But first, let me begin with a lesson in logic. Logic is the process by which we take certain factual statements and extrapolate other facts from those. For example, we might say the following:A) It is raining.
B) Therefore, the street is wet.
These two statements are logically sound and factually true, but there is another premise that lies between them that is what makes this true. In reality, here is the logical process we are taking:
A) It is raining.
A 1/2) When it rains, the street gets wet.
B) Therefore, the street is wet.
Without this other statement, the logical conclusion is not complete. Many times, we can ignore them in everyday life because unless the street is underground, everyone will concede that rain makes a street wet.
Now, back to the subject at hand: the Cordoba Project. A plot of land that has been owned for some time (before 2001) by a group of Muslims is four blocks from Ground Zero. This group, the Cordoba Group wants to build a community center which would be open to all, and yes, will contain an area to serve as a Muslim mosque. People (mostly right-wing "patriotic" Americans) are in an uproar about this saying that having a mosque so close to Ground Zero spits on the memory of those Americans who died. So, here is the logic that is used by such protesters:
A) Terrorists attacked America.
B) Therefore, the Muslim mosque near the site of the attack is an affront.
But here is the logical sentence that is left out:
A) Terrorists attacked America.
A 1/2) All Muslims are terrorists.
B) Therefore, the Muslim mosque near the site of the attack is an affront.
Unless you agree with the second clause (if you do, I don't know where to begin), you cannot argue that this mosque is tied to terrorism. People like to say that this is like allowing a Nazi monument in Auschwitz . That analogy also assumes that the builders of the mosque are terrorists or terrorist supporters (like the builders of the Nazi memorial would be Nazis or Nazi-supporters).
Now, to be fair, I think that the builders of the mosque need to take into account the feelings and sympathies of those living near Ground Zero, but let us be fair and reasonable. If they choose to proceed with the project, it is not a terrorist camp near the attack site. Rather, it is a group that perhaps unwisely is attempting to help the city towards peace and understanding.
Finally, legally there is no cause here. I believe in both freedom of religion and private property. This land is private property and hence can be used how the owners please (provided it does not violate the rights of others (not being offended is not a right). If you think that freedom of religion does not apply to terrorists, you are again making the logical fallacy I described above.
As long as so many Republicans get in an uproar about such trivial matters as these and factually and logically distort reality, I will divorce myself from them (though may still vote for many). Don't get me wrong, left-wing economics and legal theory are perhaps even more reality-distorting (unless they admit to being socialist with Marxist tendencies (not used pejoratively)) and I cannot join them, but Republicans can drive me nuts sometimes. Usually when I check my email.
2 comments:
Maybe stop checking your email then? :) I agree. There is fear mongering being done. Somebody is really trying to stir everyone up to turn the country on itself. One thing that especially concerns me is that I ignore largely the emails I get that advocate fear and anger against one group or another. My brother largely agreed with me. With respect to president obama he has changed his tune recently. He feels that obama is bent set on socializing the country and is trying to undermine the government talking out of both sides of his mouth saying to appease the people that he's not going to do things then doing them anyway. I don't know what to believe or where to get information anymore because I strongly believe that almost all of the information publicly available today is skewed to people's personal opinions. How does a person find cold hard facts anymore and make informed decisions? I don't know how people did it before and I'm even more lost now that there is so much more at my fingertips. How do you sort through the crap.
I could not stop checking my email if I tried, but I do attempt to ignore the emails that seem to be obnoxious. I don't think that somebody is trying to stir the country on itself, but that many people (on both sides) are extremely intolerant of those who disagree with them.
I also have to disagree about Obama. I can say with some surety that I disagree with almost everything Obama does, but people treat him like he is different than others. Yes, he talks out of both sides of his mouth, but so do most politicians. Remember that Bush himself (who is fairly defensive of oil industry) talked about us being "addicted to oil." Most politicians simply care more about reelection than any principles. Some people on the right will continually condemn every word out of his mouth and some on the left will defend the same. Hence, he (vainly) tries to appease both sides.
I do agree that Obama seeks to socialize the country, but I often argue that his intents, though misguided, are pure. He believes that government can and should seek to rectify unfairness and inequality. He is not trying to overthrow the country, he believes that the country should stand for more than it does.
Finally, I worry much less about finding out the hard truth and more about principle. I want someone in government who believes in individual liberty (including the right to do stupid things that I dislike) and private property (even if they do not like what I do with my own), as well as limited government. So, I can see what laws the government passes and judge it according to my own views of the proper role of government and not on what people say the law does. What people say matter much less than what people do.
Post a Comment