Marduk wrote:Let's assume there was a Mormon extremist who bombed an abortion clinic, then a new LDS chapel went up a few blocks away. Would he be restricted from worshipping there? Absolutely not. Hence we have to not discriminate against a particular sect just because they would be free to (and likely to) worship there.
The nice thing about an analogy is that it can illustrate in a powerful way what we are thinking. Sometimes all that is necessary is for another person to clearly understand what we are thinking, and then they will say, “Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, I agree with you.” In the hypothetical situation you gave I absolutely agree with you. It would not be fair to restrict a new LDS chapel from being erected a few blocks away. We all know that a Mormon extremist who bombed an abortion clinic would be acting on his own, without any support or encouragement from his fellow Mormons. Almost no one would be offended by the presence of an LDS chapel nearby. They would not associate that building with the act of a lone, deranged, Mormon extremist. The building would not cause uncomfortable and unpleasant memories to come forth. Actually, I think it is likely that few people would really remember that an abortion clinic had once existed at the site, and few would remember that it was a Mormon who did it. I can’t say that everyone would forget, but those would be a few that we could easily dismiss as cranks or Mormon haters.
So, your analogy is useful in getting across what is in your mind. And if I thought the analogy accurately corresponded to the Ground Zero Mosque I would be persuaded to agree with you. I believe this analogy has been considered by the majority of those who object to the Ground Zero Mosque, which is according to the polls the majority of Americans, and rejected. Why do you suppose that is?
The problem with analogies is that they compare two things that are different, but similar, and we may be guilty of missing the most important elements that exist in the differences. If this is the case, then the analogy does nothing to persuade the opposition that you are correct. It only convinces them that you fail to understand what is in
their minds. Sometimes this arouses suspicions in their minds that you deliberately structured your analogy to obscure the really important points they are trying to make. Now, let me hasten to add that I do not believe this is the case for you or any of those who have posted in this thread. I just state it as a friendly reminder that all of us need to be careful when we make analogies that we do not trivialize or misrepresent the opinions held by others. Even if inadvertently done it can cause hurt feelings, or frustration at the least. I’m reminding myself of this as well.
So, what missing elements do I see that may be important in comparing the Park51 project with a Mormon extremist bombing an abortion clinic? Before I state them let me just say that I don’t necessarily agree that those who consider these elements important are right, just that to be fair we need to consider them.
1. Some of the debris from the hijacked planes that struck the WTC fell on the Burlingham Coat building. So, in a very real sense, in the minds of many, the Park51 project is actually located on Ground Zero, and not a few blocks away. It depends on who is defining what Ground Zero is.
2. The 9/11 attack was the work of an organization, and not just a lone extremist. That organization still exists and is still a threat to the United States. There is not a comparable group within Mormonism.
3. The percentage of Mormons in the world who would feel that the Mormon extremist did the right thing would be extremely small. A 2008 Pew poll found confidence in bin Laden to do the right thing to be 58% in Nigeria, 37% in Indonesia, 34% in Pakistan, and 19% in Jordan, which is down from confidence levels of 2003.
http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/262.pdf In 2003 the support for bin Laden was 71% in the Palestinian Authority (
http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/185.pdf). In a 2010 Pew poll it was found that 18% of Pakistanis have a favorable opinion of al Qaeda, with 28% saying they don’t know (
http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/Pew-Glob ... Report.pdf ). So while a slim majority in Pakistan has an unfavorable view of al Qaeda (53%) the number of al Qaeda supporters is huge. Taking the 2008 for just Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria we get that over 195,000,000 Muslims have at least some confidence in Osama bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”
4. There are clerics and Muslim scholars and thinkers who believe that the al Qaeda tactic of killing innocent civilians in the name of their religion is the right thing to do, and they teach this in some schools and mosques. You couldn’t find such ecclesiastical support in the Mormon Church (or at Church schools) for an abortion clinic bomber.
5. Most Americans feel that a Mosque so near the former WTC would be an affront, because they do see a connection. It is doubtful that most Americans would feel the same way about an LDS chapel built near a bombed abortion clinic, despite the fact (according to some polls) Americans have a more favorable opinion of Muslims than they do of Mormons.
6. The impact of 9/11 on America’s psyche was huge. Millions of Americans remember exactly what they were doing that day. Emotions ran deep, and for many still run deep. The 9/11 event united the country and made possible official justification for invading one or two nations, at the cost of billions of dollars and many lives. The impact of an abortion clinic bombing would be minor, in comparison. Perhaps we just need to give it a few more years for wounds to heal.
Now, if you translated all of that into your Mormon extremist bomber analogy, there might be a few people who would say,
that does make a difference , and could not now support the building of an LDS chapel at that location.
Another problem with analogies is that they can be taken too far, and not just be faulted for leaving out the important elements. For example, the Imam involved now says it was a mistake. (
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/201 ... _near.html )
If he had it to do over again, the Imam behind the "Ground Zero mosque" would have ditched the plan.
"I would never have done it," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, when asked if he would have proposed it knowing the controversy it would spark.
"I'm a man of peace," he said. "The whole objective of peace work is not to do something that would provoke controversy."
However, things have gone so far and Park51, his proposed Islamic community center, has gained so much attention, moving it to another location or canceling the project isn't quite so simple, he argues.
Continuing the analogy, if the person behind building the LDS chapel, which would ultimately be the prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, were to say that proposing the building of the chapel was a mistake, then if you say that building the chapel was a good idea then you are going against the prophet.
Of course I am not accusing you, Marduk, of going against the prophet. But for many people who oppose the Park51 project their objection is that it was not a good idea, much like Imam Rauf now says in hindsight. Words like “condemn,” and “discriminate,” and “freedom of worship” are much too strong.
but I think you are intending to say that all of us, including me, should examine what we write to see if we are looking for things that we know others did not intend to say. Fair enough.