Zindler’s Battlecry: In the Name of Science!
Frank Zindler is a prominent Atheist and editor of American
Atheist Magazine. He served as president for a time of the atheist
organization American Atheists. In 2003, Zindler published the article “A
Government in Thrall to Religion”, advocating a call to action to his fellow
Atheists to free the American government from the grasp of religion and to
restore it to one of science and reason. In doing so, he undermines Bush’s
presidency by attacking his religion and political decisions and effectively
appeals to his audience through ways of a condemning diction, biblical
analogies and allusions, rhetorical questions, and compelling anaphora.
The article is riddled with an ominous and condemning diction
geared towards religion. He describes religion as “ancient dreams of primitive
priests”, a danger, a “greedy and conscienceless corporations” fantasies,
“lethally wishful”, embarrassing, ignorant, a failure. When he writes, “I don’t
think he is really that evil,” Zindler is indirectly stating that religion is,
in fact, evil. The use of this diction puts a negative light on religion in an
attempt to convince his audience of its precariousness. By utilizing this
particular word choice, he is, in essence, spreading throughout his article the
notion that “[n]othing fails like prayer.” We can’t trust or rely on religion. Antithetically,
he refers to his own side – one of science and learning – with a righteous diction.
He expresses science as a “great benefactor, liberator, and secular savior”,
beautiful, an antidote, good, enlightened.
By juxtaposing these two types of dictions – the corruption of the
church and the benevolence of science – there is a stark contrast between his
side and the opposition. Although Zindler’s diction is very biased, in doing
so, he eliminates any possible gray area, creating two very distinct sides.
Zindler is aware that his atheist audience – though they are not all as extreme
as him and some are actually tolerable of religion – is already at least partially
on his side, but that he fully needs them persuaded before he can initiate his
call to action. By using this authoritative language, he is effectively driving
his audience up the wall and onto his side, resulting in no doubt in the
readers’ mind of which side is the better option. Through this emotional appeal,
he is really herding in and rallying his forces.
Throughout his article, Zindler also uses multiple biblical
analogies and allusions to establish his authority as an informed leader
concerning religion and to further poke fun at Bush’s religion. Interestingly,
this Atheist proponent compares President Bush to the angel who banished Adam
and Eve from the Garden of Eden. However, in doing so he strongly associates
Bush with Christianity, boldly expressing that it is Bush’s religion that wants
to keep us from “[eating] the fruit of the tree of life,” – from being able to
gain “practical immortality.” This analogy also adds to Zindler’s credibility,
suggesting that he is knowledgeable on the Bible and Christian teachings; he
believes to have found fault with them and that he is thus authorized to
exploit its misleading falsities.
Another Biblical reference he makes is when he says, “He knoweth
not what he doeth.” In writing this line in a scriptural dialect, there is a
tone of mocking, making fun of Bush and his church; it puts the blame of Bush’s
flawed presidency on religion. This likewise alludes to Jesus Christ, as Christ
spoke similar words as he died on the cross. By using this phrase, Zindler
compares himself to Christ, essentially telling his audience that he is their
savior. He will save man from their impending peril if they will only “come
follow [him].”
In addition, Zindler
references the Holy Roman Inquisition. By saying that we “now face a danger
such as they have not seen since [that time],” he compares religion of today as
presenting the same danger as the Inquisition. The Roman Inquisition, which was
originally intended to return heretics to the Roman Catholic Church by
revealing the falsity of their opinions, developed into the belief that the
church needed to be protected from the criminal heretics, resulting in horrid
punishments, such as burning at the stake. This allusion is meant to frighten
his readers onto his side, declaring to them that, just like the Roman
Inquisition, a government ruled by religious leaders would turn against the
Atheist community; eventually they would be persecuted and dealt with through
cruel retributions. This scare tactic works well to play on his readers’ fears,
and as illogical as it is, it portrays a memorable picture that sticks in the
minds of his audience.
The rhetorical questions
posed by Zindler also play a role in strengthening his pathos. He asks his
audience, “If a government relies upon a god, who can rely upon that government
to find solutions o the world’s problems? If elected officials believe in an
undetectable world beyond the reach of science, who can trust their judgment in
the real world?” Zindler could easily answer these questions for his audience
himself, but instead he lets them linger. By doing so, his readers naturally
answer the questions themselves, it not only leaves a lasting effect on their
minds, but it immerses them into his topic, making his proposed issue now their issue too. He also asks, “Why
shouldn’t we set foxes to guard our hen houses?” This answer is obvious to most
anyone. The audience easily answers this themselves, and instantly make the
connection that Zindler means to compare this to the dangers of leaving
government in the hands of religion.
Probably the most
memorable and long lasting effect of Zindler’s article is in his use of
anaphora, or repetition of a few words. The first case of anaphora he uses is
with the word “if” in his demeaning of the president. Multiple times he
mentions the ignorance of Bush, saying, “If the president could understand”,
“If the president realized”, and “If he understood”. By doing this, Zindler
renders a picture in the readers’ minds of what life could be like, what
incredible discoveries and opportunities could be available, if only the government was guided by
science rather than religion. This vision lingers in the mind as a wishful
longing. Zindler then uses this yearning to his advantage by then boldly
declaring that it can be possible if they together dispel the ignorance from
government.
Zindler then begins his
call to action, proclaiming what it is that they need to do, exclaiming the
severity of their task. This is where he establishes his most prominent and
effective use of anaphora by using the phrase, “we must”. This repetition in
the phrases of “[w]e must act”, “[w]e must expose”, “[w]e must prevent”, “[w]e
must set government”, “[w]e must rebuild”, “[w]e must restore”, “[w]e must
educate”, and “[w]e must not fail” leaves a ringing of his call to action in
the minds of his “cohorts”. However, instead of letting this ringing linger,
Zindler abruptly cuts it off in a shocking manner. He unexpectedly changes his
cry from “[w]e must not fail” into “[w]e dare not fail.” This sudden change
from must to dare sharply cuts off the flow of the anaphora. By doing this, his
call to action just ends, just like he warns that their species will if they
don’t succeed. This impact hits hard, bringing home the portrayed gravity of
the situation.
While Zindler has an
abundant amount of emotional appeals and has done well to establish his
credibility, there is very little evidence to support his biased claims; however,
he does well to override this flaw through the memorable images he painted as
well as the lingering questions and phrases he instilled. Nevertheless,
psychologically people are more eager to listen to and agree with an argument
that supports their own side, whether it’s factual or not. Because Zindler’s
audience was already at least partially on his side, he didn’t have to worry so
much on the logical as he did on motivating his audience to action through the
emotional.
Another flaw in his
article was during his call to action when he said, “We must start next
Tuesday.” Predictably, there was certainly an event that was to occur that
Tuesday, but to someone who is uninformed on what that event might be, this
phrase feels like a major stumbling block in his call to action. It seems
almost like one of those bad procrastination jokes. Fortunately, the rest of
Zindler’s call to action patches up this little misstep.
Throughout the article,
Zindler attacks Bush’s religion by degrading his presidency and effectively sways
his fellow atheists fully onto his side through his use of a juxtaposed
diction, biblical references, and lingering rhetorical questions. By the end,
he’s ready to deliver a persuasive and enticing call to action through his use
of compelling anaphora. Despite his logical fallacies and radical claims, he
confidently rallies his atheist “cohorts” in a conquest against the minions of
religion that “threatens our very species with extinction.”
