TOW #16 - How 'Je suis Charlie' makes matters worse - Written

This article was written on January 16th (the day before I'm writing this) about the recent "Je suis Charlie" trend. It was written by Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and is also the author of "Making England Western: Occidentalism, Race and Imperial Culture". The author explains why he finds the "Je suis Charlie" trend to be ineffective and counterintuitive because it is just widening the antagonism between Muslims and "Westerners". It promotes the idea of Middle Eastern Muslims as intolerant and lacking the Western principle of freedom and expression. It would also suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, rather than just those involved in attacks such as these. It would continue to cause Westerners to have this view of Muslims, which is not the reality. It creates an "us/them" effect, as the author states. The author suggests that there is not true freedom of expression, even in the Western world, as there are laws against hate speech and speech promoting violence. The author cites examples of people who have been punished for these types of speech, such as Dieudonné M'bala M'bala and Maurice Sinet, who worked for Charlie Hebdo itself. However, hatred of Muslims, according to the author, is not only accepted but almost promoted as demonstrating the superiority of Western values, like freedom of expression and "tolerance".  The author also argues that the trend simplifies the issue. The author uses a strong tone in order to make his argument, primarily through his word choice. He uses phrases like "direct[ing] their barbs at reviled and vulnerable minorities" in order to make the actions seem unacceptable, and almost seems to be an appeal to pathos, suggesting these satirists are attacking these "vulnerable" people and this shouldn't be acceptable. Also, the author continues to use the idea of "us/them" throughout the article, explaining how these sorts of trends promote the idea of Muslims being different, even wrong, in their beliefs and actions. He also uses the example to explain a possible thought of the attackers, "'You' dare make fun of 'us,' they said, then 'you' will pay the price; 'we' will turn the tables".

TOW #15 "Your God and My Dignity" - Written

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html?src=mv&_r=0

In continuing the trend of social justice, I found an interesting article from the New York Times about the claims of religious liberty in acceptance of homophobic and bigoted views. It also seemed to fit the current focus on arguments, and I thought it was a relevant topic today. The author of the article is Frank Bruni, the first openly gay op-ed columnist of the New York Times. The idea of religious liberty has often been used to justify homophobia, that being any orientation other than straight is a sin according to some Christians. The author explains the use of religious liberty as an excuse and why this should not be considered a valid argument. The idea of protecting religious freedom seems to be extended only to Christians, according to the article, since aspects of other religions such as Islam are not protected, as people are prejudiced against for wearing traditional Muslim clothing. The author also questions why only certain types of "sinners" are singled out rather than everyone that is considered to have done something that goes against the religion.

The tone of the article was one of the main rhetorical strategies used, as the tone was somewhat informal in order to be more interesting to people as this is a topic that is very personal to people. It also wasn't phrased as an attack of anyone in particular; the author didn't claim that all Christians who have this belief are evil or that religious liberties should not be protected, but rather that religious liberty shouldn't be used as an excuse to avoid giving many people basic human rights. Near the end, the author even says that he respects people who practice religion, but the right to marriage and equality is something everyone should have. You can have any beliefs you want, but you have to accept people who don't share that belief. Religious institutions can be good, but what they want should not be put above some people being able to enjoy the same privileges others do. There was also humor used throughout the article, with the joke about the book's title and Chick-Fil-A, as well as the one about the hairdresser.