LSAT Logic and "Ground Zero Mosque" Arguments, Part 2

This is the 2nd part of a 2-part series on LSAT Logic and the "Ground Zero Mosque."

In the 1st part, I analyze some arguments opposing Park51 and their connections to logical fallacies tested on the LSAT.

In this part, I offer counterarguments to other claims advanced by Park51 opponents.

Reactions to Various Arguments Against Park51

Claim that Ground Zero has Privileged Status as Sacred Ground

The site itself being "sacred ground" is certainly fair. However, New York is a living city. Some people go about their day-to-day lives next to Ground Zero. Cheap souvenir stands and strip clubs are in the immediate vicinity. Park51's short distance from both a strip club and an OTB suggests its backers are tolerant people.

Many non-New Yorkers seem to believe all of Lower Manhattan is a memorial with a 24/7 prohibition on business as usual. Things actually went back to normal soon after it was safe to return.

If it's to be a "victory mosque," it'll have to be much taller than 13 stories. Maybe 13 stories sounds big to those outside NYC, but if you've ever been to Wall St. or Lower Manhattan, you'll know many buildings down there are dozens of stories tall.

If you're creating a brand-new building in Manhattan, you're probably not going to bother making it less than 10 stories if zoning allows you to make it a decent size.

Manhattan's a pretty small island, and real estate tends to be expensive, so builders need all the vertical space they can get to make purchasing land worthwhile.

Park51 won't even be visible from Ground Zero (and vice-versa).

Furthermore, how does being sacred ground mean that one can't have a mosque a few blocks away? 2 long blocks away (the equivalent of 6 normal city blocks) is a decent distance when one considers how tiny Lower Manhattan is. If the ground is too sacred to have a community center containing a Muslim prayer space nearby, perhaps it's also too sacred to have 2 churches within one block. (At the very least, maybe those 2 churches can "protect" Ground Zero from Park51 or "cancel out" its Muslim influence.)

After all, if we're committing the part-to-whole flaw by lumping together moderates and extremists within a religion of over 1 billion people, we might as well extend it and blame religion in general for 9/11. Should we ban all churches and synagogues from Lower Manhattan as well? Since all the 9/11 hijackers were men (and since they were all humans), should we ban all men (and humans) from Lower Manhattan? After all, it's an insult to women (and animals) to have them walking around freely as if it were business as usual.

Sure, it'd be an insult to allow members of Al Qaeda to hold parties there, but let's not forget that Al Qaeda doesn't represent the wishes of all 1.5 billion Muslims.

The First Amendment does not allow for exceptions based on national tragedies. As The Daily Show reminded us, Charlton Heston held the national NRA convention in Denver one week after the Columbine High School shooting. His excellent keynote address discussed the connection between tragedy and blame and the resulting need to defend the Bill of Rights.

The Catholic Church placed a "Center for Dialogue and Prayer" the equivalent of 2 blocks from Auschwitz, and their center actually sounds rather nice.



Claim that the Name "Cordoba House" Symbolizes Triumphalism

Opponents latch on to the idea that calling the Islamic community center by the name "Cordoba House" is meant to invoke the Muslim conquest of the Spanish city of Cordoba.

Rauf says he chose the name to invoke 8th-11th century Cordoba, Spain, a period in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived in peace.

I suppose that if we knew nothing about him, we wouldn't know which interpretation to believe.

However, given his background and track record, it seems pretty clear that we should take him at his word.

Furthermore, he appeased opponents on this issue and changed the center's name to the very neutral Park51 (the building's address), which indicates some desire to compromise and avoid confusion.


Concern that We Don't Know How the Imam's Financing It

Some keep raising the question of how Rauf got the ~$4 million for the current buildings, and how he'll get the $100 million for the construction of Park51 itself. They suggest he might get money from conservative Muslim countries.

First, getting ~$4 million from a congregation to establish a new house of worship in NYC probably isn't very difficult. In NYC, donors have money, and wealthy people often donate to their houses of worship.

Second, people involved in fundraising often don't know where their money's coming from until the check arrives.

Third, is it that surprising that some of the money for an Islamic community center might come from an Muslim country? Are there not ties between Jewish organizations in the U.S. and Israeli organizations? Are there not ties between the Catholic Church in Vatican City and Catholic churches in the U.S.? Are there not ties between Prince Al-Waleed of Saudi Arabia, the News Corporation, and the Republican Party? (Prince Al-Waleed has also donated to Harvard and Andover, and I don't see them preaching shari'a.) Has George W. Bush not held hands with, and kissed, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah?



