The proposed memorial to the heroes of Flight 93 closely resembles the Islamic crescent. I think that it is leaping to judgment to assume that this is deliberate, but to eliminate any doubts, we should reject this design in favor of another.
That's the simple solution, right?
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Of course, oriented another way, it could look like a halo.
It's missing a large segment to form a halo.
I'm a bit sympathetic, given that the NYC memorial has been hijacked by dhimmis, so I wouldn't go that far, Joel.
Last night, more information came out. Apparently, the architecture jury was aware that it looked like an Islamic crescent.
Intentional or not, this is highly insesnsitive.
Would one expect Muslims to make a memorial to victimes of the Crusades by shaping a memorial to look like the Chi-Rho?
Would you ever see a swastika as the chosen symbol of a Holocaust memorial?
How about a big, fat Union Jack over a monument to War of 1812 heros?
Didn't think so.
Joel, look at the bottom of the LGF post, where Johnson links to an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
"So what?" Well, considering how the NYC memorial was taken over by anti-American moonbats, the jury should have been sensitive to public relations, used some common sense and thereby avoided controversy.
Why should a memorial to these heroes be overshadowed by even a hint of argument? Be done with this design and choose another.
I would agree that a Holocaust memorial should not be made in the shape of a swastika. To do so would be in poor taste.
Joel, what was the criticism of the memorial at the time?
The swastika is actually a borrowed Hindu symbol of good luck and remains as such even today - it's even largly displayed on the Buddha's chest on the top of a high hill at the Po Lin Monastary in Hong Kong.
The memorial plan in PA also looks like either a waxing or waning moon - a celestial object that inspires and sparks the imagination. It also looks like a C which could stand for the courage the passengers showed when they faught back.
I understand the sensitivity issue. And I respect it. However, sometimes a shape is just a shape that is pleasing to the eye.
I agree.
Joel,
Strictly speaking, you are correct.
But this is a highly charged emotional issue. And we have to be sensitive. (Gee, I thought liberals were big into sensitivity.)
Look- the people on that flight died because a small group of Muslims decided that killing non-Muslims was a good thing to do.
So why on earth would you memorialize the victims by using a shape that resembols (though isn't identical with) the choosen emblem of the religion in the name of which this act was done?
I cannot believe that this is not plainly clear- the memorial needs to be about the victims and their loved ones, not about defending the ideological nutrality of the cresent shape. Save that arguement for another time and just do the liberal thing and avoid offending anyone!
The link to a Post-Gazette article from the LGF site contains quotes from some family members of the victims, including the daughter of a victim who served on the committee that narrowed down the designs. It appears that the victims families were in mind and given voice. It's even stated that her biggest concern was the proposed wind chimes.
I get the impression that controversy is being added from the outside, taking attention away from those victims and loved ones, and not from within the community of those most directly affected.
All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.
All the hijackers were Muslims, but not all Muslims are potential terrorists.
And I thought liberals were supposed to give folks the benefit of a doubt, but there you've gone and assumed that I blame all Muslims or Isalm itself for what a small group did in their name.
Just goes to show that conservatives don't own the market on being judgemental and sterotyping, because you certainly seem to have saddled me with some things I didn't write and don't agree with.
Post a Comment