Ok, so I think the main enthymeme here is that Obama has forced the catholic institution to go against their values - so he's therefore a threat to all religious institutions. The audience hears - Obamas health care plan declared war on religion. They fill in the blanks -- Insurance companies are required to cover contraceptives to employees -- including those of private religious institutions (like religious universities) -- these actions imply that Obama wants to declare war on the catholic religion -- if he declares war on the catholics he is likely to declare war on all religious institutions.
Here are additional notes from the reading that I think the film makers use to aid in this suggestion
- (Page 120) they've attempted to put the audience into a state of anger and fear towards Obama and show that he is responsible for the things that are causing the anger and fear (ie: declaring war on religion) - and that Obama is the type of person that the audience should direct their anger and fear towards (because he looks scary and angry. Also he's declaring war on religion)
- (Page 130) The speaker (in this case the narrator speaking on behalf of Mitt Romney) should make the audience realize something or someone they may not have feared and make them realize that they are likely to suffer from this person ("When religious freedom is threatened - who do you want on your side?"). And the audience is supposed to think (Oh, my religious freedom is being threatened?!? Oh no! Better get Mitt Romney on my side to protect me!)
- (Page 174) Topic 4 - for the more and the less (If the lesser thing is true so is the greater) -- I think the enthymeme here is that Obama has declared war on the Catholics (the lesser) so he is therefore going to declare war on all religion (the greater). Also the health care requirements are true (the lesser) so is the declaration of war (the greater) true.
Something I noticed at the end of your first paragraph -- you said, "these actions imply that Obama wants to declare war on the Catholic religion -- if he declares war on the Catholics he is likely to declare war on all religious institutions." In terms of logos, whoever the speaker is, is basing this reasoning on a fallacious argument called "slippery slope logic." This happens when someone grounds their claim in, "Well if we give them an inch, they're going to take a mile." Or, A=B, B=C, C=D, until eventually A ends up equaling Z (the end of the world as we know it). It's a valid point, but not necessarily true. Just thought I'd point that out.
ReplyDeleteBut it sounds like you're right on with identifying your enthymeme, and it seems like you have your concepts down pretty well. Of course, I could be wrong about this because I'm not exactly sure if I understand everything myself. Also, I like how you backed up your point with examples from the text!
Maddie -
ReplyDeleteYou're digging into this text here and getting at some interesting ideas. I don't think the Romney folks, though, are hoping that viewers will fill in to many of the details of Obama's health policy, because as your explanation suggests in your last posting, they simply aren't that controversial. (That is, most Americans would agree that contraception is a reasonable inclusion in a health care package) so it has to show up in other forms. And then to pull this out as a war on religion risks turning it into a straw man, which has elements of what Kenny is getting at in his posting above here. In any case, I like the way you're pulling and exploring.
The note about "religious" being unspoken (from your last post) when the word "values" is used is very interesting and on-going in American politics. "Values" also summons up words like "family," which also pull on "anti-gay" or at the very least "anti-gay rights" frames (some people would argue a distinction between "anti-gay" and "anti-gay rights," though I would not, myself).