Redstate

I just don't get it.  Why on earth would they make that the memorial?  It is just inconcievable to me.  It would be like Mecca making a memorial to the hijackers with a picture of Flight 93 going down in the field instead of DC.

I hope I never understand this type of logic.

What I find interesting about this is the reaction of the family members.  It just goes to show how little the average American truly knows about our biggest adversary.

For me personally, I think this is horrible.  While the average American might not get it, make no mistake, your average jihadi will.  And it will further embolden their idea that we are an enemy that can be easily taken.

One would think that the architects that came up with this would have done a little more research into these things before they designed this preposterous memorial.

Why not start your rant there and work back?

Turnabout's fair play. How many of those freedom fighters were Christian? Jewish? Buddhist?

Muslim?

Estimates will be fine.

Good luck.

We don't understand our enemy.

We don't understand their motivations, passions, drive, ambitions, or even their cultural and societal basis (that would be their religion - Islam).

While we're on that subject we don't understand that, as far as they are concerned at least, we are in a holy war.

We don't seem to comprehend that this is a clash of civilizations, and of modernity vs. the Dark Ages.

And we offer this monstrosity as a means to provide healing for our nation and remembrance for some of the most conspicuous victims and warriors of this epic struggle?

OK, so I can manage one word: disgraceful.

Heaven help us.

After reading this post, I continued browsing through the site and came across the endorsement of Jim DeMint for US Senate from South Carolina.  What is so interesting about this fact is alongside the post endorsing him there is a picture of the South Carolina state flag - a flag with a large crescent in the left corner.  

Check it out for yourself: http://endorsements.redstate.org

Is it possible that this is the source of the crescent for the memorial, instead of the Tunisian flag (or some other Islamic-related symbol) as suggested by the referenced article?

Posts like this do nothing to contribute to the rational discourse on how best to memorialize those killed on 9/11.  All they do is further bigotry and intolerance toward non-Christian religions.  How sad for us all.

PS It's also interesting to note that besides the crescent, the South Carolina flag also contains a palmetto tree.  Given the similarity of these symbols to those used throughout the Middle East, I wonder how many residents of the state have petitioned their legislators to change the flag to something that is more palitable to the state's "red" designation?

the point of this post is that because the murderers were Muslim it's inappropriate to have a design for a memorial that could be seen to symbolize Islam...that sort of binary thinking might be understandable had not a number of Muslims also been murdered...meaning that there's no reason why the memorial should be anti-Muslim in anyway, so I'm not sure what the complaint is really trying to say.

I'm a little annoyed that the link advertised as showing that the red crescent was no "mere accident" did no such thing. Besides, Islam has no holy symbols, the crescent represents "brotherhood" which is both older than Islam and present in the West.

Are we making a monument to Islam in the middle of Pennsylvania?  Wasn't Ground Zero the best monument to Islam we've ever seen?

can you complain about political correctness on the part of the left.  The shape isn't even a crescent, it is a semi-circle.  Man you are overly sensitive.  Next you'll be demanding that people don't display confederate flags because some African-Americans might associate it with slavery.

the point of this post is that because the murderers were Muslim it's inappropriate to have a design for a memorial that could be seen to symbolize Islam

Sorta -- but getting into the nuances (heh) might be a bit much for your view of the world, so we'll leave this.

that sort of binary thinking might be understandable had not a number of Muslims also been murdered

That makes precisely no sense.

meaning that there's no reason why the memorial should be anti-Muslim in anyway, so I'm not sure what the complaint is really trying to say.

As always, it helps to read that which you would attack. Where does Paul say something about the memorial being anti-Muslim?

(Quick preview: He doesn't!)

Dude. No one's debating that it's a crescent. The designers aren't debating it. Read the links. Just because they're being disingenuous doesn't mean you have to be.

Oh, a semi-circle. Well, that's a relief.

>Next you'll be demanding that people don't display confederate flags because some African-Americans might associate it with slavery.

Yes, what on earth would make blacks associate the confederate flag with slavery?

I really didn't think this week was such a slow news week that you guys needed to worry about THIS.

But Mark McMorrow proves that it apparently is a slow news week.  Apparently he feels that this crescent goes beyond the pale...

"It's like figuring swastikas into a Holocaust memorial", he said

You know that during slow news weeks the most insidious things are done.  Cella is right -- this is an absolute abomination, and if it gets built, I hope everyone in Pennsylvania takes their spades and shovels and backhoes and bulldozers and wrecks it.  Not a dime for this memorial.  Never.

what makes "precisely no sense" (besides tortured constructions like that one) is why you think anyone would miss that you're insisting the memorial is not anti-Muslim at the same time you imply that's it's OK if it is via your question: "How many of those freedom fighters were Christian? Jewish? Buddhist?"

Why is this such an abomination?  

Even if Islam was part of the reason for the design why is this such a big deal?  It's a memorial.  Personally I think that the crescent REMINDS people about what happened and why it happened.

Not anti-Muslim DNE pro-Muslim.

I understand the equation, just not its relevance.

You ask whether the Germans should start making memorials to the Nazis by mowing the grass into swastikas?  After all, it would remind people of what happened and why it happened.

