Blog Post 4

-In an article for The Washington Post "We all see immigrants as legal or illegal. Big Mistake." Roberto Suro argues that the way we categorize immigrants is more complex than legal or illegal, good or bad. He points out that we don't do well with 'grey zones' and that a lot of people get stuck in a bureaucratic limbo. He suggests that the fact they cant leave and come back in to the country easily is what makes them "permanent" and that a lot immigrants historically have been temporary. By making an appeal to ethos, logos, and imagery he attempts to convince and remind the reader that immigrants are crucial to the competitiveness of the U.S. in today's world economy.

Ethos: "By insisting that immigrants are either Americans or aliens, we make it harder for some good folks to come and we oblige others to stay for the wrong reasons. Worse, we ensure that there will always be people living among us who are outside the law and that is not good for them or us"

Logos: "Between 1908 and 1915, about 7 million people arrived while about 2 million departed."

Imagery: "Imagine life with a radically different immigration policy: The Jamaican woman who came as a visitor and was looking after your aunt until she died could try living in Canada for a while. You could eventually ask her to come back to care for your mother."

I chose this article because I have a hard time understanding how anyone can refer to another person as an 'illegal'. Specially when that term is being used to refer to people that are native to this continent.



- "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" is an article found in The New York Times by Ross Douthat that asks if liberal forms of Christianity can be saved despite the significant decrease in attendance. By making an appeal to ethos, using allusions, and description he gives analysis as to why its happening. He also suggests liberal denominations to offer something more that cant be obtained from regular secular liberalism in order to stay alive.

Ethos: "But if liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right."

Allusion: "As the liberal Protestant scholar Gary Dorrien has pointed out, the Christianity that animated causes such as the Social Gospel and the civil rights movement was much more dogmatic than present-day liberal faith. Its leaders had a “deep grounding in Bible study, family devotions, personal prayer and worship.” They argued for progressive reform in the context of “a personal transcendent God ... the divinity of Christ, the need of personal redemption and the importance of Christian missions.”"

Description: "today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes."

I chose this second article because it has always been a mystery to me how integrated the political right and mainstream "Christianity" seem to be. I think it makes more sense with other religions but if today's standards are applied Jesus would have been a raging socialist/liberal but thats if you pay attention to the actual scriptures not religious dogma.