Mitt Romney and Faith in 'Merica

Mitt Romney's point in this speech he made was that open religion is very essential to the success of America. He isn't suggesting that it be imposed on people, but he is stating that the nation was indeed founded with the influence of our Creator, so faith and religious toleration is something that America is losing, and we are hurting because of it.

Romney gets the audience's attention by using pathos at the beginning of his speech, describing how Americans have always been willing to fight for their freedom. It tugs at our heartstrings and is very effective.

He uses logos throughout the speech, as a support to the emotion he compels in us. At the very end of his speech, he describes the First Continental Congress. He uses this as a final fact to support his point- that America was founded on religion and needs to remain tolerable of religion.

As far as ethos goes, Mitt Romney was running for president. He commanded a lot of attention and had authority just because he was on the one speaking. It also helped that he knows history and politics well, and is also a man of faith, so he was knowledgeable about most everything he was speaking of.

Well this is awkward, because I totally have the physical capability to stop reading those Mormon blogs. Something must be wrong. Have you tried seeing a doctor?

Although I am not addicted to these Mormon housewife blogs like so many other people are (all I do is read my sisters' blogs everyone once in a while), Matchar's argument is very effective. I had not thought deep into this subject before, though I have thought about how perfect some of them seem to be. But I definitely read this article and was pretty convinced of Matchar's argument.

She uses pathos throughout by describing these "Molly Mormons'" lives so accurately that the audience can't help but envision exactly what Matchar is talking about- and this maybe even causes a few Mormon mothers we personally know to come to mind. We see this description especially in the first paragraph when Matchar talks about "husbands [that] look like young graphic designers, all cute lumberjack shirts and square-framed glasses" and "kids [that] look like Baby Gap models." We all know families in our wards and neighborhoods like this, which is why Matchar's spot-on description is so good from the pathos standpoint.

For me, Matchar commands attention and therefore establishes ethos when she describes herself as a late 20 year old, "childless overeducated atheist feminist." If this article would have been written from just another Mormon's point of view, it would have been interesting, but so much authority comes from Matchar. Her lifestyle is so opposite of the women that write these blogs that when she speaks of being addicted, you can't help but listen to what she has to say.

I though logos was used the least in this article, but it still was used effectively. Matchar makes a good point when she states the fact that Utah has the highest rate of anti-depressant drug use- quiet possible because of the amount of pressure women in this state (in particular, Mormon women) feel to be the "perfect Mormon."

It was very interesting to hear an opinion from an atheist with so much knowledge of the Church. There are definitely counterpoints I could make, but I really liked how Matchar was not just ranting about her opinion, but had logical points that often leaned a bit to the sacrilegious side, but they really were pretty interesting.