student 4
1
Student essay 4
Kellie Fischer
English 101 EA
Date goes here
Michael Moore’s Call to Reason
“I am opposed to the building of the “mosque” two blocks from Ground Zero. I want it
built on Ground Zero.” With that statement Michael Moore opens an essay entitled “If That
Mosque ISN’T built, This Is No Longer America”. He wastes no time declaring his position on
the swirling storm of controversy and begins to defend his ideas right away. While Moore calls
up solid points for his article, some are misused, off-base, and a little misguided.
In his essay Michael Moore spends the majority of his time reminding his readers what
they already knew. In his first point Moore says that the building will not actually be a mosque.
It will be a community center with a prayer room in it; not a mosque. He then recalls a more
sobering point. People died at Ground Zero and over 1,100 of them were never found. Moore
declares that it is disgraceful how long it has taken to build any sort of memorial. In his eyes it
would be better to build a 111-story mosque. Essentially he is saying that people should be more
outraged at the lack of a tribute than the thought of building an Islamic community center.
In the next section of the essay Moore points out how the Jewish Community Center of
Manhattan has been one of the biggest supporters of the Muslim Community center. This is
significant considering the somewhat traditional enmity between the two faiths. Moore then
leads into his most resounding theme throughout the entire essay. He quotes a statement by
George Washington to the Jewish population of early America. Washington decries religious
bigotry and assures the Jewish minority that they should have safety in their country where they
student 4
2
are considered equals. Moore references this idea again in the concluding paragraphs of his
article.
The rest of Michael Moore’s points are shorter and less complex. They serve as appeals
to the reason of the reader. Moore reminds his readers of an oft-overlooked point: almost five
dozen Muslims perished in the attack. He says the terrorists showed no discretion in their choice
of victims. Another paragraph follows that same vein. Moore mentions the absurdity of blaming
an entire group for the actions of few. He also notes in biased language that every religion has its
fringe groups and outspoken minorities. He goes as far as to give names and examples. Moore
also says that during times of unrest and displeasure, opponents can use their outrage to shove
blame to another group. He finishes his article with a call to action against opponents of the
mosque and calls for donations to the imam in charge. Moore closes by dedicating the essay to a
co-worker who perished on 9/11.
While Moore writes passionately, the article in question is obviously biased to an extent.
Everyone is welcome to their personal opinions, but when appealing for donations it is best to
keep the article as un-slanted and professional as possible. He says that the Imam in charge is a
very nice man. That is hardly relevant to the issue at hand. Moore also uses somewhat juvenile
language throughout his essay. The use of the terms whacko, nutty, bullies, and thugs in
reference to his conservative opponents; rings as childish. Also, if Moore is trying to convince
those with different beliefs; the above-mentioned words likely would not endear him to those he
is trying to persuade.
Michael Moore also stretches the bounds of professionalism in the tenth major point of
his article. Most of that portion describes the reactions of famous persons to religion and a letter
from John Adams to future Americans seeking sensibility. However, he opens that paragraph
student 4
3
with “If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group
uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone on my name, I will
come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into
your bedroom to spawn Chucky.” This really does not represent a dignified call to action or
donation.
Moore sincerely presents his case at the end of this article. However, the whole thing is
more or less a moot point. Moore is trying to sway his readers to support the building of the
Muslim community center. That being said, it is doubtful that the people he is trying to convince
will read the article. Most people read blogs that present ideas they agree with. It is a bit chancy
that Sean Hannity would be reading Michael Moore’s blog over his morning cup of coffee. The
reverse is true as well. Whether Moore has considered that idea or not, his goal was to garner
donations for the community center. If his readers do so, then mission accomplished, but
otherwise the call to end bigotry will likely go unheeded by the masses.
Moore’s fifth point was thought provoking despite its unsophisticated approach. He says
that there is a McDonalds two blocks away from Ground Zero as well. That raises a quandary.
What proximity determines sensitivity? If it is insensitive to build community center two blocks
from Ground Zero wouldn’t a McDonalds be tactless too? Anyone can be offended by anything,
so who do we ask to determine how close a place of worship can be to a site of mass tragedy?
Proximity is relative. It offends the masses to build near Ground Zero, but it also offends
proponents of religious freedom.
Of all Michael Moore’s arguments none stood out as much as his use of George
Washington’s call to tolerance. It is a little ironic that the best part of the whole article was the
portion not written by him. Then again, eloquent language is certainly not common. Either way,
student 4
4
George Washington would be greatly displeased to see the way his constitution is being put to
use. The right to religious freedom is in the Constitution. That being said it is frankly sickening
to see angry people waving American flags and shaking signs decrying the building of a
community center. Some of these people have also expressed the opinion that they are protecting
the spirit of America. That is hardly true. Though they are exercising the rights of free speech
and freedom of the press, they deny another right listed in the same amendment. This is
hypocrisy in its most noble form. Moore hit the nail head on when he used this issue. It is bad
enough that we are trying to deny the rights of our fellow citizens, but it gets much worse when
we say that it is within our rights to do so.
When all the talking points have been exhausted and the time has come to make an actual
decision, what will America choose? Should we allow the community center to be built near the
site? Should we not? Should we build an Islamic community center on Ground Zero? No matter
what there will still be anger. Be the anger from opponents of Islam, families of the tragedy, or
Muslims tired of discrimination, there will be anger. Bill Watterson once said “a compromise
leaves everybody unhappy,” and that is sadly true.
One path seems best though. Let the community center be built and build nothing on
Ground Zero. No victim of the attacks would want their legacy to be shouting and bigotry. After
all, were they not an example, martyrs even, for an end to religious extremism? Any monument
with connotations of hate and oppression would be nothing more than a complete disgrace to the
memory of those lost. A garden with a simple plaque denoting what happened would be best. No
words or architecture can begin to convey the sorrow and horror of September 11th, 2001. Why
should we try to make this memory a political gain or loss? Was the pain not enough?
student 4
Whatever the verdict, we need to remember our country’s beginnings as a haven for
religious freedom. We were founded on freedom, not oppression and hate.
5