Anemic Analogy

Analogy is one of the most common and most powerful forms of argument. When we compare one thing with another, if the elements we're comparing match, it not only clarifies the claim, it convinces the audience, because the unknown, or element in question, fits into the known, the category already known.

It's also very easy to fudge an analogy, because sometimes two things seem to belong to the same category, but don't really. Or there's another factor that makes the comparison not quite so valid. A False Analogy is a specific type of rhetorical fallacy, but often analogies fail not because the author is trying to make a false comparison, but because there's an inherent flaw in the analogy the author doesn't see.

The argument against the "Two Blocks from Ground Zero Mosque" serves as a perfect example. Charles Krauthammer, in his "Move On: No mosque at Ground Zero" article, argues that the Islamic Culture Center (akin to a YMCA or JCC) should not be built two blocks from Ground Zero. He offers three reasons: Analogy to Disrespect (or Sacrilege), Motive (of the builder or the sanctioner), and Propriety - which is also based on analogy.

This last is the weakest: "America is a free country where you can build whatever you want - but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school..." In what way, we may ask, is a cultural center - or a mosque - similar to a liquor store?

The argument against Motive argues that Mayor Bloomberg's reason for supporting the building project is weak. Maybe, but that doesn't address the issue of the propriety of constructing a building that will contain a swimming pool and a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. All it says is that Bloomberg may be supporting it for the wrong reason, not that the project is bad. The follow-up ad hominem against the actual builder, that his building might be the venue for some anti-American rant, is pure speculation.

That leaves the Analogy. Krauthammer claims that as a Billboard is the Gettysburg and a convent is to Auschwitz, so a mosque is to Ground Zero. In other words, commercializing the paradigm of the Civil War or - well, is it necessary to say a convent at Auschwitz is offensive?

But Krauthammer's analogy fails in two ways. First, it equates all Moslems with the murderers of 9/11. But Moslems also died in the Twin Towers. So if Moslem Americans have no place at Ground Zero, are we to say that Confederate soldiers have no place at Gettysburg?

The analogy fails even more so, on the very basis Krauthammers rests it: location. Neither advertising nor convents are inherently bad; neither, Krauthammer, concedes, is a mosque or Islamic culture center. The problem - the sacrilege - arises when these (or something else) are place inappropriately, demeaning or trivializing "hallowed ground."

But how far away is far enough? A billboard advertising fast foods can be a mile away from Gettysburg, and still be inappropriately placed, because it's visible. A convent can be a hundred yards from Auschwitz, and not be inappropriate, because it is hidden and inaccessible from the camp.

Since the Islamic Cultural Center will not be visible from Ground Zero, and will not present an "alternative attraction," given the geography of Manhattan, the former Burlington coat factory (proposed site) is not itself "hallowed ground," and will not infringe on whatever will be built at Ground Zero.

One last argument might be made: Knowing such a facility is nearby offends the sensibilities. Does this mean, by analogy, that knowing a fast food joint is on the road to Gettysburg also offends the sensibilities? Alternatively, knowing that an Islamic Cultural Center (or mosque) was going to be built near Ground Zero, does not its subsequent existence anywhere offend the sensibilities?

Only if one argues by the fallacies of prejudice and stereotype.