addition of a purpose or motivation is not unlike Kenneth Burke's idea of the pentad, in which motivation is a powerful concept. By combining the two, and indicating motivation as an inseparable part of any type of communication, it all becomes influencing and persuasion. For example, are teachers not educators, sharing information with students? But, are they also not trying at every turn to persuade the students that this information is true? That their class is the most important and should be given the most time and attention? That the subject matter and homework is worthwhile to know, to study, to understand? Is this not a type of persuasion that the words and ideas being transmitted to the student are of value? When one is being entertained, whether at a movie, by a story of a friend, or through various aspects of media, is one not being persuaded of a way to feel? An emotion to have? A response to give to the producer? Are we not being persuaded by stand-up comedians that their art is deserving of a laugh? Or that a song by Lady Gaga deserves our dancing along? If we are not convinced a joke is funny, or that the song has a catchy beat, then hasn't the form of entertainment failed to persuade us of its importance? When one tries to seek truth, are they not seeking truth in order to share the truth with others? Convince them that they have finally found truth? This reminds me of the book I have recently finished, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins (see next blog post for a book review), in which the entire book is an argument trying to seek the truth about religion, the creation of the universe, evolution, and the human condition. Is this book in and of itself not a larger argument for atheism, the truth of evolution, and the abandonment of faith? Is not the purpose of the book to persuade the reader to accept this truth?

These points are important to me, as my interest in studying rhetoric is the means of which persuasion occurs, how power is transmitted, obtained, and enforced, along with different categories of situations where persuasion occurs. If rhetoric can and should involve all aspects of communication, then there are many unstudied and little examined paths of inquiry that could benefit from a rhetorical lens. There are examples of persuasion being applied as a method to what might be considered traditional forms of media, such as movies. One that comes to mind is the work of Rushing and Frentz on symbolic convergence theory in movies , notably their 1995 book, Projecting the Shadow, The Cyborg Hero in American film.

These crossovers between the three can occur and I believe they should occur more often. There are opportunities for more ideas to be created, overlaps to reveal hidden meanings, and new partnerships in the research in fields of cultural, critical, rhetorical, and political endeavors.