Higgins is so amused by Alfred's rhetoric during the course of their conversation, that he obliges his request and gives him the money. It's really a great scene. I wish I could have found a video clip to share.
Now, I was not so persuaded by any of the articles we were asked to read, but I was more amused by some than by others. My favorite was, "A Government in Thrall to Religion", but looking at Blogger, it looks like that was popular among most of the people in the class. So instead, I am going to dissect the rhetoric used in, "Ashcroft and Friends Versus Washington and the Framers".
Thesis Proposal:
In "Ashcroft and Friends" Robin Morgan has
a clear purpose to her argument, and relies on strong diction and quotes from
some of America's best-remembered ancestors to bring others to agree with her
point of view. That view being, that religion is too prominent in American
culture and that everyone should rid the idea that America was a nation built
on religious ideals. She uses some good figurative language to engage her
audience, sentiments from the Founding Fathers to strike a chord of patriotism,
and even modern examples of how powerful religion has made itself in America.
I am not going to constantly praise Morgan for her
rhetorical accomplishments, because there are also instances in which she
tried, but failed. For example, being a feminist writing for a feminist
magazine, she probably felt some need to give a shout-out to the women. But her
reference to Abigail Adams, and saying that "female citizens were
invisible to them [the founders]", could lessen the credibility of her
sources. "The founding fathers were wrong about what the role of women
should be, why should I agree with their ideas of what the role of religion
should be?"--a feminist reader might wonder. Also, Abigail Adams was
religious. Morgan relied heavily on the quotes from the Founding Fathers, and
perhaps too much. She could have increased the pathos and the logos of the
argument if she had used more contrast in her references.