In his blog, FaithWorld: Religion, Faith, and Ethics, author Ed Stoddard put up a post titled “Christian Coalition Joins Hunting Group in Climate Change Fight.” Automatically, readers are drawn in by the interesting title which includes terms that are sometimes thought of as contradictory. Readers would be intrigued by the fact that the Christian Coalition, usually thought of as a peaceful group, is joining some kind of fight. It is also interesting to note that while Stoddard did use the term “Christian Coalition” in the title, he did not use “National Wildlife Foundation”, but rather referenced to it with the words “Hunting Group”. This word choice helps to put a more fascinating spin on the blog.
The majority of the post goes on to tell about the debate on Capitol Hill over global warming and green house gas emissions. Stoddard uses quite a few direct quotes from both the Christian Coalition and the National Wildlife Foundation as evidence to better show each group’s position. He does portray, however, the Christian Coalition and what he terms “the religious right” as no longer unified, but rather confused groups that are moving further away from their traditional values. For example in one part of Stoddard’s post he says, “…[in] religious right circles the climate change issue is seen as downright hysterical,” yet just a few lines later he mentions, “…most hard line conservative Christians are no longer united on this issue.” Also later on, he states, “But a big chunk of their base seems to be parting company with them on this issue though climate change skepticism still runs deep in the U.S. heartland.” Though there are a few examples given of right wing leaders stepping away from their party’s view, it should not be enough to convince readers that the entire Christian “base” is changing positions.
I think that for the most part, Stoddard does a good job with providing adequate evidence about the specific group’s mentioned positions especially the Christian Coalition’s new stance on the climate change issue. However, I do not think he has enough evidence to support the underlying theme that all of “the religious right” is no longer united on what they believe.
You definitely make a good point of examining whether or not the author provides evidence to back his/her claims. I agree that such statements must be supported by facts or events, and cannot stand alone. You certainly have a strong understanding of the purpose of evidence and its significance when attempting to persuade an audience.
ReplyDelete