Why on Earth in our country when so many thousands of people died should we commemorate the site with a memorial to the ideology that did it?

I had the same problem trying to get people to see that the crescent in the handicaped signs in my community were actaully tributes to Islam. I argued, "but a wheel chair has a round shape, not a crescent! I mean look at it:

http://www.mtc.ca.gov/images/ta0199_AR/INPRINT_handicapped_sign.gif

They called me crazy. Now, with your article, I can laugh even harder. HA!

It's so sick that they can't see things the way we do. You are so very right, this is no accident, and is an obvious ploy to make the American people view the crescent shape as something common and everyday, when in actuality you can only view it in the sky a few days out of every month.

It would be insane not to think otherwise. And as for that guy who said you were being to PC - I laugh at him too! HA!

;-)

Is breathtaking, as always. And let's not even get into your ability to dodge questions -- I might pass out if I contemplate that for too long.

what makes "precisely no sense" (besides tortured constructions like that one) is why you think anyone would miss that you're insisting the memorial is not anti-Muslim at the same time you imply that's it's OK if it is via your question: "How many of those freedom fighters were Christian? Jewish? Buddhist?

Talk about tortured constructions.

(1) The memorial is not anti-Muslim.

(2) I don't think it should be.

(3) I don't think it should act as an official gloss on the fact that there weren't a large number of Sikhs helping drive Flight 93 into the ground.

(4) Paul wasn't saying that the memorial should be anti-Muslim.

(5) You'd see that if you weren't getting the vapors over this.

(6) My little jab was about your prior comment, which of course has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Ah, to be a Lefty: Every day is a new day, unconstrained by a single word spoken the day before.

(7) With that said, they were, in fact, Muslims.

(8) Every single one.

(9) And there may just be something grotesque about making the memorial of an act of war into a schmaltzy icon to unreflecting pacifism.

(10) The correct effect could be done without being anti-Muslim.

(11) It could not be done while being sycophantic about Islam, too.

(12) Did you have a point? I haven't seen it yet, if you do. Which is, admittedly, debatable.

(13) How's that legal research coming, by the way?

The original post complained that the memorial was pro-Islam, or tried to appease Islam, or something along those lines. You complained that it shouldn't be anti-Islam. I assumed you equated the two, since I couldn't see another connection between those ideas. Sorry if that was a bad assumption; you have to be careful of those too!

equate the Nazi Swastika and the Crescent to be morally equivalent?

Does the fact that Crescent is NOT the official symbol of Islam matter?  How bout the fact that MOST Muslims condemned 9/11?  

But why on earth should a memorial in this country be built that serves as a symbol to Islam?  

We have lots of other memorials to wars that aren't representational of one ideology or another.  If you're going to say that we should have a monument to the people who died in Pennsylvania that is observable from the air and the ground and is a particularly permanent fixture of Islamic flags around the world, I'd like to hear your justification.

equate the Nazi Swastika and the Crescent to be morally equivalent?

I absolutely do.  The people who attacked us on 9/11 were fascists.

the architects say that Islam had nothing to do with the design.  The committee that approved the design, which incuded 8 people who were familly members of people that passed away on flight 93, both approved the design and ALSO don't believe that it has anything to do with Islam.

As I said this is much ado about nothing.  

What about the other BILLION people that are Muslims?  

Bringing them into this?  Some of them are my friends!  I think it's inappropriate to construct a memorial in Pennsylvania that evokes that particular religious symbol.  Why is that so controversial?

Taking your latest and asf6's comments together, I see where I was unclear originally...my bad. My point is that the crescent means many things in many contexts and that to suggest the memorial should not be in that shape because it might be interpreted as "pro-Muslim" is to my mind an anti-Muslim stance. There's nothing wrong with the memorial having a pro-Muslim association to some people...it will have many other associations to many other people, like those in South Carolina, as LucidTool pointed out...unless you feel somehow Muslims are bad and unworthy of any good associations in any context...which is why I asked how many Muslims had died.

To me this reads like so much looking for the terrorist under the bed. Seriously.

As for the legal research, I'm still one ahead of you. I presented the law in question and the interpretations available. You insisted other laws would negate that interpretation, but I'm still waiting for which ones precisely.

I think it could be a source of embarrassment for the millions of Muslims in this country.  I have no idea why anyone would want to construct such a memorial.  It's like going and putting a big Cross in North Vietnam.  It's a horrible idea.

see my comment to Thomas

thanks for pointing out my ambiguity

I'm the last person you need to apologize to for sarcasm.

I just realized I was unclear.

The South Carolina flag was not designed as a memorial for a bunch of people murdered by Muslim jihadis.

we can eradicate sarcasm and save millions of teenagers' parents.

the rather obvious religious symbolism:  What the hell is it?  Why, whatever we do, let's not make this a war memorial, let's make it a "crescent of embrace," a great big "(semi)circle of hugs," as it were, the circle to be completed when we join hands with the hijackers and buy the world a Coke.  

but I can't understand the goofs that came up with this idea.  I am absolutely flabbergasted.

It would be as if a monument to the murdered escaping East Berliners were memorialized by a hammer and sickle.

I hate that commercial. If I didn't love Coke so much, I'd never drink it again.

