Rhetorical Analysis On Fred Phelps

“Fred Phelps doesn’t deserve your grave dancing: let’s forgive and forget his hate”

I am responding to this article penned by Mr Patrick Strudwick.

Mr Strudwick begins his article by introducing Fred Phelps and the public opinion of the aforementioned man. He has said how a common suggestion is to picket the funeral of Fred Phelps like he has picketed the funerals of many others. Mr Strudwick goes on to say how the application of the phrase “an eye for an eye” does not, in fact, suffice as a response to the death of Phelps, but “makes us stupid”. A blunt word, Strudwick did not hesitating in speaking his mind. This is followed by “inhumane, sinking to his subterranean level.” The length of his words increasing as if to portray his disagreement

I disagree, and I believe that the anger of the people should be recognised and should be validated. By calling these people the things he did, he is not giving an explanation or a solution to the anger, he is only insulting them. Does this make him better than Phelps? Does he suppose himself to be above Phelps, and what gives him the right to decide how, in society, people are stratified? The article feels like a man with a god complex and a story to feed it rather than, words of advice, comfort and actual forgiveness.

Strudwick also goes on to call the remaining members of the church “hate-mongers”. This again, just gives more fuel to the fire of underlying “better than thou “tone that he seems to have adopted. Insults don’t aid his forgiveness cause. If we are to forgive these people, how about referring to them in objective, neutral ways? People, Church members, Phelps’ family…….there is a plethora of choice Mr

This again, just doesn’t actually have anything to do with forgiveness. He could have used his theory to delve further into the mind of Fred Phelps, and tried to explain why he thought the sexuality of Fred was a factor in his hatred, and why we should feel more sorry than angry. Unsurprisingly, Strudwick just called the whole church hypocrites and that they are fighting against their own core. This writer missed the perfect opportunity to show why we need to forgive, the whole point of his article.

He did at one point say we should view the church as victims. He was referring to everyone but Fred Phelps. The man in question. Yes the church members are victims. The family were ruled by a tyrant. But Mr Strudwick, save that for a different article, possible under the title of “Fred Phelps and his past of tyranny”. Has Mr Strudwick ever stopped to think how Phelps may have been a victim of himself? What a much better point to expand upon.

Ultimately, the biggest disappointment of this whole article was that Patrick Strudwick failed to even support his own main point. “Forgive and forget”. I believe he used his title as a form of click bait. Readers are intrigued by the strong words that make them think maybe Phelps has more to him, maybe he can be forgive and forgotten. Alas, readers are annoyed to find out that the article was really just a rant about the sins of Phelps.

Try again