" Discussion of civic

    issues stalls repeatedly

    at this moment in

    American history

    because it takes place

    in a discursive climate

    dominated by two

    powerful discourses:

    liberalism and Christian

    fundamentalism."(2)

      n the Dead Wood Archive "Toward a Civil Discourse: Rhetoric and

      Fundamentalism," Sharon Crowley discusses the strained relations 

between classic liberalism and Christian fundamentalism.

Liberalism and Christian fundamentalism paint two different pictures of American citizens and their responsibilities to their country. Common ground is scarce, hence their avoidance of disagreement to not offend each other.

I

        rowley investigates many issues and conflicting views

        surrounding liberalism and Christian fundamentalism.

She also discusses the repercussions to society when an argumentative discussion of such doesn’t materialize. The urgency of initiating civil discourse becomes evident, and the goal, looking back at historical traditions, is a democratic conversation of civil issues.

C

Crowley declares that rhetoric, a  language used to have a persuasive or grand effect on the audience, but known to  lack sincerity and relevance,

is more suitable in some instances to a liberal argument (often limited to observed facts and reason) in resolving disagreements driven by morals or faithfulness to beliefs. Crowley implies

that appealing to values, emotions and desires will be more effective in eliciting change. In stasis, a historic rhetorical concept, debaters agree to disagree and identify their opponent has a practical stance or belief. Most arguments

now-a-days don’t achieve stasis, and