. . .if the image had contained an unmistakable cross-shaped image, and that all involved had maintained that it was purely coincidental.  Does anyone doubt that Kos, et al., would be in full-moonbat mode foaming at the mouth about Dobson, Robertson, et al., or that the ACLU would be filing suit to stop the monument as we sat here?

Sorry--after this and hearing about the possibility of this, the left doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt any more on this sort of thing--assuming that they're trying to slip something in is a reasonable default assumption in the absence of contrary evidence.

paen to "Brotherhood" the appropriate memorial to the victims of unprovoked, premeditated slaughter?  Are our national élites so far gone that their first instinct and well-considered final decision both are to cling ever more strongly to their fatuous liberal universalism even in the face of people willing and eager to kill them or die trying?  Do they really believe that if we just hugged a little more, all would be well?  Are we really a country whose collective conception of politics was best expressed in John Lennon's execrable "Imagine?"  If so, include me out.  I think I know how the Fifth Century Romans must have felt.

It wouldn't be the first time.

(1) Well, no. I can say "don't include Islam's symbols there" without being anti-Muslim, but if that's your mind, I can do nothing about it.

(2) Your question was still a non-sequitur.

(3) I'm sure it does.

(4) As you have yet to grasp this in an ordinary manner, let me try it this way: You want all Catholics burned at the stake.

Now, you'd probably say, untrue, as it would work against many things I've already said. I say, I've asserted it. You must now disprove it, with citations.

Put at its simplest: You provided the text of a statute, deliberately lifted a phrase out of context to suggest that the statute meant what you asserted, and as your sole proof for this point, cited to an editorial that couldn't be bothered to muster a single legal argument other than a hysterical rant about Jim Crow. You provided no legal reasoning, no explanation of why it might void, say, a specific provision of the Virginia Constitution, nothing. Nada.

All I did was say, that's ridiculous, because you're asserting that this one law undermines Virginia's property laws. (Which it would, if we bought your "interpretation." But that's because the Google is my servant.)

You're requiring me to prove it.

Get real. Or produce indisputable proof that you're not in favor of mass executions for every Catholic the world over.

...is all about significant form. Only a spectacularly incompetent architect could possibly miss the symbolic resonance of a red crescent in this context. But these guys are apparently quite reputable, so I assume they are just lying when they suggest that's it's all a coincidence.

If they came clean and explained honestly what they were trying to say with this design, maybe they could make a good case for it. But since they refuse to do so, it ends up looking like they're trying to put something over on people.

Of course, there's always the small chance that they really are just that spectacularly incompetent...

fact that you believe we conservatives have worked ourselves into a lather over precisely nothing, my wife, a Ukrainian citizen of Russian descent, saw the same image and pronounced it sick.  So, again with all due respect, there is an inappropriateness here that even non-political non-Americans can perceive.

And, as I am only about three hours driving time East of this proposed abomination, I can promise that it is not an insult I am prepared to tolerate.

what are those numbers? Are you even responding to my post here? Don't most people use numbers to refer back to numbered items?

Seriously, Thomas...we're barely speaking the same language here it seems.

deliberately lifted a phrase out of context to suggest that the statute meant what you asserted

Libelous. I did no such thing. We were discussing contracts that, among other things, concern jointly owned property or shared custody. This is hardly the thread for dragging this out, but you might start with this article before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

it's what they get for torturing their own parents (says the currently childless one).

I mean, if you're gonna deconstruct this, let's start with how much of the lower arc gets cut off in the superimposition with the Tunisian flag version...is that a secret message perhaps? Maybe that's meant to symbolically cut off the sliver of Muslims who would associate with the atrocities on 9/11.

Again, this is too much like looking for the terrorist under the bed.

The official title is "Crescent of Embrace."

I mean, really. I thought liberals and Democrats and the left were supposed to be all artistically sensitive - not like us awful unwashed right-wing yahoos. So why are they all playing dumb here? "It's just a semi-circle! Such a purty shape...what's all the fuss about?"

I'd actually be interested in a defense of the design that recognizes the symbolic resonance of the red crescent and explains why it's appropriate in this context. But I don't like being treated like an idiot. And when people tell me there's nothing to see here, they treat me like an idiot.

Imagine if the sidewalks at the WWII memorial in DC, formed, from an aerial perspective, the shape of a big Swastika.

that the "red crescent" is going to be red for all of about 3-4 weeks of the year, right?

sort of makes you wonder why they chose red maples anyway, or trees for that matter.

What most people miss is not just how terrible it is to place the symbol of the killers over the grave of these 40 brave Americans - but what Al Qaeda will be able to do with the symbology.

From my post here I point out the obvious:

"I do not care whether they get it or not. I know what Al Qaeda will do with this. They will say it is a sign that fanatical Islam will win. They will say Allah placed his sign over those of the dead Americans who fought back as a symbol of victory. They will use it to rally the forces of Jihad. They will use this as a rallying point against us.

They will take a memorial that was supposed to honor our dead heroes and use it in such a manner that it will mean we probably will have many more memorials to build in the future."

If most Americans see this as repulsive, and our enemies can see it as a gift to their cause, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this is one really dumb idea.

