A friend of mine posted the following short essay on Facebook the other day. On first reading, I was disturbed, because I found it very persuasive and yet I knew that I disagreed. Take a look. (Note: if you don't feel like reading this material on its own before reading it with commentary, just skip down a few paragraphs and the fun will start again.)
* * *
Hobby Lobby Founder-May Close ALL Stores
(****Notice: Ignorant or Liberal Biased Comments against this post or the family and business involved will be deleted and blocked....BJD)
The wisdom that comes from above is, first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. James 3:17
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames.. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word.
From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest.
We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that.
A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.
It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.
If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult.
The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green
CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
* * *
Okay, maybe you thought that was persuasive, and maybe you didn't. (Maybe you haven't read it yet because you don't feel like reading it twice.) I read this and thought, "Huh, he makes a pretty good point. Why should he have to pay for stuff that is against his religion?" I was genuinely curious, so I thought about it some more, looked up some opposing viewpoints, and realized what I had missed in my un-critical evaluation of the author's argument.
After this, I went back and tried to determine what kinds of arguments were being used throughout this essay. I wanted to see if this would make it easier to evaluate the persuasive force of the author's arguments. I did this with highlighting; yellow is for logos arguments, blue is for ethos arguments, and pink is for pathos arguments. I'll interrupt from time to time with notes in bold, along with some questions to reflect on in parentheses.
Hobby Lobby Founder-May Close ALL Stores
(****Notice: Ignorant or Liberal Biased Comments against this post or the family and business involved will be deleted and blocked....BJD)
The wisdom that comes from above is, first, pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without uncertainty or insincerity. James 3:17
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Okay, right away we have the somewhat inflammatory emotional direction to not be "ignorant" or "biased" and the assertion that contradictory comments are interpreted as being "against" the post/family; this warning may prompt feelings of outrage on the family's behalf, but also serves as a warning that this post is primarily meant for conservative readers. Note also the emphatic, emotional headline. We then have the appeal to the authority of (1) the Bible and (2) the credentialed businessman. (Do we trust these sources of authority? Is the Biblical quote integral to the argument, or is it just there for authoritative effect? Are we comfortable with the implication that disagreement equals ignorance?)
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames.. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word.
From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
The first paragraph is designed to elicit empathy and fellow-feeling; we may feel connected to this guy because he started from little and worked his way up, and because he believes in God. We then learn that he speaks authoritatively, on behalf of an important and successful business, and then we learn the heartwarming detail that it is still a family business. (Do we believe this story? Do we generally trust successful businessmen when they talk about their business?)
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest.
We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that.
Again, more appeals to the emotions, asking us to sympathize with honestly held religious beliefs and to trust the authority of the person behind a successful, thriving business. Then, the emotional warning of the threat of change from the government. (Again, do we believe the story we're told about the owners of this business and the principles they run it on? And do we think the government can in fact change everything that has been mentioned so far?)
A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.
It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.
If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious belief.
Here, we get to the logical center of the argument. The author tells us what's happening, and why he objects to it. If we've bought into his previous arguments that we need to (1) feel strongly about the goodness and Godliness of the author and his business and (2) trust him because he is successful, we may not notice that we have reached the point in the argument that calls for real investigation, analysis, and critical reflection. If the argument has a basis in reason, the reader will find it in these and the following paragraphs. Note the emotional slant [all caps text, e.g.] to much of the logical argumentation here.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult.
The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this in the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green
CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
The last paragraphs are a mixture of all the approaches, reporting the response the author is taking to the situation, summarizing the emotional appeals that came before, and making a final logical argument about what the government can and can't do, connecting it to the emotions the audience will feel about such activity.
* * *
Do you see what might make this essay effective? It starts by asking for the readers' trust and by appealing to their sense of what is right, and only then tells the them what is actually going on and how they should react to it. By questioning the first part, the reader can be better prepared to agree or disagree with the actual content of the argument in the later parts of the essay.
I won't say much more at this point about the logical content of the argument, except to point out that at least one part of it appears to be quite false.
In part 3, we'll take a quick look at an argument on the same issue from the opposing side, just for balance, and come to some conclusions.
Photo Source: I was not able to find an original source; this image accompanied the post I read on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment