You may have heard of the plans to build a memorial to the heroes of Flight 93, who died trying to wrest control of the ill-fated flight from Mulsim terrorists who sought to plow it into a major American landmark, most likely either the White House or the Capitol Building.
This was the flight where, as the passengers learned via cellphone that a massive terrorist operation was underway, the men on the plane voted (democracy) and then stormed the terrorist-controlled cabin, showing that Americans would no longer sit passively by and allow this kind of terrorism to take place.
It was the flight on which Todd Beamer uttered the immortal words, "Let’s roll" as the passengers began their heroic bid to take back the plane.
I said at the time that they needed to build a statue to those guys.
I did not envision the following MONSTROSITY:
The plans currently call for the memorial to take the form of a "Crecent of Embrace" composed of maple trees of a species that will turn red in the fall, just like the red Islamic crecent.
MORE ON THIS OUTRAGE FROM MICHELLE MALKIN. AND MORE.
If you are as outraged as I am by this hijacking of the memorial that the heroes of Flight 93 deserve by turning it instead into an orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS then I invite you to join me in contacting the National Parks Service and telling them they must cancel this abomination and go back to the drawing board.
The person to be called is Joanne Hanley, the Superintendent of the Flight 93 National Memorial.
She can be reached at (814) 443-4557 or faxed at (814) 443-2180.
You may also be able to send an e-mail message HERE, though there are reports that the form doesn’t work.
I also agree with one of the commenters over at Michelle Malkin’s:
I propose a single block of unfinished granite, representing the
enduring and unvarnished legacy of Flight 93 with the immortal line,
“Let’s Roll” hewn into it in 5’ high letters. A panel below should be
smoothed and polished and the names of the fallen engraved there along
with a description of their actions that day. In front of this would be
a simple paved plaza with one flagpole facing the monument in their
honour. Let the memorial be simple and straightforward, uncluttered by
the baggage of others and with a clear and unambiguous message for all
who would stand before it.
Only I’d like one change: I want the letters in LET’S ROLL to be ten feet high.
I wouldn’t want either the red crescent or the “Let’s Roll” monument.
I saw this first at the Belmont Club weblog (which in general has great war reporting). He did an analysis of it. His response is that it seems the designer has no pro-Islamic bias, but is simply very fond of of using crescents in his designs. There appears to be no “hijacking.”
That does not mean the memorial as planned is appropriate precisely because of those associated connotations.
Rather than blame it on the presumed allegiances of the designer though, I think this is simply another case of an actual problem found throughout architecture today: new memorials or building facades seem to have very little to do with its purported reason to exist. Some vague “crescent of embrace” has nothing to do with the determination of the passengers to resist terrorism and does nothing to evoke those feelings. The designer simply thinks the crescent looks nice and wants to use it.
Many modern churches have the same problem: they look like anything other than a house of god.
I agree with the other poster that I would not like a “Let’s Roll” memorial either. As defiant as it was and how it resonated with Americans at the time, I don’t think it will inspire solemnity 50 or 100 years from now – it sounds too much like bad action movie dialogue. Why not just put the catch phrase of Team America: World Police on it?
i thought this was a joke until i went here http://www.flight93memorialproject.org/
whatever happened to statues of heroes?
i’m not referring to the multicultural statue of the firefighters that was proposed, by the way.
grrr.
I have a feeling that such a memorial would serve as the greatest magnet to Roundup and chainsaws ever devised.
[“Let’s Roll”] sounds too much like bad action movie dialogue.
I agree.
I would also like to add that I am not someone who normally associates crescents with Islam. I’m from South Carolina, so to me, a crescent means home. It’s our Revolutionary War emblem, and I associate it with Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox.
SC Liberty Flag
SC Palmetto Flag
But I don’t think either a crescent or “Let’s Roll” works for this memorial. I agree with Chris that the memorial monument should have a more relevant and meaningful design.
Bonus: Our Lady of South Carolina/Our Lady of Joyful Hope
The crescent doesn’t appear in this icon, though.
Is this protestation for real? The outrage over this is so forced it’s beyond ridiculous. Does anybody else beside me think that being upset about this is utter silliness?
No.
I think you’re alone on that one Steve G.
🙂
I’m going to disagree with everyone about the “Let’s Roll!” expression. I think those words are the best tribute to the passengers of Flight 93.
Chris D, you are right. It does sound like a bad line from an action movie. But it ‘s not. Those are the real words spoken by a real man as he bravely sought to do something about the unthinkable situation he found himself in.
That’s what we have to remember here: the passengers on Flight 93 were not merely victims. They were also heroes. They knew what was going on, and decided to do something about it — knowing full well that they would probably die, but willing to make that sacrifice for others.
They were not silver-screen actors who had a screenwriter to give them words full of rhetorical flair. They were ordinary people who talked in an ordinary way, and in so doing turned an everday expression into something uniquely meaningful.
“Let’s roll” captures the shoulder-to-shoulder, do-your-part heroic response of everyone on that day — the passengers of Flight 93 as well as the rescue workers in New York and Washington.
Anyone who thinks “Let’s roll” is a kitschy expression is not thinking of it in context. Imagine those men, standing on that plane, knowing what was going to happen, and banding together to do something about it. That’s where those words come from. A mundane expression uttered by mundane men in an extraordinary situation who became heroes. Their brave words should be remembered with them.
I, for one, get chills down my spine when I think of them uttering that phrase. Sometimes you don’t need a dialogue coach to say something profound.
Interestingly, the “let’s roll” guy was a devout Catholic and, according to his wife, had premonitions of his early death:
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20020927.html
Anyone who thinks “Let’s roll” is a kitschy expression is not thinking of it in context.
It’s a kitschy expression despite the context. I have nothing but respect for the people who said it, but it’s still trite.
I’ll be sure to give a lengthy speech if my time ever comes, then…
The outrage over this is so forced it’s beyond ridiculous. Does anybody else beside me think that being upset about this is utter silliness?
As I’ve said, crescents do not normally make me think of Islam. I associate the crescent with my home state, South Carolina.
Though I understand that some people object to the proposed crescent-shaped memorial on the grounds that the crescent supposedly represents Islam and the terrorists were supposedly Muslims, I’m not objecting on those grounds.
I think, as I said before, that the memorial monument should have a more relevant and meaningful design than either the crescent or the “Let’s Roll” slogan.
Consider, for example, the Vietnam memorial in Washingon, DC. It lists the names of the dead in chronological order. It’s graduated: it gets taller as the number of casualties increased and smaller again as the number of casualties decreased. It’s black. It’s shaped like a V. All these things are relevant and meaningful.
Or consider the Iwo Jima memorial: a classic image of soldiers struggling to raise the American flag.
The interior of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., has an functional, industrial feel, and the primary exhibit is dark with very little natural light. You start at the top and gradually descend into the depths. You carry a “passport” telling the story of an individual Holocaust victim. The design of the memorial communicates relevant meaning.
The Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel is something else entirely. It is made of native white stone and filled with natural light. It makes you feel at peace, like you’re in heaven, somewhere in the halls of the just. This too communicates relevant meaning.
The “Let’s Roll” slogan is more relevant to Flight 93 than the completely irrelevant “crescent of embrace” design, but neither strikes me as particularly inspired or meaningful.
I’ll be sure to give a lengthy speech if my time ever comes, then.
A statement need not be lengthy to avoid being trite.
I don’t fault Todd Beamer at all for not having better last words. I’m sure heroic people have gone to their deaths with even stupider phrases on their lips. Word choice was not what was important at the time.
But he deserves better words at his memorial.
A 15-member jury made up of family members, community members and design professionals was tasked with making a final recommendation on the design. Five finalists were selected from 1,011 designs. (CNN)
No one’s commenting on the fact that family and community members were among those who chose this crescent design. I wonder what it means to them?
I don’t think there are any better words.
The reason the expression became so symbolic and meaningful after 9-11 is because they capture the raw, visceral power of the moment better than any long discourse by a “professional” poet or writer.
I for one would feel very arrogant if I tried to top the true last words of a brave man, words which have struck a strong note of resonance with most of the country.
Most people who see “Let’s roll” on the monument wouldn’t think, “Well, too bad it’s not worthy of Shakespeare.” They would be silent and respectful in the face of bravery and wonder what they would do and say in the same situation.
Out of curiosity, has anyone heard the designer’s rationale for purposely making the crescent red? If it weren’t a red crescent, the resemblance to the Islamic crescent would be considerably diminished. The color makes the allusion seem more deliberate.
Most people who see “Let’s roll” on the monument wouldn’t think, “Well, too bad it’s not worthy of Shakespeare.”
No, but many would look at it and think “Todd Beamer and the others were certainly worthy of better words than this.”
Sorry, but Chris is definitely right about the phrase’s “resonance”: As defiant as it was and how it resonated with Americans at the time, I don’t think it will inspire solemnity 50 or 100 years from now – it sounds too much like bad action movie dialogue.
After “the raw, visceral power of the moment” is over, the words just sound cheesy.
And though I said “he deserves better words at his memorial,” I’m not really suggesting that there should be any words on the memorial, so you don’t have any reason to sweat about “any long discourse by a ‘professional’ poet or writer.” (I’d already answered the “long” objection.) At Iwo Jima, for example, the powerful image speaks for itself. No words are necessary in a good design.
No words are necessary in a good design.
Very true, I agree. I’m not inisting that “Let’s roll” or any words be on the monument at all. I just think that the expression deserves more credit than it’s been given here, but then, there’s no accounting for taste. Perhaps mine is just too plebeian. In any case, let’s hope that the flaws of the current design are remedied.
Oops, last post was mine.
If it weren’t a red crescent, the resemblance to the Islamic crescent would be considerably diminished. The color makes the allusion seem more deliberate.
The color of the crescent has no Islamic significance. Red is used by Tunisia, Algeria, and the [url=http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_312_3903,00.html]International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement[/url], but other nations and groups use white crescents (e.g. Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Maldives), blue crescents (e.g. [url=http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=4894]new Iraqi flag[/url]), yellow crescents (e.g. Mauritania), etc.
It’s also worth noting that many Muslims are opposed to the use of the crescent as a symbol for Islam, because of the crescent’s historical use among pagans. It doesn’t represent Muhammad, the Qur’an, or anything particularly Islamic. It’s not like the Christian cross, for example, which has an obvious Christian reference.
Sorry about that. Mixed up my html and UBB codes.
That should be International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and new Iraqi flag.
I thought of this when I saw the first press release. I am glad that I now know who to contact. WHY NOT A CROSS???
WHY NOT A CROSS???
I see no reason to assume that all the people aboard Flight 93 were Christians, do you? And the United States is not and never has been a Christian nation. I don’t think it could be reasonably argued that the people aboard Flight 93 died for Christ or Christianity.
So why would a cross be a relevant, meaningful memorial?
A cross memorial would, in some ways, be worse than a crescent memorial. A cross is a symbol very clearly linked with a specific religion, while a crescent is not (see my post above).
It looks like a memorial to Islam.
Unless we realize that the real evil is Islam (not just militant Islam) this will happen again.
And the United States is not and never has been a Christian nation.
PHA, you obviously don’t know your history. This was a Christian Country. It is now Secular Pagan.
Be that as it may, the point here is that this field is a place where terrorists murdered dozens of people in the name of their fanatical brand of the religion they claimed to serve. Why on earth are we going to plant a huge symbol of that very religion right on the spot where the people died?
Of course there’s nothing inherently wrong with a crescent shape. But this is a memorial– it’s SUPPOSED to communicate in symbols of greatness relevant to the events it memorializes! The event in this case was either the heroic sacrifice of the people on the plane, or else the wicked atrocity of their attackers, depending on which way you look at it. The terrorists were united were the raidical, fanatical Islam. The heroes were the ones “who more than self their country loved; and mercy more than life.” The memorial, by speaking in symbols more related to the latter (in at least some obvious aspects), makes me think of terrorism instead of heroism.
To the extent that it does that, it just seems like a poorly-planned memorial. It must have a great many good aspects to it for the heroes’ families to have chosen it, but it will be tough for a lot of folks (myself probably included) to get over it if they can’t change this one very obvious, and very off-message, element.
egregious typo: paragraph 3, line 5 should read “former,” not “latter.”
The Flight 93 Memorial Crescent Kerfluffle
Jimmy Akin (and Michelle Malkin and scores of other bloggers) have mentioned the Flight 93 memorial design and that stupid crescent. Im more than willing to believe the designer just likes to use crescents in his designs as has been alleged an…
Here’s the E-mail address that that contact form mails: FLNI_Superintendent@nps.gov
Just in case THAT form doesn’t work either.
Pha, please stop being disingenuous. It’s a RED crescent. RED. Does South Carolina use a RED crescent? No. There is only one institution in the world that uses a RED crescent: Islam.
The red crescent memorial is obviously a tribute to the hijackers. It is some kind of twisted effort at reconciliation with Jihadism, which seeks to enslave or kill all non-Muslims.
I think some of you aren’t paying attention. To reiterate a couple of the points made above, and to add a couple of others:
1. This crescent doesn’t look much like the “Islamic” crescent – the “details” of the shape are rather different (i.e., it looks more like a letter “C” than the “moon”-shape one sometimes sees used by Muslims).
2. The crescent isn’t that important an Islamic symbol. It certainly isn’t to Islam what the Cross is to us Christians.
3. It’s highly unlikely that those who chose this memorial design were trying to honor Islam, given (e.g.) that they included family members of those killed on Flt. 93.
4. The key is “Crescent of Embrace.” The idea was apparently to signify our “embrace” of the heroes who, knowing they were doomed, brought the plane down before it could hit (probably) the Capitol.
5. Reasonable people can, of course, still disagree about whether this is “the” right design. For instance, one might do so on the basis of one’s understanding of what a good memorial should look like. (Some people also don’t like the Vietnam Memorial, though I tend to think it’s fine – I’m less a fan of some other recent ones, like the “empty chairs” in OKC.) If there were a better reason to associate this “crescent” with Islam, then its unintended connotations might be a reasonable basis for disagreement as well. But in light of points 1-4, I think the concern (let alone “outrage”) about that is basically silly – not unlike, say, the activist complaints about Indian team names. I don’t think it makes any sense to put more time and effort into redesigning an important memorial to avoid that kinds of concern, one that has so little to do with reality.
By the way.
Mr. Miller —
The crescent has become associated with Islam and is on the flags of numerous Mohammaden states:
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm
“I’ll be sure to give a lengthy speech if my time ever comes, then…”
Like you’ll have time…
Oh, and ‘Let’s Roll’ is a totally cheesy phrase, TAKEN ALONE. Take it in that context and it is okay.
Lesse…is it just me or has political correctness, relatavism, and the never-ending desire to be re-elected over doing what has right utterly destroyed any sanity we had left?
Kevin,
Thanks for elaborating on this. You have infinitely mroe patient than I in explaining the absurdity of being outraged over this. I also am not trying to indicate support for the design. Having no artistic sense whatsoever, I don’t even have an opinion of whether it’s a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ memorial design. I am only addressing the manufactured outrage over this.
To those who roll their eyes at the words “Let’s roll,” may I recommend [i]The Abolition of Man[/i] by C. S. Lewis:
Let us honor crude sentimentalism and action movie B-dialogue, which got to be action movie B-dialogue because that is how people in these situations actually talk, and without which none of us would be here to roll our eyes either at it or at what some of us are apparently too post-ironic and meta-aware to recognize as legitimate expressions of real outrage.
I don’t believe the crescent design was an intentional nod to Islam, it seems more like a very unfortunate and embarassing mistake.
People shouldn’t read too much into the intentions, but neither should we allow it to go forward. It is about the worst way you could memorialize Flight 93, and shows how little the designer researched and was actually aware of the meaning of the crescent symbol, beyond his/her own touchy-feely thoughts about it being a big symbolic hug for the deceased.
This is the problem you have when modern artists are preoccupied with “pushing the envelope”. It means that every new monument also has to be a new kind of monument, the like of which has never been seen. This results in alot of designs that (a few years down the road) seem just sort of odd, as well as some spectacular flops.
There is always room for inovation, but it should be natural and not forced.
Steven,
On what basis is the outrage legitimate? On the coincidence that someone talented with Photoshop can morph an aerial view of crescent shaped line of maple trees that turn red in fall, into a full fledged blood red Islamic crescent, smack a star in the middle of the graphic and then have folks calling it an ‘orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS’. This is hypersensitivity way beyond the pale and indeed seems to be manufactured. I’d suggest everyone look at the memorial sans the ominous graphic morphing. How about this view on the flight 93 memorial website…
http://www.flight93memorialproject.org/multimedia/gallery/finalist_home.jpg
…which is what 99% of visitors will actually see. It just screams ‘ISLAMIC CRESCENT’ doesn’t it?
Jeb: I didn’t say there’s no association of a crescent with Islam. I’m saying it’s not “the” Islamic symbol the way the Cross is “the” Christian symbol or the swastika is “the” Nazi symbol. Interestingly, hyper-Islamic Saudi Arabia has no crescent on its flag.
And, also: That page you cite (which I’d also noticed earlier) also demonstrates the differences between the “Islamic crescent” – a crescent moon, accompanied by a star – and the memorial design, which isn’t a moon (it isn’t wider in the middle and pointed on the ends) and isn’t accompanied by a star.
I see your point, Steve G.
Many critics of the design (of which I am one) go too far in imputing bad intent to the whole thing, as if it were part of an Islamic plot. So I go on record as agreeing that some (some) of the outrage is over the top, and retract my previous “No” post.
However, now that the unfortunate association of the red crescent and Islam has been noted, I think people have a right to say not just “no”, but “hell no” to this memorial design. It’s as if someone suggested (in all innocence) a burning cross as a memorial to Martin Luther King.
The level of indignation has to be great enough to make sure that the designers, committes and politicians get the message in an unambiguous way, and remember it.
I said: “And the United States is not and never has been a Christian nation.”
To which it was said: PHA, you obviously don’t know your history. This was a Christian Country.
It is you who do not know your history. It’s more than just “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which is itself sufficient to refute your claim.
In 1797, John Adams put his signature to the Treaty of Tripoli, passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate, which explicitly said “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
Were the “Founding Fathers” of the United States Christians? Many claimed to be, and perhaps some were, but more than a few were nominal Christians at best.
Patrick Henry wrote “this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians,” and John Locke wrote, “a Christian I am sure I am.” But when the roots of our government and society are examined, they show more evidence of unitarianism, deism, individualism, and liberalism than anything approaching Christianity. Even if the men themselves were “Christians,” their principles were incompatible with Christianity.
John Locke, for example, in his treatise on toleration, contrasts man in “a state of nature” with man living in a governed society. This document was a huge influence on the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The problem? Locke sees the man in “a state of nature” as a completely autonomous individual with no responsibilities to other people. Only when a man enters a “social contract” does he receive such responsibilities as a kind of “trade off.” Those responsibilities conflict with his own natural rights, some of which he must “give up” to live with other people. One of the greatest virtues, in this view, is toleration and leaving other people alone, so long as your own interests don’t come into conflict. Etc. etc.
Locke’s scenario is not a Christian vision at all. For Christians, the God in whose image we humans are created is already a community or “society” of three divine Persons. As beings created in the image of the Trinitarian God, we originate in community and it is our nature to live in community (society) with and for each other. Where Locke’s “social contract” was an alien and extrinsic concept to natural man, we would say society is intrinsic to humans being who we are. Our rights and responsibilities do not conflict; they are mutually supporting. (E.g. You have a right not to be murdered and I have a responsibility never to murder you.) The greatest virtue, from a Christian perspective, is love (which is very nearly the opposite of Locke’s idea).
Someone once tried to convince me that Thomas Jefferson was a Christian because he had written “in the front of his well-worn Bible,” these words: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator.” Jefferson was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, I was told, which he considered his “highest and most important role.”
What was said may be true, I suppose, but Jefferson was no Christian. Believing that “whole history of [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it,” Jefferson wrote his own “Bible,” The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, from which Jefferson removed all the miracles, and especially the annunciation, virgin birth, and resurrection of Jesus from death. Jefferson did not believe Jesus is God, nor did he believe in the holy Trinity. He considered Paul the “great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus,” and often said “I am of a sect by myself.” That is Jefferson’s so-called “real Christianity.” He was a unitarian, and eagerly hoped “that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United States.”
Jefferson had no particular love for Christianity: “I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.” The same Jefferson also wrote “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law,” and “I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke.” Is it any wonder the man’s principles are incompatible with Christianity?
From the bad roots of unitarianism, individualism, and liberalism grew the social structures, economics, laws & policies, and culture of the United States. And now, even the average Christian citizens of this country are so infected with the dominant invividualism, liberal principles, and unitarian concept of God that they can hadly tell the difference between “the American way of life” and Christianity. That’s just sad.
Pha, please stop being disingenuous. It’s a RED crescent. RED. Does South Carolina use a RED crescent? No. There is only one institution in the world that uses a RED crescent: Islam.
I’m not being “disingenuous.” Did you miss the whole post about the color red having no Islamic reference? Here’s the information again:
The color of the crescent has no Islamic significance. Red is used by Tunisia, Algeria, and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, but other nations and groups use white crescents (e.g. Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Maldives), blue crescents (e.g. new Iraqi flag), yellow crescents (e.g. Mauritania), etc.
It’s also worth noting that many Muslims are opposed to the use of the crescent as a symbol for Islam, because of the crescent’s historical use among pagans. It doesn’t represent Muhammad, the Qur’an, or anything particularly Islamic. It’s not like the Christian cross, for example, which has an obvious Christian reference.
And back to this: Does South Carolina use a RED crescent? No.
No, we use a white crescent, like Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Maldives, and other predominantly Muslim nations. But in South Carolina, it doesn’t represent Islam.
Natural symbols, like the moon, are usually polyvalent. They have different meanings for different people.
In Western Catholic art, for example, the moon usually represents Mary the Mother of God (and for more than one reason).
Let us honor crude sentimentalism and action movie B-dialogue
You can, I’m not. A well-designed memorial doesn’t need any cheesy words on it.
Many thanks to Kevin Miller for being a reasonable voice in this discussion.
I’m standing by my original post. I wouldn’t want either the red crescent or the “Let’s Roll” monument.