Maya Lin wreaked irreparable damage on monument architecture when she blighted the Mall with the Vietnam War Memorial. Now every monument commemorating the dead seems to include a subterranian component. Underground. Below the sky. Sunken. Stygian.

The monument to the dead of Flight 93 should instead celebrate their courage. It should soar, inspire and honor. Instead of digging into the earth, with or without a crescent, or Crescent, an emetic choice in either case.

Seriously.

The question for me is why anyone would jump to the conclusion that crescent = obsequiousness... not whether it is enough like the crescent on the Tunisian flag but is not enough like the crescent on the South Carolina Flag to conclude the artists are turncoats or rolling over or whatever.

But you ask a fair question and it deserves an honest answer: "I'd actually be interested in a defense of the design that recognizes the symbolic resonance of the red crescent and explains why it's appropriate in this context."

Context is key. Stepping back and looking at the context at hand, had I seen the design in an art magazine, with the title, I would not have immediately made the association with Islam (honestly, my first reference from that arial shot would be Kandinsky), but as I saw it here on a political blog, and now that it's been pointed out, I too find it difficult to imagine the artist(s) was unaware that the design would reference the Islamic symbol. Perhaps they saw this as a gesture of solidarity with America's Muslims.

My gut tells me though that it's only inappropriate if one is consciously associating Islam with terrorism. Combatting such associations is in and of itself enough of a defense, IMO.

I can honestly see where some folks would take it as a slap in the face though. But I can't see where those folks take it that way without being anti-Muslim. To suggest you don't have anything against Muslims, but you don't like their symbolism being used for a memorial, is an oxymoronic argument to me.

Committees churn out crap. I see no evidence that they are making any statement about Islam, if anything at all. Here on Staten Island, we have the "envelopes" as the principal memorial for 9/11. I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. I doubt they are making a crack at our fabulous postal sevice.

As you can discover for yourself every 28 days or so, the cresent occurs in nature, naturally. To equate every instance of a cresent or an arc to Islam is insane.

The crucifix, needless to say, is a symbol of a torture device favored by Romans.

Fighting is bad.  We should instead celebrate our victimhood, our poor little fragile selves that just need a hug.

. . .if that's how you want to play it, then let those defending the design defend its inclusion on those terms.  If it was an accident that it looks that way, it is of no importance and should be removable with no controversy.  If it was intentional, then let them defend it as such--and bear the public reaction whatever it may be.  In short--put up or shut up.

Actually, not even for that long. The leaves of red maples do not reliably turn red in the fall. Depending on soil and weather conditions, they will mostly range from yellow to gold to orange.

The reason they're called "red maples" is not because of their fall color, but because in spring the buds are a very vivid darkish pink.

If the architects think the color will ever be anything like what they show in their sketch, they just don't know their trees.

I suspect they were misled by the name.

Hey, "gando" is really on to something!  Clearly, Americans have been asleep while the insidious forces of Islam have been laboring overtime to insinuate themselves into every aspect of our lives.  Needless to say, we need to create a new arm of the Department of Homeland Security to deal with this threat.  Fortunately, the obvious choice to lead this crusade, Michael Brown, is currently available for assignment.

Meanwhile, everywhere I look I am surrounded by crescents.  Some, like the South Carolina flag are undisguised, but others are harder to spot.  Just because they are too devious to show themselves for what they are doesn't mean we have to sit by and let them poison our culture.

Still, we need to prioritize.  

First, we've got to do something about the moon.  Sure, it's always changing, but that's just to hide the fact that it's really a crescent.  (How do we explain to our children that the Supreme Being put a crescent up there to haunt us?)

Second, since every circle is made up of any number of crescents, we need to make all circles illegal in the United States.  Admittedly, this will be difficult.  There will be a lot of opposition from people who think things like wheels are more important than religious and ideological purity.  But, we must not allow the weak-kneed to deter us.  Right is right.  (Talk about insidious, just look at the way the word "logical" managed to hide itself inside "ideological.")  

On a personal level, each of us must examine ourselves in minute detail.  Are there any offending half-formed crescent freckles, moles, or birthmarks?  Should we do something about the crescents hiding in our eyes?  And what about our fingernails and toenails?  Look at yourself in the mirror.  Crescents everywhere.

In the interests of brevity, I'll stop.  But I know that I haven't even scratched the surface.  Everyone must be vigilant in a never-ending search for enemy symbols.  Of course, since stars are also frequently present in the flags of Islamic nations, we will also have to ban the American flag from the Flight 93 memorial.  And, naturally, the parking lot will be closed to vehicles with...well, you get the point.  

After writing this, I looked back over it and I am mortified by all the crescents hiding in the text.

We've got our work cut out for us.

confirming my point about this being an irrational association between an Islamic symbol and something negative.

...only nicer :)

("Put up or shut up" might be a little harsh).

I agree that the immediate leap to "crescent = obsequiousness" is too facile. But it's natural for people to have questions, and I think the designers owe us better answers then they've provided so far.

It all depends on the context and the details. For example, if an Islamic community were to put up a memorial to the victims of some terrorist incident in the form of a red crescent and explain that the form was meant to express the brotherhood of all the "people of the book," Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, I think that would be a very beautiful and powerful gesture.

