Philosophy

Olbermann is against the proposed Muslim Community Center, and he argues that the community center should not be built near the Ground Zero. He concludes that a country of freedom has been transformed into the ground for terrorists. The second reason is that a mosque is a place of worship and a holy place. However,  the community center will involve all sorts of activities including; swimming pool, bookstore, food court, restaurant, culinary schools, theater, and of course the mosque (NewsPoliticsInfo, 2010).The third reason is that since the community center will be a training center for terrorists, people will fear Muslims, and Muslim will fear the Americans.

Condell is against the Ground Zero Mosque, and he concludes that allowing a religion that murdered 3, 000 innocent people to build a mosque is an inoffensive act. In other words, it is unwise, divisive, disrespectful, arrogant, and insensitive (Condell, 2010). Building the mosque in this location will remind the family members who lost their loved ones the terrible events of 9/ 11. The second argument is that the construction requires $ 100 million, and this means a lot of money will be spent. The third reason is that the mosque should be built in another place to avoid conflict. Note that ‘the Ground Zero' place is very sensitive, and thus, the United Nations should look for a better place.

 According to the criteria for rational acceptability, Condell has a strong argument. What makes his argument stronger is strong inferences (Seay & Nuccetelli, 2012).For example, he gives a basis of evidence that Islamization of Europe will also happen in America if the Islamic center is built.  In other words, he uses a reason to support his conclusion. Second, Condell's argument has acceptability. This means that a rational adult can use his or her own personal experience to accept the premise. For example, from personal experience or observation, one can agree that the doctrine of jihad influenced the insane act. In addition, one can agree that Islamic religion is a threat to the world peace and for this reason, Islam should be not allowed to build mosque since the reason behind the construction of a permanent mosque is to conquer America. Third, Condell provides sufficient reasons to show that the argument is good enough (Seay & Nuccetelli, 2012). Condell also ensures relevance by providing relevant premises. For example, he says that America is big and Islam can construct their offense mosque in other places like the Death Valley.

Olbermann could have improved his argument by giving sufficient reasons. Note that he is throwing in arguments without supporting his claims. For example, he talks about religious freedom and defends Islam by saying that Muslims are victims of violence. However, he does not show conclusive evidence to show how Muslims are innocent and the motive behind building a mosque. He lacks supporting reasons and supportive, relevant materials (Seay & Nuccetelli, 2012).  During the arbitration, I would encourage both parties to agree to disagree with the arguments given and maintain relationships rather than relying on the disagreements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Seay, G., & Nuccetelli, S. (2012). How to think logically. Vancouver, B.C: Langara College.

 

NewsPoliticsInfo. (2010). Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the NYC Islamic Center. Retrieved from:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2kEXPzAn6o

 

Condell Pat. (2010). No Mosque At Ground Zero. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4