The notion that the idea is to “embrace” Beamer and the other passengers seems extremely forced, not to say naive. In a word: This isn’t a monument to the heroes, it’s a monument to “embracing.” Embracing itself, not the heroes, is what is celebrated here. Does it seem fair to you that one might at this point begin to suspect some sort of tolerance/diversity sentiment or agenda at work?
It therefore seems to me highly plausible that the architect, and certainly the committee that rejected the recommendation to avoid the word “crescent,” knew very well the Islamic resonances of their proposed memorial, and that the “crescent of embracing” was intended precisely as a diverse, inclusionary embracing of everybody, Christian or Muslim, east or west, etc. There is a time and place for something in that direction, but this isn’t it, and the people in charge should know that.
So yeah, I think some outrage is warranted.
Side note:
I was just in Toronto over the weekend. Among the many landmarks of gay culture I noticed in the city was a bronze statue of Alexander Wood, a 19th-century magistrate honored as a “gay pioneer” during what was called a “homophobic scandal.”
The “scandal,” apparently, is that Wood forced a number of men to drop their drawers for him so that he could examine their genitals, ostensibly looking for a scratch mark that an alleged rape victim supposedly left on her attacker’s privates. On the reverse side of the pedestal is a relief carving depiciting one of Wood’s targets with his drawers dropped (he’s seen naked from the rear) and Wood examining his genitals.
This abuse of authority evidently led to Wood being run out of town. That the city of Toronto would spend taxpayer money raising a statue to such a man — and that they could get away with the relief on the pedestal — is just staggering.
Yet I mention this because, theoretically, if I were a member of the gay community and honored Wood as a pioneer of my persuasion, I think I might look at that statue and feel pride that it was there. This is the way society commemorates its heroes — with real monuments, statues, plaques detailing what happened.
Toronto did not plant a bunch of trees in Wood’s honor. That would not fill anyone’s heart with pride.
Why is it that Toronto can honor a gay pioneer for abusing his authority better than we can honor our heroes for their actions on 9/11?
this proposal doesn’t exist in a vacuum. For awhile it looked as if the WTC monument was going to be hijacked by activists bent on transforming Ground Zero into a PC, America-bashing celebration of diversity and commemoration of American sins such as slavery and oppression of the American Indians.
Perhaps, but “A 15-member jury made up of family members, community members and design professionals was tasked with making a final recommendation on the design. Five finalists were selected from 1,011 designs.” (CNN)
No one has yet commented on the fact that family and community members were among those who chose this crescent design. What does it mean to them?
Prescinding for the moment from crescents and redness, let’s begin with the idea of “embracing.” Suppose for the sake of argument that the monument was to be a “circle of embracing.” What is the relevance of the concept of “embracing” either to the heroism and sacrifice of Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers, or to the terrorist attacks on our country?
This is why I’ve been arguing that the memorial monument should have a more relevant and meaningful design.
Unlike Steven, I don’t think “outrage” is warranted because I don’t believe that anything malicious or even Islamic was really intended.
(If the artist’s intention doesn’t mitigate outrage, then people should be a lot more upset about car magnets that deify President Bush.)
But I am annoyed that nothing more relevant and meaningful was chosen.
“I see no reason to assume that all the people aboard Flight 93 were Christians, do you? And the United States is not and never has been a Christian nation. I don’t think it could be reasonably argued that the people aboard Flight 93 died for Christ or Christianity.” Nor did they die for Allah or Islam, yet the design is a crescent.
“So why would a cross be a relevant, meaningful memorial?” The same reason that a crescent is a relevant, meaningful memorial.
“A cross memorial would, in some ways, be worse than a crescent memorial. A cross is a symbol very clearly linked with a specific religion, while a crescent is not.” A crescent is a symbol very clearly linked with a specific religion, whether you know it or not, the Muslims know it.
Where’s the ACLU when we really need them? Oh yeah, helping little girls kill their babies.
This is the way society commemorates its heroes — with real monuments, statues, plaques detailing what happened.
Yes.
Toronto did not plant a bunch of trees in Wood’s honor. That would not fill anyone’s heart with pride.
Planting trees can, in my opinion, be an excellent way to commemorate people. At Yad Vashem, trees are planted for the “righteous Gentiles” who worked to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. If I knew one of those trees commemorated someone in my family, I would, as you say, be filled with pride.
The problem with the crescent of trees proposal, in my opinion, is that it’s not really relevant to Flight 93. Even the “Let’s Roll” proposal, much as I dislike it, is much better, and I’ve said as much.
Why is it that Toronto can honor a gay pioneer for abusing his authority better than we can honor our heroes for their actions on 9/11?
Good question.
I asked: “So why would a cross be a relevant, meaningful memorial?”
And it was answered: The same reason that a crescent is a relevant, meaningful memorial.
Which is to say: it’s not relevant at all.
Neither a cross nor a crescent is relevant or meaningful to Flight 93. Neither would be an appropriate memorial monument. Just as I’ve been saying all along.
A crescent is a symbol very clearly linked with a specific religion, whether you know it or not, the Muslims know it.
Read the rest of the thread. Many Muslims are opposed to the use of the crescent as a symbol for Islam, because of the crescent’s historical use among pagans. It does not represent Muhammad, the Qur’an, or anything particularly Islamic. It’s not like the Christian cross, which has an obvious Christian reference (i.e. Jesus was crucified on a cross).
Um, I thought I did just that, when I mentioned that the jury that approved the design recommended not calling it a “crescent” — a recommendation that was rejected.
Of course I don’t know, but it seems entirely possible to me that whatever family and community members helped choose this proposal
PHA-
[The crescent] does not represent Muhammad, the Qur’an, or anything particularly Islamic. It’s not like the Christian cross, which has an obvious Christian reference (i.e. Jesus was crucified on a cross).
The argument is not about whether the crescent has a clearly defined link to Islam. By analogy, the swastika is actually an ancient Hindu symbol. That doesn’t mean it would be wise to put it on a memorial to Indian victims of the Nazis.
The crescent has in the popular culture an association with Islam. Whether or not you think it should have that association, the fact is that it does. True, some Muslims do object to its use, as you point out, but many more actively use it, as evidence by all the flags.
The designers may have chosen the design entirely innocently. But it has raised concern in the public, concern that is valid, and so it should be amended.
BTW, Jimmy: “crescent” is misspelled in the title of this post.
I addressed this above in points 5-8.
Steven,
I don’t really have an issue with the way you’ve laid it out. I think that if somebody thinks the memorial inappropriate, in bad taste, or even plain stupid, they have every right to register their protest. My strong reaction is rather to statements like these…
‘orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS’ – Jimmy Akin
‘The red crescent memorial is obviously a tribute to the hijackers. It is some kind of twisted effort at reconciliation with Jihadism, which seeks to enslave or kill all non-Muslims.’ – Dave C.
…Given the facts established on the memorials website, an as laid out by Kevin, this is more than just a poor choice of rhetoric. It’s just way over the top.
And I think you may be misunderstanding (likely my fault) what I meant by ‘manufactured’. I am not denying that the outrage is real. I am talking about taking a rather innocuous aerial mockup of the cite which indeed shows a subtle thin crescent of trees, and then manufacturing an ominous graphic morphing into a Islamic crescent, including the star in the middle of the ‘embrace’. I think the visceral reaction to that is understandable, but the graphic is intended to ‘manufacture’ a reaction where it probably wouldn’t exist (or at least not as strongly) were we to see the original graphic sans the morphing.
By the way, if it comes to light that the Islamic connotations of the red crescent WERE known and discussed by the designer and the committees, and were retained regardless, then I’m with Jimmy that it would be an “orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS”.
The fact that some victim’s family members are on the committee offers no assurance that they will produce an appropriate memorial. Remember Cindy Sheehan?
I have been on enough committees to know how easily the rank-and-file members can be buffaloed by so-called experts (liturgy consultants, for example).
I wrote: “No one has yet commented on the fact that family and community members were among those who chose this crescent design.”
And it was answered: Um, I thought I did just that, when I mentioned that the jury that approved the design recommended not calling it a “crescent” — a recommendation that was rejected.
No, you didn’t mention that the jury included family and community members, so you didn’t comment on that.
I do appreciate the contribution that the jury advised against calling it a crescent, though. The design must mean something non-Islamic to them, though we don’t know what.
the swastika is actually an ancient Hindu symbol. That doesn’t mean it would be wise to put it on a memorial to Indian victims of the Nazis.
If Hindus wanted a swastika on a monument to Hindu Indians– and this seems very probable since there is a huge “reclaim the swastika” campaign among Hindus– I would disagree with you. I think it could be done, and I think it could be good. The real question in such a case would be how it’s done.
As for “wise,” have I ever said anything to the effect that the crescent design is wise? No, I have repeatedly said it is irrelevant to Flight 93, a bad design, and therefore inappropriate. Don’t neglect that I am opposed to the crescent design just because I think people are overreacting.
I addressed this above in points 5-8.
I still think everyone’s overstating the supposed Islamic symbolism.
(1) The “crescent stands for Islam” symbolism is actively opposed by many members of the religion it supposedly represents. I don’t know about you, but active opposition among the “represented” makes me think “not particularly representative.”
(2) The crescent does not actually represent, symbolize, or call to mind anything particularly Islamic, like Muhammad or the Qur’an. It has no clear symbolic referent, like the cross for Christianity.
(3) Natural symbols, like the moon, are usually polyvalent. They have different meanings for different people. In Western Catholic art, for example, the moon usually represents Mary the Mother of God (and for more than one reason). Among South Carolinians, the crescent represents the battle for independence from Britain and our home. Among other people, it means different things. The crescent moon is not (and should not be) exclusive to Islam, even among the Muslims who do want to use the symbol.
I just don’t believe the designers or the jury intended this stupid design to refer to Islam in any way. I understand why people make the association between the crescent and Islam, and that may be one more reason to avoid this design, but I don’t think it’s necessary to overstate the case or imagine any conspiracies. Don’t get your panties in a twist, folks.
It’s much more reasonable to simply point out that it’s an irrelevant, bad design and that something much better should commemorate Flight 93.
Confirmed, apparently. It seems the he jury said, “Let’s not call this a ‘crescent’ — too Islamic.” And the decision makers said, “Nah, let’s call it a crescent.” The possible connection was recognized and discussed, and attempts to soften or avoid the connection were proposed and rejected. This is not an issue that was manufactured in Photoshop (pace Steve G, your clarification is noted).
Let’s also bear in mind that we don’t really know
Perhaps, but yet again reiterating your same points is not the same thing as addressing mine.
yet again reiterating your same points is not the same thing as addressing mine.
Your points have already been addressed.
By the way, if it comes to light that the Islamic connotations of the red crescent WERE known and discussed by the designer and the committees, and were retained regardless, then I’m with Jimmy that it would be an “orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS”.
Well, isn’t that what Steven just demonstrated? Didn’t he just point out that some of the family members said the word “Crescent” should be removed from the title because of its Islamic connotations (and these connotations are indisputable, whether they are self-determined or not) and were flat out refused? Are you waiting for a smoking gun memo? Even so, I don’t think it was intended as a memorial to the murderers.. At worst (and most plausibly) I think it was intended as a memorial to embracing political correctness.
I don’t think it was intended as a memorial to the murderers.
I agree. People need to get a grip.
You commented on my points 1-4, but you skipped points 5-8, which concern the connection between the crescent and Islam.
For example, you say that you “just don’t believe the designers or the jury intended this stupid design to refer to Islam in any way.” Yet you don’t address the fact that the designer apparently intended some sort of religious aura (“a spiritual space, a sacred space”), and that while he denied that any particular religion was intended, in the sphere of religion the crescent moon is uniquely associated with Islam.
Can the moon be associated with Mary? Sure — when the moon and Mary are depicted together. I’m not aware of any tradition of representing Mary simply with a moon or a crescent on its own. I’m aware of the moon-Mary connection, but when I see a crescent moon I don’t think of Mary. Do you? I doubt it. I doubt if many Catholics do.
Viewed in itself as a religious symbol, the crescent moon strongly suggests Islam, and only Islam. That’s why when you look up “crescent” on Wikipedia, Islam figures in much of the article, but not Mary.
If you addressed this stuff before, I missed it.
The crescent moon is not (and should not be) exclusive to Islam, even among the Muslims who do want to use the symbol
You are missing the point here. IT HAS BEEN appropriated to be a symbol of Islam, whether we or a subset of Muslims want it to be or not. The cross did not become a main symbol of Christianity until Constantine (in hoc signo vinces) – it used to be the fish. Supporters of evolution also “appropriated” the fish symbol and added feet. Also the example of Indian mascots is a little off. I doubt the Cherokee Nation wants to erect a statue to General Custer or a US Calvary Rider on their sacred burial grounds. That would be a more apt analogy.
The point is, regardless of what the crescent can mean to certain subsets of people or what it did mean to others in the past, TODAY, for better or worse, it is unmistakebly associated with Islam. Maybe not exclusively, but primarily and unmistakebly.
Also, I am not sure how much weight should be given to the wishes of the families – true, it is their loved ones involved, but this is
(1) A Public memorial;
(2) representing an attack against us as a nation, not just an attack on these individuals.
This memorial is supposed to publicly comemorate these people’s sacrifice in service to their nation. How it will be viewed by the American public is, IMHO, an even bigger consideration than what the family members may or may not think of it.
>>>orgasm of political correctness that honors their MURDERERS.
Come now. Do you seriously think that the intent was to honor the murderers? How ludicrous. I’ll echo pha here. Please get a grip.
Okay, c matt, that’s what I get for skimming. Forgive me, I am working today.
Since reservations about the Islamic connotations of the red crescent were apparently raised and dismissed in the committee, put me down as officially outraged.
I was trying to be charitable before, leaving room for the possibility that the designer was merely ignorant.
NO memorial to terror victims should be turned into a Hug-a-Muslim theme park. While it may not be a tribute to the murderers, it constitutes a shrine to the bone-headed, noodle-spined, can’t-we-all-just-get-along sentimentality that would allow them to operate unimpeded.
But Tim, the difference between…
‘a tribute to the murderers’
…and what you’ve come to propose as…
‘a shrine to the bone-headed, noodle-spined, can’t-we-all-just-get-along sentimentality that would allow them to operate unimpeded.’
…is not a slight one. That distinction makes al the difference in the world, and charges that have been made in the post and in the comments fall apart on that difference. If the latter is what had been stated as the reasons for objecting to the memorial, we would be having this discussion.
doh! last lines should read…
If the latter is what had been stated as the reasons for objecting to the memorial, we would NOT be having this discussion.
I disagree. One is as dangerous and deadly as the other. I think they are both evil.
These people are the Wormtoungues of our nation.
you skipped points 5-8
No, I haven’t.
For example, you say that you “just don’t believe the designers or the jury intended this stupid design to refer to Islam in any way.” Yet you don’t address the fact that the designer apparently intended some sort of religious aura (“a spiritual space, a sacred space”), and that while he denied that any particular religion was intended, in the sphere of religion the crescent moon is uniquely associated with Islam.