Moreover From a purely aesthetic point of view, I have no doubt that the proposed monument would be absolutely gorgeous - especially in the early spring, when the buds on the red maples are the first color to break in on the winter landscape.

I wonder if the architects might not have had some such thoughts in mind, but didn't think they could sell the design if they were open about what it was supposed to mean.

But that is purest speculation. Whatever they were thinking, it seems to have backfired.

Let's say 20 Christians flew planes into buildings in Indonesia. Would you be at all puzzled if the Indonesians then decided to build a memorial called White Cross?

Amazing.  As a Vietnam-era vet I have friends whose names are engraved on the Vietnam Memorial wall.  When I visited  it, I found it the most moving monument I have ever seen.  

Other friends of mine, who served in Vietnam, have also been there and responded similarly.

Not everyone reacts in the same way to any architectural project, so jannelsen is certainly entitled to his/her opinion.  But it is not univerally shared.

They weren't all that concerned with the color.

. . .you are confirming my point that you're being dishonest or simply bluffing about your willingness to contest this issue on your stated grounds.  Not terribly shocking, really.

They were concerned with the color.

This was a major project of a respected architectural firm.

It's not like color is some sort of minor afterthought for any visual artist worth his salt.

al Queda will use whatever they want for propaganda.  They use/allude to all sorts of  Western civilization symbols: i.e. targets on 9/11.  They use their beheadings for propaganda - what is beyond their bounds?

We don't control al Queda. Instead of focusing on their warped thinking about a memorial for Americans, we should address what Americans feel about the memorial.  Which form best suites this memorial?  Even the halo behind Jesus is often a truncated circle, similar to the current memorial design.

I also know this memorial when experienced from the ground, in person, having passed through the Tower of Voices will indeed feel embracing and honoring of those who sacrificed themselves to save numerous others.

Instead of continuing this porcine tangle, I'll sum it up and make your life even more confusing: "Impairment of contracts."

Good luck.

The argument against the memorial form is reactionary and truncated.  First, the memorial comprises a number of elements infused into the Pennsylvania countryside, and it is meant to be a journey to be experienced at ground level, not separated from it.  The diarist's conflation of one (literal) viewpoint is erroneous, and leaves out the remainder of the site (e.g. Tower of Voices).  

The model/image shown uses color to highlight the trees planted for the memorial.  Compare to the natural foliage around Somerset County and the red and sugar maples are more likely to blend in with the surroundings.

From the ground, the truncated circle crowns the hill above the "natural bowl shape of the land".  This configuration focuses the participant towards the Sacred Ground - the final resting site of the plane and heroes. This is a form borrowed from Greek amphitheaters (and their precedents).

In plan view, the image is a series of 40 groves radiating from the convex curve of a truncated  circle*("cut short" as in the 40 heroes' lives).  This is similar to imagery used for Jesus' halo in Christian imagery.  But, also has historic precedence in Baroque and Enlightenment architectural forms.  Geometry (circles are "a sign of weakness"!) has been used by most cultures (East, West, North, South).  Circles, crescents, squares, stars, etc. cannot be attributed solely to one culture or another.  Most of America's own memorials are combinations of seminal forms (cubes, circles, arcs/domes, obelisks, etc.).  Modern landscape architecture also recognizes the subconscious observation of the void (i.e. embrace of the arc).

Objection from one picture just makes no sense.  

*"Crescent" is an inflammatory word in this design.  If anything should change, I would allow that the word, at this time of history, should not be used.  Arc is also a correct descriptor and more PC from a Republican perspective.

that they intended to sneak in some anti-American message under the country's nose?

The degree of malice they'd have to have intended to match the objections here is staggering.

They were going to make it a circle...

   but the squares complained.

They were going to make it a square...

   but the polka people complained.

They were going to make it a five pointed star...

   but the six pointed star people complained.

So they decided to use a crecent... just to see who would try to make it either religious or political.

They chose well... funny world!

maturity 101

now you've gone and hurt my feelings...where's the ball, I'm taking it home

psych.

What do you want from me Scott? I've conceded that I can't see how they didn't realize it was an Islamic symbol.

I still don't see how anyone can conclude that there's a malicious or intentionally inappropriate motivation behind the choice though.

It, once again, is only understandable to me within the context of anti-Muslim sentiment.

LOL. This is some of the better stuff I've seen in a good while.

But you clearly overlooked a few less obvious but equally insidious crescent symbols.

Here's an even subtler and therefore more evil hidden symbol.

The letter "C". Some would consider this merely a letter in the alphabet. But they would be naive. The letter "C" could easily be interpretted as a thinly vield, inverted crescent symbol.

And if you don't believe me, think about this: ABC, NBC, and CBS. The core of the MSM. What do they all have in common? An inverted crescent symbol.

Coincidence? I think not. Should we move to ban the letter "C"? I leave that up to the group to weigh in on.

It's obvious from even the few dissenting posts here that the left has no intention of honoring the heroes of Flight 93 in any meaningful way.

