http://lsatblog.bl...que-arguments.html Some Flaws in Arguments Against Park51 Appeal to Emotion The Anti-Defamation League betrayed its principles when its Chairman stated, with regard to (some) 9/11 victims, "[t]heir anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”
I suppose what he really means that their anguish "entitles" them to irrational and bigoted positions. That's perfectly understandable.
However, I hope it doesn't take you future lawyers too long to determine the problems inherent in deciding public policy based upon the wishes of the more emotional and irrational members of society.
The fact that some find the exercise of a particular religion to be offensive is not sufficient reason to ban it or to ask it to go somewhere less bothersome.
One downside of freedom of speech and religion is that sometimes you'll be offended by a particular form of speech or religion. Similarly, sometimes others will be offended by your speech and religion. That's part of living in a free society. I'm sorry.
Attempting to avoid offense is certainly something you can pursue on your own, but don't ask others to step in to prevent speech or religion simply because you're upset.
(
Here's a perfect example of appeal to emotion. Maybe it's insensitive to equate those building their version of the 92nd St. Y with extremists just because they happen to fall within the same general religion.)
In LSAT language:
"It appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised"
Example of the same flaw in an actual LSAT question:
PrepTest 26 (September 1998 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p258)
Appeal to Popular Opinion A Time Magazine poll states 61% of Americans oppose the mosque, and "more than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims" of 9/11. (This poll's similar.)
A Fox News poll shows, while 61% of registered voters believe Muslims have the right to build the mosque, 64% believe it would be wrong to do so.
"Because the majority of those surveyed believes that building Park51 would be wrong, building it would be wrong."
However, just as emotion is not the soundest guide to public policy, neither is public opinion.
Just because a majority holds a particular opinion, this doesn't necessarily mean their wishes should be followed or their viewpoint is correct.
Our Founders specifically established the First Amendment in order to protect civil liberties - to prevent the government (the expression of the will of the majority) from infringing upon the rights of an unpopular minority.
An example of LSAT language describing this flaw:
"taking evidence that a claim is believed to be true to constitute evidence that the claim is in fact true"
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 28 (June 1999 LSAT), S1, Q9 (p324)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S4, Q13 (p141)
False Analogy Newt Gingrich argued by way of analogy, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington."
Whether or not that's true, 9/11 is not on the same scale as the Holocaust, those who want to build Park51 are not part of Al Qaeda, and Park51 is not being built by radical Islamists as a symbol of "Muslim Triumphalism," as Gingrich claims at 3:10 in that clip (more on that below).
Additionally, Park51 is not at Ground Zero:
LSAT Logic Ground Zero Mosque Location
In other words, Gingrich's example treats the two different situations as if they are similar.
In LSAT language:
"treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect."
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 29 (October 1999 LSAT), S4, Q25 (p43)
PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), S3, Q5 (p97)
PrepTest 33 (December 2000 LSAT), S3, Q15 (p172)
Straw Man (Misrepresenting the Argument) In the
same Gingrich interview, Gingrich is also commits a Straw Man argument. In a Straw Man argument, one misrepresents the opponent's position in order to more easily argue against it.
The false claims about the Park51 folks (described in below sections) function as part of a Straw Man argument. By portraying Sharif El-Gamal and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf as radical Islamists, and it becomes easier to argue against their establishment of a community center.
In fact, El-Gamal is a real estate developer (a businessman), and Rauf has been an imam in NYC for nearly 30 years (not exactly off the plane from a terrorist training camp).
In LSAT language:
"makes exaggerations in formulating the claim against which it argues."
Ad Hominem Attack (Personal Attack) In this flaw, one attacks the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.
Example #1:
Simply because the imam behind Park51
has ties to an organization supporting the Gaza flotilla raid (segment starts ~3:53), this doesn't make him an extremist. It means he supports an organization that supports activism. People of various faiths support this type of activism without supporting terrorism. It has nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for the imam to build Park51.
Example #2:
Taking $305,000 from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed doesn't make the imam an extremist.
After all, the News Corporation's second-largest shareholder (with a $2.3 billion stake) is that very Saudi prince. In other words, taking money from Prince Al-Waleed does not require one to promote radical Islam.
In LSAT language:
"rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself"
"attack employers' motives instead of addressing their arguments"
"criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself"
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S2, Q14 (p24)
PrepTest 26 (June 1998 LSAT), S4, Q4 (p241) (esp. relevant to Park51)
PrepTest 32 (October 2000 LSAT), S2, Q6 (p139)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q1 (p194)
Failure to Acknowledge Opposing Evidence The imam behind Park51 has been imam of a mosque in Lower Manhattan for almost 30 years. He's not new to the U.S. or NYC. He's written 3 books about Islam's role in the West, as well as quite a few articles on various Islam-related subjects.