“Spiritual” doesn’t mean “associated with a particular religion or religions” to many people in our culture. In fact, oodles of people are in a stomach-churning habit of saying “I’m spiritual, not religious.” Surely you’ve noticed this?
Your claim that “in the sphere of religion the crescent moon is uniquely associated with Islam” is simply false. I have already pointed out that the symbol of the crescent moon has non-Islamic significance among Western Catholics (c.f. “moon” on this page or or this). It also has a decidedly non-Islamic significance among Wiccans. The moon is used as a symbol among Hindus and Buddhists. I’ve no doubt that other religious groups use it as a symbol too. (At least in the past, some people have worshipped the moon directly.)
This is why I’ve said, more than once, that natural symbols like the moon are usually polyvalent. They have different meanings for different people. So Islam is not the only “spiritual” reference for the moon.
when you look up “crescent” on Wikipedia, Islam figures in much of the article
Wikipedia articles are written and edited by anyone who wants to write, add, or edit them. So all that really proves is that whoever wrote or edited the article was interested in Islam but not other crescent uses. Some of the articles on Wikipedia are abominably deficient, erroneous, or biased. Surely you’ve noticed that?
If you want more addressing, it can be done. You pointed out in #8, for example, that “The original Muslim crescent flag was that of the Ottoman Empire, a white crescent on a red field.” This design is still used by Turkey. But you neglected to mention that “The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city’s flag even before the birth of Christ…. It wasn’t until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol.”
That’s one of the reasons that many Muslims object to the crescent symbol for Islam.
It wasn’t until the Ottoman Empire that the crescent moon and star became affiliated with the Muslim world. When the Turks conquered Constantinople (Istanbul) in 1453, they adopted the city’s existing flag and symbol.
But pha, that’s the point. Even your own blurb shows that the symbol HAS BEEN adopted. We are not erecting this monument in the year 12 AD in Byzantium. We are erecting it in 2005 in Pennsylvania. With what is the crescent primarily associated when one thinks of Septmeber 11, 2001, and Flight 93? After all, THAT, and not Roman escapades in the near east during ancient times, is the context we are speaking about.
This is why I’ve said, more than once, that natural symbols like the moon are usually polyvalent. They have different meanings for different people. So Islam is not the only “spiritual” reference for the moon.
Yes, you have said this, but you do not seem to be paying attention to it yourself. One of those meanings that many associate with the Crescent is Islam. This is undeniable (hence, the Muslims who object to its use as a symbol for Islam – otherwise, why would they be objecting if it is not so used?). Further, we are not talking about setting up a wiccan conclave in Kansas or a statue to Mary at Fatima. We are talking about a memorial for a specific event that occurred in a specific context. That makes all the difference in the world wrt the symbolism (see previous comment). Regardless of whether the perpetrators of that event were following “true Islam” or not, they slef professed that they were. If anything, if I were a moderate Muslim that truly believed Islam was a “religion of peace,” I would be more outraged at this than any non-muslim.
Even your own blurb shows that the symbol HAS BEEN adopted.
“Affiliated” was the term used, not “adopted.” The article’s point was precisely that the crescent-Islam association in verious people’s minds does not necessarily represent broad Muslim acceptance or approval.
you do not seem to be paying attention to it yourself. One of those meanings that many associate with the Crescent is Islam
What part of “I understand that some people object to the proposed crescent-shaped memorial on the grounds that the crescent supposedly represents Islam and the terrorists were supposedly Muslims” and “I understand why people make the association between the crescent and Islam, and that may be one more reason to avoid this design, but I don’t think it’s necessary to overstate the case or imagine any conspiracies” did you not follow?
Why do people keep ignoring what I’m actually saying?
we are not talking about setting up a wiccan conclave in Kansas or a statue to Mary at Fatima
Nor are we talking about setting up a mosque, madrasa, or Muslim territory in Pennsylvania, or anywhere else for that matter. We’re just talking about planting trees. Settle down and get a grip on reality, brother.
There’s no need for shrieking overstatement about this. In fact, people are much more likely to ignore your point when you overstate it, as does the original claim that this design “honors their MURDERERS.”
We’re just talking about planting trees.
Oh, is that all. My bad. I thought we were talking about a memorial to those who sacrificed their lives trying to thwart a terrorist attack perpetrated by self-proclaimed Muslims. But if its just planting trees, I guess its no big deal.
I do agree with you though that this design, as inappropriate as it is, was just a really bad mistake rather than an intentional monument to the highjackers.
“In fact, people are much more likely to ignore your point when you overstate it…”
Yes, pha, you have illustrated that point well.
What is the point of continually repeating that the crescent is not necessarily a symbol of Islam when all we are saying is that it very often is, and therefore could be misinterpreted in this monument, and therefore is inappropriate? You have made it clear that you disagree with the use of the crescent for reasons other than its association with Islam. Fine, but why imply that the crescent is irrelevant to Islam, when it is not (at least from a public perception point of view)?
That the crescent is a potential factor in preception of this monument, and reasonably so, is the only point I am insisting on. Is that what you disagree with?
I don’t think it’s necessary to overstate the case or imagine any conspiracies…
I wholeheartedly agree with you there. Unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it is charitable to assume this was intentionally intended to represent Islam. But since it has done so for so many people, including myself, it ought to be altered.
1. The crescent is a widely acknowledged symbol of Islam. The proposed memorial involves a crescent. Is it supposed to, somehow, represent Islam in some way? Merely being a crescent does not necessarily point us to an answer. There are other pointers, however.
2. It is demonstrated here that the arc of the crescent in the proposed memorial points towards Mecca; that is, it is oriented (pardon the pun) in the same direction that a Muslim in the Pittsburgh area should orient himself for prayer towards Mecca. I think that’s what People With Brains To Use ought to be able to recognize as a Mighty Big Clue. (The link points to another link of a map drawing a line across the top of the globe from the memorial site to Mecca: it makes indubitably clear that the arc of the proposed crescent points towards Mecca. The image is not available now, but I have saved it to my hard drive and I will blog it when I get a chance.)
3. Some have objected that the crescent used, for instance, in the flags of certain Muslim countries has a star within the crescent. Immediately upon seeing the design, I realized that the pond at the site serves the purpose of substituting for a star.
4. I myself have seen that pond with my own eyes. I recalled instantly that it is at the bottom of a hill. If you will take a good look at some of the diagrams that have contour lines, you will see for yourself that the crescent is not on level ground: its right side is lower, where the pond is, and its left side is up further up the hill. One would be hard pressed, I think, to even get the impression of it being a crescent at ground level. But not at a high altitude, such as that adopted by 19 Muslim hijackers on 9/11, including four on Flight 93.
So, answer me this, kind folks: why would a crescent be oriented towards Mecca, right around a pond that handily substitutes for a star, though the crescent in that position would not be on level ground and could have just as easily been put somewhere else in another orientation?
The crescent and star symbol for Islam dates back to Muslim coins minted in 695 AD. Source: Encyclopedia of Islam (not online)
“I understand that some people object to the proposed crescent-shaped memorial on the grounds that the crescent supposedly represents Islam and the terrorists were supposedly Muslims”
Supposedly Muslims? That’s like saying they were supposedly men.
Well, yes, you had. You responded to my other points, with references, then stopped. Anyone can read your post and see this. If you had responded to them, I would have responded to your responses, instead of just pointed out that you hadn’t responded.
Certainly, but how commonly is a crescent moon identified as a symbol for such non-religious spirituality?
You seem willing to ignore whatever I say that doesn’t fit your point in a way that makes it frustrating to dialogue with you.