No use wasting any more breath -- it won't help.  Instead, I suggest we flood the National Park Service with e-mails to have this ridiculous design disqualified.  Here's the website -- forward it to everyone in your address book:

http://www.nps.gov/flni/pphtml/contact.html

Better yet, perhaps someone at RedState could create a suitable (and non-profane) pre-written message (i.e., an on-line petition) linked to the NPS mailbox, expressing our contempt.  That would minimize the time needed for people to express their displeasure, provide a unified message, and otherwise streamline the "signing" of the petition.

As Todd Beamer knew, there comes a time when words fail and action is required -- so let's roll.

Not exactly, anyway.

But "sneak?" Possibly.

Or maybe they were deliberately courting controversy.

It's the art world, after all. Who knows.

I just sent the NPS:

I would like to tender my objection to and disapproval of the proposed Flight 93 Memorial, "Crescent of Embrace".  I do not believe that this design in any meaningful way captures the spirit of the brave men and women aboard that flight who risked, and ultimately gave their lives so that many of their fellow Americans might live.  There are many suitable ways to recognize their courage and sacrifice -- this is not one of them.  I humbly request that this design be rejected, and a more suitable memorial selected.

Do you have any training in the arts whatsoever?

Does the word "iconography" mean anything to you at all?

Do you think that the obvious symbolic significance of the red crescent, in the present context, would simply escape the notice of a whole firm of highly trained, prominent architects, engaged in a major public project?

Can you say "ignorant philistinism?"

I can.

I can say confidently that the suspicion about artists deliberately courting controversy is mostly paranoia.

Do they know what they are doing and picked the Red Maples for a reason other than the fact that they become red or did they not care about the color when it comes to the ultimate creation?  Even if they have nothing more than a cursory understanding of trees they probably knew that it would only be red, at best, for about a month out of the year.

There's a lot of paranoia going around these days.

They had to twist the original drawing about 200 degrees to get it to look like an Islamic Crescent.

Don't quite understand how a twisted picture has had over 80 comments. To much time or to few hands.

regards

...you're not a landscape artist. Landscape artists routinely choose plants based on considerations of seasonal interest. The main seasonal interest of the red maple is, precisely, the spring buds that give it its name.

Do you really think that professionals at this level are simply unaware of or indifferent to the names and characteristics of the materials they work with? Or the symbolic significance of highly fraught forms like stars, crosses, crescents, etc.? As if they were suburban housewives casually choosing a few shrubs for the back yard?

I'm sorry, but this is rather like discussing Coriolanus with someone whose literary experience is confined to reality TV shows.

Another word that a lot of people might substitute for "twisting" when you are discussing it in terms of "degrees" is "rotating." Which, in the terms of this picture, just means that it was originally shot from an angle that made the crescent appear, you know, upside down.

Too much ideological blinding, or not enough geometry classes?

Training in the arts, I do. But good question.

Relax, son, take a breath, and smile. I'm *on*erned you have no training in a sense of humor.

I'll leave the "ignorant philistinism" or "boorish *avemanism" or "unruly neandrethalism" aspersions to you.

I trust your high-mindedness, and liberal elite edu*ation will see you through.

And honestly, if you have an ounce of de*en*y, you'll stop using the letter "C".

It's the right thing to do. Please. For the good of the *ountry. Show some respe*t.

Is it really "obvious from even the few dissenting posts here that the left has no intention of honoring the heroes of Flight 93 in any meaningful way?"  Who defines meaningful?  

Perhaps, what some others (left, right, and center) find "meaningful" is not to your taste...or even to the taste of a significant slice of the American pie.  But the opinions/taste of some are not invalidated because Jackal4444 or anyone else disagrees.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some family members of Flight 93 victims wanted a different or even a different kind of design.

However, despite Jackal4444's apparent certainty that he/she knows which designs are and are not appropriate, the reports I've seen have called into question the universality of this Jackal's opinion--

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"It's powerful but understated," said Kiki Homer, whose brother, LeRoy W. Homer Jr., was co-pilot on the plane that crashed after passengers rebelled against terrorist hijackers. "It's beautifully simple.

"My breath is taken away."

Esther Heymann, whose daughter, Elizabeth Wainio, died in the crash, agreed.

"The understatement speaks to the profoundness of what occurred here," she said.

Or as reported elsewhere:

"The winning design was warmly received by more than 50 friends and relatives of the flight victims. They cheered and gave a standing ovation to the design, which was chosen from five finalists."

Why the assumption that only the "Left" could find this design beautiful or fitting?  Does the "Left" lurk behind every decision, every action, every criticism with which you disagree?

America doesn't need a "Let's Rollerdome" memorial to remember Flight 93's tragic fate or to honor the courage of its passengers.  I expect that the people who visit this memorial, should it survive the politically/religiously correct attacks, will experience it as a profound setting for remembrance, prayer, and contemplation.  While it probably won't inspire them to wage a holy war, I doubt visitors will find it offensive.  Unless of course they go there to be offended.

I thank Jackal4444 for the link to the NPS site (he saved me from having to find the site on my own).  I immediately sent an email praising the design, and I will do my best to get others--regardless of their polical affiliations--who feel as I do, to contact the NPS and ask them to stand their ground.

I live in Pennsylvania and I have a shovel!!!!

I still don't see how anyone can conclude that there's a malicious or intentionally inappropriate motivation behind the choice though.