Furthermore, opponents of Park51 also fail to mention that Rauf was selected by the Bush administration as a paragon of moderate American Islam, and he called himself both a Jew and a Christian when giving a eulogy at an Upper West Side synagogue for Daniel Pearl.
Finally, Glenn Beck and the imam
had a perfectly nice conversation on Good Morning America a few years ago. If Beck thought he was extreme back then, you'd think he would have mentioned it.
Those who oppose Park51 and portray Imam Rauf as an extremist neglect to mention these facts on their shows.
As a separate issue,
Muslims who work in the Pentagon have been praying there ever since the building was repaired, and
no one's ever seemed to mind.
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 30 (December 1999 LSAT), S2, Q2 (p54)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S2, Q24 (p201)
Part-to-Whole Flaw This video is guilty of this flaw.
(I picked it simply because it's the most-viewed video on YouTube for the search "ground zero mosque.")
In summary, "Islam contains some extremists, therefore all Muslims are extremists."
Is it right to equate the actions and opinions of a radical minority (Al Qaeda) with the actions and opinions of moderate Muslims? If certain people aren't able to distinguish between terrorists and the majority of moderate Muslims, why should moderate Muslims further confuse things by humoring and accommodating those mistaken beliefs?
Why should they be maligned in the press, and why should their perfectly-clear motives be challenged due to the actions of people from a radical sect within their religion?
In LSAT language:
"improperly draws an inference about the scientific community from a premise about individual scientists"
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 19 (June 1996 LSAT), S4, Q3 (p36)
PrepTest 35 (October 2001 LSAT), S4, S18 (p245)
Confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary condition: The same video is also guilty of this flaw.
In summary, "extremists want to build more mosques, so if the people in question weren't extremists, they wouldn't want to build more mosques."
Evidence: Extremist -> Want to build mosques
(Flawed) Conclusion: Not extremist -> Not want to build mosques
This is the inverse of the original statement. Statements are logically equivalent to their
contrapositives, not their inverses or converses.
Examples of the same flaw in actual LSAT questions:
PrepTest 31 (October 2000 LSAT), S1, Q10 (p121)
PrepTest 34 (June 2001 LSAT), S3, Q23 (p208)
PrepTest 37 (June 2002 LSAT), S2, Q3 (p296)
Failure to Obey Principle of Local Self-Government (Failure to obey a general principle is not necessarily a flaw, but accusing someone of inconsistency in their positions makes for a compelling argument. It suggests some opponents are not always driven by the principles they claim.)
There's irony in that those who've never lived in NYC claim the right to determine what happens here. Of course, 9/11 is a national tragedy, but one could broaden it to include a general attack on the West. In that case, perhaps Europe and Canada would have a say as well...
Even in NYC, no one was talking about the planning of Park51 until a New York Post columnist publicized the story and Fox News picked it up. Prior to that time, both Jewish and Christian community leaders in NYC had met with proponents of the project and endorsed it. For quite some time, Muslims have been praying in the dilapidated building where Park51 will be with no problems at all.
What happened to the very conservative principle of local self-government?
Applying this principle to the Park51 situation, if you live outside NYC, and you're not related to any 9/11 victims, what happens in NYC isn't your business.
If one wants to support the general principle that local communities should decide things (rather than the 1st Amendment), take a look at the below-linked polls.
(Now, I know that, on the LSAT, polls and surveys are often flawed, but I have no particular reason to believe there's anything wrong with these two, so I'll throw them out there.)
While NYC as a whole opposes Park51, let's look at Manhattan in particular (since a population of 1.6 million is more of a "community" than a population of 8.4 million).
Both
Survey 1 and
Survey 2 show that Manhattan residents are in favor of it.
Failure to Obey Principle of Protecting Religious Freedom Many of those who oppose Park51 usually advocate the practice and expression of religion in public space. (See O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" coverage.)
In fact,
Republicans passed a Congressional bill back in 2000 to protect the establishment of houses of worship. It focused on local authorities who attempt to block them under the guise of zoning regulations. Of course, this inadvertently protects the establishment of Park51.
Notably absent from Park51 opposition are religious leaders of other faiths (at the very least, fewer than I might have expected). However,
I've seen many express support.
I suspect this is because these religious leaders don't want to set a precedent for banning or discouraging houses of worship from a particular faith. They know that a wingnut from their own religion may commit a terrible act in the future. These leaders are concerned with the protection and promotion of their religions in the long-term. On the other hand, Fox News is more focused on the short-term (their ratings and the upcoming election).
Read on for Part 2, where I analyze the claims advanced by Park51 opponents and offer counterarguments. 