Let me say it again: A crescent moon, by itself, does not mean Mary to anyone. Nobody sees a crescent moon and thinks Mary. One might picture Mary with the moon under her feet, but (a) it’s usually a full moon, and (b) you need Mary in the picture, not just the moon.
Nor does a crescent moon mean Wicca. The Wiccans don’t have a special thing about the crescent moon; their whole triple-goddess, maiden-mother-crone thing ties into all phases of the moon, not just the crescent moon. A common Wiccan symbol is a full moon flanked on either side by a waxing and waning crescent, but the crescent by itself is not commonly recognized as a symbol of Wicca.
Precisely because Wikipedia articles are written and edited by anyone and everyone, on the whole they tend to be quite decent and reliable. Surely you’ve noticed that?
Oh, please!
Yes, I did, because Diana worship is staggeringly irrelevant to the present discussion, except perhaps insofar as it relates to your often-repeated contention:
Did you know that “many” Christians object to the cross as a symbol for Christianity? It’s quite true. Of course saying “many” doesn’t really address how many is many, or how controversial or accepted it is among those who are not among these “many,” does it?
I expect that “many” Muslims do object to the crescent symbol. “Many” Muslims love Jews; “many” Muslims would like to convert to Christianity; “many” Muslims consider “Pulp Fiction” the greatest film ever made. Probably almost any sentence that begins “Many Muslims…” could be justified to one extent or another, when you have so many people in so many different places, circumstances, and cultures. You see, the mere assertion that the crescent doesn’t enjoy universal acceptance doesn’t by itself contribute much to the discussion.
But if you have further information, I’d be happy to hear it.
I thought we were talking about a memorial to those who sacrificed their lives trying to thwart a terrorist attack
Not as long as the design plans are this bad, we’re not.
What is the point of continually repeating that the crescent is not necessarily a symbol of Islam when all we are saying is that it very often is, and therefore could be misinterpreted in this monument, and therefore is inappropriate?
Because people are saying much more than “it very often is” …or did you just miss all those posts that said things like:
it “honors their MURDERERS” and
“There is only one institution in the world that uses a RED crescent: Islam. The red crescent memorial is obviously a tribute to the hijackers” and
“in the sphere of religion the crescent moon is uniquely associated with Islam”?
Even you suggested, at one point, that an Islamic reference might be deliberate.
These are much bolder statements than “it very often is associated.”
why imply that the crescent is irrelevant to Islam, when it is not (at least from a public perception point of view)?
I haven’t implied anything of the sort. I’ve clearly stated “I understand that some people object to the proposed crescent-shaped memorial on the grounds that the crescent supposedly represents Islam and the terrorists were supposedly Muslims” and “I understand why people make the association between the crescent and Islam, and that may be one more reason to avoid this design, but I don’t think it’s necessary to overstate the case.”
That the crescent is a potential factor in preception of this monument, and reasonably so, is the only point I am insisting on.
Good, I’m glad you’re going to be more rational about this than the “it’s an outrage” crowd.
Merely being a crescent does not necessarily point us to an answer.
Exactly.
It is demonstrated here that the arc of the crescent in the proposed memorial points towards Mecca; that is, it is oriented (pardon the pun) in the same direction that a Muslim in the Pittsburgh area should orient himself for prayer towards Mecca.
This argument assumes an intentional, deliberate orientation. You really think so? Do you have evidence that this orientation was deliberate?
Supposedly Muslims? That’s like saying they were supposedly men.
We have only their word for being Muslims. DNA can show their sex.
You responded to my other points, with references, then stopped.
I didn’t refer to any of your points as such until I brought up #8, so I never “started” or “stopped.”
how commonly is a crescent moon identified as a symbol for such non-religious spirituality?
Non-religious spiritualities, in my experience, use whatever imagery they want somewhat whimsically or capriciously.
Let me say it again: A crescent moon, by itself, does not mean Mary to anyone.
Not only is this not true, it’s a bad idea to assert a universal negative.
Books on Christian symbolism in art frequently mention the moon as a symbol for Mary. Even non-Catholics who don’t really understand Catholic Mariology know about it.
Check out this Church of the Holy Spirit Catholic Church website, for example: “The Crescent Moon represents Mary’s Immaculate Conception as foretold in the Canticle of Canticles.”
Or this write up of the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola: “Inlaid into the floor above the inscription is an anchor, a third-century Christian image of hope, on which a large fish is superimposed. The combination of anchor and fish forms the ‘anchor-cross,’ ….known as a crux dissimulata…. The top portion of the anchor symbolizes the cross and the fish represents Christ, the anchor of one’s faith and salvation. However, in time, this image came to symbolize much more. The bowed bottom of the anchor recalls the horns of the crescent moon…. The crescent moon was appropriated into Christian iconography as a symbol of Mary’s position as the queen of heaven and her own virgin motherhood by way of the imagery of the Woman of the Apocalypse in the Book of Revelation…. Ultimately the crux dissimulata came to be a symbol filled with connotations of both Jesus and Mary.”
One might picture Mary with the moon under her feet, but (a) it’s usually a full moon
Except that it’s usually not.
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Trier Cathedral
Nuestra Senora de los Remedios
Albrecht Duerer Madonna
Notre Dame
16th century French Apocalypse manuscript
(b) you need Mary in the picture, not just the moon.
Not so, as you can see in the examples above.
The Wiccans don’t have a special thing about the crescent moon; their whole triple-goddess, maiden-mother-crone thing ties into all phases of the moon, not just the crescent moon. A common Wiccan symbol is a full moon flanked on either side by a waxing and waning crescent, but the crescent by itself is not commonly recognized as a symbol of Wicca.
Wiccans nevertheless use crescents as a symbol, not just generally, but as a symbol of their religion. See the webpage already linked above, for example.
Precisely because Wikipedia articles are written and edited by anyone and everyone, on the whole they tend to be quite decent and reliable. Surely you’ve noticed that?
No, I haven’t. The page called “Justification (theology),” for example, was for many months a presentation of a single, narrow Protestant perspective, over half of which was devoted to proving how “unbiblical” Catholicism is. Only very recently has there been anything resembling Catholic representation there, and now there’s virtually nothing about Protestant perspectives.
I would never recommend that people put a lot of faith in Wikipedia.
Diana worship is staggeringly irrelevant to the present discussion
But the fact that the Ottomans got the symbol from their pagan predecessors and that it has nothing to do with Islam as such is relevant. The crescent has no intrinsic religious significance to Islam.
“But the fact that the Ottomans got the symbol from their pagan predecessors and that it has nothing to do with Islam as such is relevant. The crescent has no intrinsic religious significance to Islam.”
This is blatantly false. The sighting of the crescent moon starts certain Muslim customs. Saudi Arabia has press releases on the sighting of the crescent moon over Mecca. The Muslims did not get the crescent moon symbol from the Ottomans. The symbol has been used by Muslims since the beginning. Muslim coins from 695 AD have the crescent and star symbol.
This argument assumes an intentional, deliberate orientation.
I think, rather, that it points to that, rather than assumes it. Indeed, it seems blindingly obvious to me, once you put together (1) it’s a crescent that (2) points to Mecca that (3) encompasses a pond that substitutes for a star in (4) a rather awkward place.
You really think so? Do you have evidence that this orientation was deliberate?
The crescent points towards Mecca. (1) Do you actually think that’s an accident? Honestly? Really? An accident? Pardon my bluntness, but I meant it quite seriously when I said, more or less, that A Brain Engaged In Thinking would consider that to be a Pretty Darn Big Clue about what it really means. And, yes, what it means in the designer’s intention. The alternative, frankly, strikes me as a designer so blitheringly clueless that he ought hardly have sense enough to be able to walk let alone be some kind of designer. (2) Does it really matter if it was an accident? It’s still a crescent pointing towards Mecca.