Argument by Analogy that Saudi Arabia Doesn't Allow Churches

That doesn't seem to stop all the hand-holding, kissing, and exchanging of money referenced above.

Fox News keeps pushing the following idea:

"Since Saudi Arabia doesn't allow churches or synagogues, why should we allow mosques?"

Since Fox News and its guests keep putting words in the mouths of 9/11 victims, I'd argue it's insult to 9/11 victims to suggest that we should become more like Saudi Arabia, especially near the site of the World Trade Center.

Discouraging Muslims from exercising their right to build a mosque on private property, based on the idea that neither Saudi Arabia nor Al Qaeda is big on religious freedom, suggests we should lower ourselves to their standard.

In other words, these Park51 opponents suggest we become more like religious extremists and discourage the free exercise of religion, making ourselves more like the people we find abhorrent, not less.



Claim that the Government Should Stop Them From Building

According to a recent Fox News poll, 34% of registered voters believe they do not have the right to build it. For those people, the issue is the legal right.

Just in case anyone's not clear on this, government is not in the business of deciding what sort of speech or religion is "right" or "wrong." It's in the business of allowing and protecting the free exercise of speech and religion.

People's opinions on what's morally right, good, decent, or offensive vary significantly, making opinions regarding decency an unreliable source of authority.

While laws are also open to interpretation, the text of a particular law is (relatively) fixed.

We can't make policy based upon what Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, or Fox News consider to be an acceptable distance from Ground Zero.

Apparently, a few blocks away isn't far enough for them, but at what distance does one say "new mosques can be built north of this particular street, but not south of it?" Where do we draw the line? For how long should that policy remain in effect? Should one's freedoms be dependent upon the popularity of their expression in a particular community?

Following that policy exposes everyone to the tyranny of the majority.



Concern that the Imam Has Not Condemned Hamas / Terrorism

This recent article in the New York Times pretty much covers it.



Claim that 9/11 Victims' Families Don't Want It There

Sure, some don't. But many do. Those who do might be offended if Park51 were not built. Whatever happens, some victims' families will be offended, so we can't satisfy everyone's desires.

And then, of course, there's the issue that the First Amendment does not allow exceptions for simply offending someone.



Claim that Islam is a Violent Religion

Opponents of Park51 often claim Islam is a violent religion, contrary to expressions of peace by many of its members.

Sure, the Qur'an says some things I don't care for, but the Hebrew Bible and New Testament also endorse plenty of hateful and backwards stuff. If you're going to apply strict scrutiny to the Qur'an (and assume that all members of a religion actively endorse every word of their religion's texts), you're obligated to do the same for other religions. Religion today is not the same as religion in the time these texts were written.

Since the texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all endorse violence against nonbelievers, one might reach the conclusion that it wouldn't be decent for any religion to establish houses of worship near Ground Zero. However, no one really follows most of the prescriptions of their religious texts. Furthermore, how many people do you know who actually read their own religion's text, let alone obey a majority of its commandments?


Claim that Building Park51 Lets The Terrorists Win

Imam Rauf's proposed Islamic interfaith community center presents one of the greatest threats to Al Qaeda. It proves that Muslims can happily and successfully live in American society, in peace with neighbors, without oppression from government or from non-Muslims.

All the vitriol against Park51 serves as a recruitment opportunity for Al Qaeda. (Yes, the rest of the world has heard about the controversy.)

On the other hand, Park51 were to be built, it'd serve as a great symbol of American tolerance - proof that America is not at war with the religion of Islam.


For further watching:

Daily Show: The Parent Company Trap

Daily Show: Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition

Daily Show: Mosque-Erade

Daily Show: Municipal Land-Use Hearing

Daily Show: Michael Bloomberg

Keith Olbermann: Special Comment: There Is No 'Ground Zero Mosque'

YouTube: "We've Got To Stop The Mosque At Ground Zero"


For further reading:

FactCheck.org: Questions About the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

NYC Mayor's Speech Supporting Park51

Top Religious Leaders Denounce Growing Anti-Muslim Sentiment; Express Support for NY Mosque, Community Center

The New Yorker: Park51, the proposed mosque near Ground Zero

Cracked: 3 Reasons the "Ground Zero Mosque" Debate Makes No Sense

AP: Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque

The Economist: Build that mosque

The Economist: Sense and sensitivity

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque

Slate: Islam is Ground Zero

NYMag: The imbroglio over the ground-zero mosque

NYTimes: News Corp. Gives Republicans $1 Million