It is difficult to speculate about motivations, but the effect of this memorial, with it manifest Islamic symbolism, is to convey appalling weakness.

In the context of Flight 93, Islam was the enemy. I am sorry if that offends you, Edward, but it is the truth. Islam brought only evil to the passengers of that plane. There were no moderate Muslims, no "religion of peace" promoters; only four men with their heads full of Mohammedan ideas about conquest and pious violence -- ideas rooted in the sacred scripture of the Mohammedan religion  and in the traditions of thought and action flowing from that scripture.

To include Islamic symbolism in this memorial is to advertise our lassitude and impotence. It is to say that openness to Islam -- which, again, was here our enemy -- is a thing more dear to us than the lives of our own, or the endurance of our nation. It is to say, in the vague but lasting manner in which public monuments "say" things, that we, the people of America, are prepared to die for political correctness.

message. But I would include some mention of of why the memorial is inappropriate -- namely because it resembles the iconography of the enemy, or at least the iconography of the religion that birthed the enemy.

Paul

and by everyone, I mean everyone throwing LSAT equations and other such arguments about how your post is not anti-Muslim. I gathered that it was, and now that you admit it, I hope they'll revisit my earlier posts and their responses and reconsider what I wrote.

Islam was the enemy.

We've hashed this out so many times, I hold very little hope of changing your mind at this point, but if you could distinguish between the outrageous hatred of Fred Phelps and "Christianity" or the outrageous hatred of the type of Jewish extremists who assasinated Rabin and "Judaism"---I can't understand why you can't distinguish between the outrageous hatred of Islamist extremists and "Islam." There are differences of degrees, certainly, but the concept's the same.

Islamism is emerging in the consciousness of those who study such things as the latest in a long line of movements that attracts disenfranchised youth. In this way it's similar to Communisism, Moaism, Anarchy, and on and on back through history, i.e., it's about gaining power. Each movement is violent, as those feeling oppressed tend to be, and each is actively fought for by a very small percentage of the populace, leaving the vast majority of citizens living in the battleground nations forced to keep their heads low or risk becoming collateral damage.

Understanding why disenfranchised people sign up for such movements is a very good use of our best academic minds...otherwise, long after we've defeated Islamist extremism, another movement will be right behind it disrupting the peace and hurting innocents.

Labeling religions as the problem, when clearly they're part of the solution, is counterproductive and irresponsible.

I see that my arguments made no impression on you. To criticize Islam is to throw you into a kind of trance. Say, "Islam was the enemy," no matter what the context, and the reply will consist of some concoction of p.c. mumbo jumbo and indignation. "Disenfranchised youth"? Check. Comparisons to obscure Jewish and Christian energumens? Check. Oppression leading to violence? Check. Scolding about "labeling" religions? Check.

But in the end you did not answer my arguments; did not address them; did not even acknowledge them.

What, I ask, did Islam mean for the Americans who died in Shanksville? It meant brutality, fanaticism and death. It was, for them, the enemy, for it animated the hijackers against them. To repeat: The Muslims who perpetrated this atrocity did so in obedience to the instructions of the faith. They did not dig up obscure, ancillary texts to justify what they did; they did not grasp some marginal line of theological speculation repudiated by the great bulk of the faithful. No. They answered the call to jihad embedded deeply in the Islam tradition -- a tradition which declares, for example, that there are no innocents among the unbelievers.

[I'm re-posting this here because the comments had grown too narrow above.]

I see that my arguments made no impression on you. To criticize Islam is to throw you into a kind of trance. Say, "Islam was the enemy," no matter what the context, and the reply will consist of some concoction of p.c. mumbo jumbo and indignation. "Disenfranchised youth"? Check. Comparisons to obscure Jewish and Christian energumens? Check. Oppression leading to violence? Check. Scolding about "labeling" religions? Check.

But in the end you did not answer my arguments; did not address them; did not even acknowledge them.

What, I ask, did Islam mean for the Americans who died in Shanksville? It meant brutality, fanaticism and death. It was, for them, the enemy, for it animated the hijackers against them. To repeat: The Muslims who perpetrated this atrocity did so in obedience to the instructions of the faith. They did not dig up obscure, ancillary texts to justify what they did; they did not grasp some marginal line of theological speculation repudiated by the great bulk of the faithful. No. They answered the call to jihad embedded deeply in the Islam tradition -- a tradition which declares, for example, that there are no innocents among the unbelievers.

Call me when Fred Phelps's people win seats in Congress, or when they start dispatching suicide bombers the world over, or when they are so numerous and so crazy that 60% of American Christians want to see Deuteronomic law imposed and 26% of them are so brazen as to tell newspaper pollsters that they support suicide bombing of their countrymen.  Until then, your comparisons between Islam and Christianity will be duly ridiculed.

I actually think the notion that Islamism is another in a long line of movements that attracts those who are prone to join such movements is a development, but, whatever...maybe just for me.

What, I ask, did Islam mean for the Americans who died in Shanksville? It meant brutality, fanaticism and death.

You really cannot judge that.

You're not making the important distinction here. More importantly, you're assuming those passengers were also not making that distinction.

