6
student 1
Student essay 1
Kellie Fischer
English 101
Date goes here
Driving a Wedge: Handing Success to Your Opponent
Michael Moore’s style of writing does more to undermine his own argument than it does to
promote building the Muslim community center near Ground Zero. When crafting an
argument, it is important to remember to stay on point and avoid logical fallacies. Irrelevant
information often loses the reader's attention and may make them believe the person
presenting the argument does not understand the subject. Logical fallacies are easily argued
against by those who are paying attention and cause a loss of credibility that is often impossible
to recover. In his article “If That “Mosque” ISN’T Built This Is No Longer America”, Michael
Moore confronts the issue of the controversy surrounding the plans to build a Muslim
Community Center two blocks from Ground Zero. Though he paints a good picture of the
attitude that should be displayed by more Americans, he clutters up the issue with irrelevant
arguments and logical fallacies.
In his article, Michael Moore argues why he believes the community center planned two
blocks from Ground Zero should be built. He starts with an attention getting statement that he
actually wants the mosque built on Ground Zero. He continues on to say that it is what would
be done in the kind of America he believes in. “Because I believe in an America that protects
those who are victims of hate and prejudice…and if a bunch of murders steal your religion from
you and use it as their excuse to kill 3000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back.”
The main section of the article itemizes ten things Moore considers facts that he
believes may have been obscured by the ongoing controversy. The first item mentioned is that
the plans are to build the community center at the location of a former Burlington Coat Factory
where Muslims have already been saying daily prayers since 2009 without protest from the
community. Secondly, he says the Jewish Community Center of Manhattan has been helping
them plan the community center. He also details discrimination that Jews experienced in New
York during the very early years of America as well as quoting what George Washington had to
say to Jewish Americans during his first year in office. Next, Moore assures readers that the Imam in charge is a really nice guy. Then, Moore points out the number of Muslims killed by the terrorists on 9/11 and states that their families are still grieving. Moore quotes a New York Times
headline to discuss Muslim Americans feeling as if they may not ever belong here. As his sixth
point, Moore claims that McDonald’s has killed more people than the terrorists and there is
one two blocks from Ground Zero, insinuating that a McDonald's is more objectionable than the community center. He follows that with several examples of people using false claims to stir up fear and hate in the public towards politicians to which those people are opposed. Moore then uses Timothy McVeigh as an example of a violent, destructive member of Catholicism and asks whether Oklahoma City should prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of his attack. He goes on to say that, all religions have their fringe members, listing a number of highly public figures that may not accurately represent all of their religious brethren.
Moore wraps up the article with the conclusion he has reached and issues a call to
action to his readers. He believes that we all have a responsibility to make sure the
Muslim Community Center gets built. Moore claims that 70% of Americans want the “mosque”
moved and that enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. Moore then
solicits all his readers to donate to the building of the community center as a huge statement
love to Muslim Americans.
Moore seems to be writing as if he is arguing the issue to opponents but expects people
who already share his viewpoint to be the ones reading it. He characterizes those of who wish
to build the community center as victims of hate and prejudice. This is something opponents
would be unlikely to agree with and yet he fails support that statement with sufficient
evidence. Moore attempts to lighten the mood by saying, “But we don’t judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they’re Methodists.” His humor also surfaces as he issues a very detailed and melodramatic threat against anyone attempting to use his death as justification to attack or discriminate against anyone. Moore frames his article as an argument to persuade opponents in order to sway people with similar opinions of the matter to action.
Moore’s opening declaration sets the tone for the whole article. “I am opposed to the
building of a “mosque” two blocks from Ground Zero. I want it built on Ground Zero.” Given the current climate surrounding this controversy, this opening statement is provocative enough to gain the attention of opponents and supporters alike. Moore implies that the truth is being deliberately obscured by bigotry and liars. In addition to mentioning liars, Moore also uses several conservatives, who are likely opposed to the plans, as examples of religious whackos. He refers to the lack of development at Ground Zero as “lame and disgusting”. The tone of the article is designed to stir up negative emotional responses against opponents of the building plans.
Much of what Moore has to say is irrelevant. He tells of his great love for Burlington
Coat Factory as if to compare it to the emotional responses to 9/11. However, his feelings are
extraneous as the closing of a store does not compare to the great human tragedy that occurred
at Ground Zero. Moore's disgust towards the current plan for development at Ground Zero and the delay in implementing them, though shared by many Americans, is immaterial in the debate surrounding the community center. Unfortunately, the Imam’s disposition, the assistance of the Jewish Community Center, and their history ofoppression are not pertinent to the discussion. When good people do the wrong thing, it is still the wrong thing and former bad acts against a group do not justify their poor choices. The number of Muslims killed in the 9/11 attacks and their families grieving could have been relevant if he had used it as an argument that Muslims have as much right as any other group to have a place to gather, pray, and remember those lost to them. Unfortunately, he used it to claim that the terrorists did not care what religion any of their victims followed. Not only is that inapplicable, it leads the reader away from his main goal as our society generally does not want to have things in common with the terrorists. How many deaths are associated with McDonald’s and one restaurant’s proximity to Ground Zero is irrelevant and presents logical fallacies that I will discuss later. The examples of fear mongering against politicians doe not pertain to this argument. No one is falsely accusing either the planners or the terrorists of being Muslim; both groups have openly claimed Islam as their religion. Pointing out that all religious groups have their extremists and zealots would have been a great parallel if he had used examples of violent “whackos” or groups in order to link it with the 9/11 terrorists. Attacking religion in general by quoting John Lennon and Deepak Chopra is both irrelevant and counterproductive. The community center is being planned by a religious group and it is likely that many of Moore’s readers, whether they agree with his political stances or not, are associated with one religion or another. A substantial portion of the material in this article is meant to inflame or entertain but ultimately it diminishes the credibility of his argument.
Moore uses numerous logical fallacies in his article further discrediting himself. The title
of the article is itself an either/or fallacy. The article is rife with biased language. Moore
characterizes those who do not agree with his points as “liars” He calls the lack of development
at Ground Zero “lame and disgusting”. He calls Ground Zero a “sacred” graveyard. He also uses
the term “religious whackos” rather than extremist, radicals, or zealots. He calls opponents of
the community center “bullies and thugs”. When he calls people who are likely opposed to the
community center “religious whackos” as well as “bullies and thugs”, this is also an ad hominem
attack. Comparing the current controversy to deliberately misleading people about American
presidents is a hasty generalization. He provides no proof that people are being deliberately
misled. Moore’s use of the Imam kind disposition or the prior oppression of the people helping
plan it to prove that the community center is a good thing is non sequitur. It also does not
follow the evidence given that it is the reader’s responsibility to make sure that the community
center is built. The use of logical fallacies is extremely prolific, easily argued against, and will
make readers question whether his ideas have any validity at all.
The article has a very good start, detailing the kind of America where we stand up for all
our fellow Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed. Unfortunately, the irrelevant
information in the article has the potential to discourage both readers of the target audience as
well as readers with opposing views from taking the opinions of the author seriously. By
flooding the article with this irrelevant information and logical fallacies, the author has made it
all too easy for anyone reading it to discredit his argument. His method will offend those who
disagree and drive a wedge between himself and readers of a similar mindset. In short, he is
accomplishing the victory for the other side without them having to fire a single shot.