Rhetorical Analysis Of 'Homophobic? Read Your Bible'

A Rhetorical Analysis Homophobic? Re-Read Your Bible

The essay by Peter J. Gomes, entitled Homophobic? Read Your Bible, can be analyzed in many ways. The essay discusses the issue of homosexuality as it relates to politics, religion and the bible. The Baptist minister’s strong ethos and credibility provide an unexpected approach to the topic. Gomes thesis statement is: “The army of the discontented, eager for clear villains and simple solutions and ready for a crusade in which political self-interest and social anxiety can be cloaked in morality, has found hatred of homosexuality to be the last respectable prejudice of the century” (344). Gomes hopes to convince us how the bible is used politically to deny gay rights and his effective use

of pattern from specific to broad proves successful with shifts to an even larger audience. The use of strong pathos and logos support his argument, refute opposing views while drawing light to the broader hypocrisy and social misuse of the bible.

The essay begins in the present tense with a narrative of how the bible is intentionally misinterpreted and used to politically oppress and deny gay rights because it’s a sin...

claiming a national morality traditional family values." And homosexuality as a litmus test of moral purity (344). They base their reasoning on false fallacies and misinterpretations from passages in the bible. Gnomes counters effectively with, “Fundamentalists and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are terrified that Scripture, "wrongly interpreted," may separate them from their values. That fear stems from their own recognition that their "values" are not derived from Scripture, as they publicly claim” (344). A strong logos of bible chapters ensues with several interpretations of same passages within the bible. Gomes mentions the verses in the Bible in which the information he is referring to can be found so that the reader can check the verse for themselves. Further encouraging placing the power back into the hands of the people on an issue that is larger “too important to be left to scholars and seminarians alone. Our ability to judge ourselves and others rests on our ability to interpret Scripture intelligently” (346). This adds more persuasion and strength to the essay and it clearly shows he has no personal bias or agenda, that it is collectively ours as

society.

One of the strongest pathos used “it uses Scripture and the Christian practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather than their virtues” (346). Places responsibility back on the reader and actually illicit emotional pain thereby encouraging self-reflection and an inner sense of their own morality and values and responsibility.
Gnomes uses parallels showing the lack of logos and drawing attention to the argument of hypocrisy and logical fallacy.

The religious fundamentalist’s misuse of the bible to support and entrench those beliefs. Again he broadens the opposition’s malicious intent while illuminating a marked history utilizing the same design and misuse of the bible as a weapon of control. He goes on to say “that it is the same Bible that antifeminists use to keep women silent in the churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free” ( 346).. He goes on to note more of these idiosyncrasies, which make his point very

obvious.
While further providing strong pathos of the dangers of religious fundamentalism using good logos he effectively illustrates how this same bible theory has been used in the control of slaves and for anti-feminists to control women.

Mr. Gomes shows that people may interpret the Bible differently. A person can read the Bible and input their personal beliefs into the message that it actually provides. He furnishes, once again, good evidence when he gives these examples, the same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators to action. “ The political piety of the fundamentalist religious right must not be exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. …one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from this last prejudice” (346). He increased the width of topic and audience successfully with a broader argument and a new appeal to a larger audience - a call to action
The essay is very well written using the key rhetoric styles and literary devices making Gomes argument successful and reaching its target audience.