How could I, for example, had I been on that plane, not understand the difference between Islam as practiced by the ones I love and know to be honest, generous, decent people, and the extreme version of those who would hide behind contortions of it to justify violence?

You're making a sweeping generalization here Paul. You cannot speak for the people on that plane.

The Muslims who perpetrated this atrocity did so in obedience to the instructions of the faith.

This is patently untrue and unworthy of you. They did so no more in obedience to the instrutions of their faith than Fred Phelps' followers would in killing a gay person. The Bible does indeed imply it's OK to kill a gay person, but we have other laws to prevent such interpretations. Just like Muslims around the world have repeatedly pointed out that their laws forbid killing innocents. The terrorists disobeyed those laws, Paul. Your take on this is disingenuous.

Re: To repeat: The Muslims who perpetrated this atrocity did so in obedience to the instructions of the faith.

Actually, they were acting in obedience to a Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. Their actions were in no way spontaneous and they were not loose cannons: they were recruited and carefully indoctrinated by men more evil and clever than themselves.

(FYI: IMO, the memorial design stinks, for the obvious reasons)

Re: Does the fact that Crescent is NOT the official symbol of Islam matter?

Just how does a religion get an "official" symbol? I don't think any religion has such a thing. The symbols we associated with a religion are not assigned to it by a committee but by popular usage. Certainly that's true of the Christian Cross, the Star of David and the Muslim Crescent. And obviously people do think of the latter as a symbol for Islam, else why do so many Muslim countries put it on their flags?

Too much ideological blinding, or not enough geometry classes?

As I said in my post below, Cella's diary focuses too much on one geometric perspective which serves only as a jumping off point for the diarist's political perspective (i.e ideological blinding, in Leon H's words).

Not only can the crescent be rotated, it can also be made more elliptical by changing your viewpoint.  Basic for anyone who is familiar with geometry, photography, or drafting (among others).

[From a comment above:]

The Bible does indeed imply it's OK to kill a gay person, but we have other laws to prevent such interpretations.

I challenge you to show where in the teachings of Jesus we have some implication like this -- not in some dark corner of the Old Testament that even sophisticated Christians have difficulty deciphering.

But be that as it may, perhaps there is some room for common ground between us here. Let us write laws specifically outlawing those interpretations of Islam we find abhorent. Let us, first, outlaw jihad; let us write laws that, by name, outlaw the promotion and undertaking of jihad. Let us, in short, use the pressure of law to excise this doctrine from the religion -- certainly a just and honorable endeavor if, as you and so many others insist, the doctrine is alien to authentic Islam.

Let us say through our laws that jihadis are unwelcome here, because jihad is prohibited; and to promote and advance this doctrine, men will have to put themselves outside the law and thus subject to all sorts of disabilities and risks.

Next, let us outlaw the principles of official subjugation suggested by the term dhimmitude. And so on and so forth.

It's still a crescent, the crescent is still a prominent Islamic symbol, and the site is still one where violence committed in the name of Islam ocurred.  

. . .about a depiction of an erection, either--but if one appeared in a monument dedicated to the suffering of wartime rape victims, there'd be an angry--and justified--reaction to it, wouldn't you say?

Muslim Flags

My own answer would be "only after Islam publicly renounces -- in no uncertain terms -- some of its central doctrines, beginning with the doctrine of jihad

How would "Islam" renounce jihad?  Is there an official spokesperson for Islam that I am not aware of?

Even though I think this entire thing is overblown, you're being a tool. You can't be as dumb as you are pretending to be.

that it is not Islamic (and you can be certain it is, since the MSM wants to pretend there is no similarity), but even if you accept that it is still an inappropriate design:

The broken circle, impkies that hte passengers werew somehow incomplete, instead of their being true Americans and heros in every way.

The discordant sounds of 40 clanging wind chimes dishonors the unity with which the forty stood up to and wrecked the plans of the crazed killers who were bent on killilng that morning.

Additionally, the memorial is uninformative, not telling a straightforward narrative of why this spot, this ground is sacred and what happened to make it sacred.

This 'memorial' even if one accepts the dubious claim that it is not in fact supporting Islam, certainly does nothing to honor or commemorate the 40 in a way that would celarly state and signify what they did by dying on that spot.

that the elites, so sensitive to make certain that we are never exposed to a cross or crucifix in public, unless it is dunked in urine, would stick it to us who suffered from those terrrorists who claimed to be acting in the name of the religioun obviously symbolized in this field is still more evidence of just how out of touch and anti-American these people are.

You are correct. I'm not that dumb. I'm just having some fun at the expense of some of the rabid, frothing folks that are going bananas.

Sometimes an issue or argument is so absurd that the best way to highlight it's absurdity is to satire the argument altogether.

If the premise of an argument is absurd on its face, to attempt to debate said argument is an exercise in futility. As we've seen throughout this thread.

It's just a bunch of people, stirred up by manufactured outrage, yelling at each other.

And that's why the sarcasm that takes this manufactured outrage to it's (il)logical extreme is so amusing for some.

Re: "Next you'll be demanding that people don't display confederate flags because some African-Americans might associate it with slavery."

Alas, that bridge was crossed a long time ago.  And by the way, who said it wasn't a crescent?  The designers even called it a crescent.