Good grief.
I’m going to bow out now, before I lose my temper. 🙂
We have only their word for being Muslims. DNA can show their sex.
What?
I did not see that earlier.
I apologize to everybody else on the thread: I should not have done anything whatsoever to encourage further discussion with somebody (pha) who will not even acknowledge outright that the four hijackers of Flight 93 were Muslims.
PHA-
Your response to my point about the terrorists being most assuredly, unambiguously and demonstrably MUSLIM indicates the problem with most of your arguments so far; you have consistently used arcane (Diana worship), or uncommon (Wicca) exceptions to try to explain away plain facts.
Are you suggesting the terrorists might have been secretly Gozer worshippers… or maybe followers of the Great Prophet Zarquon?
The crescent is the preemminent symbol of Islam. Exceptions to that rule don’t nullify the rule. The fact that the cross was used as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times doesn’t affect in the slightest it’s primary identification with Christianity.
The assertion that this was a mere inadvertance or coincidence also rings false. The association of the red crescent with Islam was known by the designer. Any other association (particularly in the current political climate) runs a far-distant second.
The Muslims did not get the crescent moon symbol from the Ottomans. The symbol has been used by Muslims since the beginning.
Tell Muslims that.
Is the Crescent Moon Symbol of Islam?
The Crescent Moon: Symbol of Islam?
What is the relevance of the star and crescent to the beliefs held by Muslims?
Myth #10: The crescent moon symbolizes Islam
The crescent is not a sacred symbol in Islam
The crescent points towards Mecca. Do you actually think that’s an accident? Honestly? Really?
I haven’t seen any evidence that the designers deliberately planned it that way, only evidence that it does point that way.
The ancient Romans wore helmets with brushes on them. So did the Hawaiians. Coincedence? Yes. Sometimes they happen.
So yeah, I’d want more evidence before concluding that it’s deliberate.
Does it really matter if it was an accident?
Yes.
the terrorists being most assuredly, unambiguously and demonstrably MUSLIM
The hijackers believed they were Muslims and claimed to be Muslims, and I personally have no reason to deny it. But different religions discern who is a member and who isn’t in different ways. Even Christians debate amongst themselves who are “really” Christians and who are not.
Mormons claim to be Christians. And at one point, it was the practice of Catholic canon lawyers presume that they were (e.g. in annulment cases). After recent investigation by the CDF, this practice has changed. Mormons are no longer given the benefit of the doubt. But Mormons still believe they are Christians and tell people they are. (To make matters more complex, the reasons that Utah LDS are not considered Christians do not necessarily apply to the RLDS….)
Some people will argue that Hitler was a Christian on the grounds that he was baptized in a church and paid occasional lip-service to religion, even saying a few positive things about Christianity. Others will argue that Hitler did not really believe Christianity, pointing to some rather nasty things he said about looking forward to the religion’s demise. The positive things he said, they would say, were play-acting for personal advantage. I myself do not regard Hitler as a Christian, but I do understand that whether Hitler is considered a “Christian” depends a lot on who‘s defining the term and how.
Were the hijackers Muslim? They certainly thought so and claimed to be. Do we perceive them as Muslims? I do, but I am not a Muslim, nor do I claim to know what really makes a Muslim a Muslim. Do other Muslims consider them Muslim? There’s probably some debate among them, and they don’t have a Magisterium to guide them.
you have consistently used arcane (Diana worship), or uncommon (Wicca) exceptions to try to explain away plain facts
If you read my posts carefully, you will note that I didn’t use “Diana worship” as evidence for anything. Some Muslims believe that Diana worship may be a reason that Byzantium used a crescent emblem. That was not my point. My point was that the Ottomans adopted the symbol from their predecessors in Byzantium/Constantinople, people who did not share their Islamic faith.
The crescent is the preemminent symbol of Islam.
So everyone keeps saying. Even I have agreed that the crescent is associated with Islam and that I understand why people would think of Islam when they see one. But that doesn’t refute my other points, so there’s no good reason to overstate the case.
The fact that the cross was used as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times doesn’t affect in the slightest it’s primary identification with Christianity.
I agree. But I agree because the cross is an obvious reference to an event in Jesus’ life and central tenet of the Christian Faith. Unless you’re a Jehovah’s Witness or a Muslim, you probably believe that Jesus was crucified on at least two pieces of wood, one upright and at least one horizontal. Even Christians who object to the use of cross symbolism understand why it is associated with Christianity and adopted by most Christians. Their objection is not that crosses have nothing to do with Christianity or Christian beliefs.
Back to a previous point:
Let me say it again: A crescent moon, by itself, does not mean Mary to anyone.
Here’s a few more people who beg to differ:
http://mission.depaul.edu/html/mission/uni_symbol.html
“The Coat of Arms. The main section of the shield consists of nine panes…. The pane above the heart holds a crescent symbolizing Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the patroness of the United States.”
http://www.dor.org/bishopclark/clark.htm
“In the upper left of this side a crescent again appears, signifying the Immaculate Conception, the pure disciple of God’s Work, the Patroness of the United States, of the Diocese of Albany, of the North American College and of the chapel at St. Bernard’s Seminary.”
http://www.hbgdiocese.org/coatofarms.html
“The crescent is also the revered lunar symbol of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception.”
http://www.franciscanfriarstor.com/friars/Administration/
“The Base or Nombril point of the shield has a silver crescent moon, the symbol of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Patroness of our Province.”
http://www.felician.edu/aboutfelician/index.asp?psection=history
“Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception is the College patroness and “Immaculate Conception” is the former name of the College. For this reason, the book bears a silver crescent. This symbol of the Immaculate Conception is derived from the Apocalypse…”
http://www.evangelist.org/archive/htm3/0404coat.htm
“The crescent moon symbolizes the Blessed Virgin, who, under the title of the Immaculate Conception, is the patroness of the Diocese.”
http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/118_behind_our_shield.cfm
“To honor Mary, the Seat of Wisdom, the University shield includes the crescent moon, which is the symbol of Our Lady under the title of the Immaculate Conception”
http://www.diocesefwsb.org/darcycrest.htm
“The crescent moon represents the Virgin Mary, mother of Christ, “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet.” As the Immaculate Conception, she is patroness of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, and its cathedral in Fort Wayne.”
http://rings.cua.edu/
“The crescent is the heraldic symbol of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, constituted by ecclesiastical authority as the Patroness of the United States of America.”
http://www.archchicago.org/cardinal/coastofarms.shtm
“The crescent next to it is associated with the Immaculate Conception”
http://www.archden.org/archbishop/ab10.htm
“Interlaced at the center of the cross is a silver (white) crescent to honor the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her title of the Immaculate Conception, titular of the Cathedral in Denver.”
I was once in a museum with a friend who was offended by an image of Mary holding a pomegranite. My friend saw it as proof-positive that Catholicism is pagan, because the pomegranite is a pagan fertility symbol and this painting was made by a Catholic. Not so, I pointed out. There are only so many natural objects to use as symbols, and they mean different things to different people and groups. It isn’t right to assume that the person who painted Mary holding a pomegranite saw Mary as just another fertility goddess. If we really want to understand, we have to ask what symbols mean to the people who use them.
I understand why people make the association between the crescent and Islam, and I have agreed that can be a reason to avoid this design, but I don’t think it’s necessary to overstate the case and assume that the designers could only mean one thing. The design is bad enough on its own without making that claim.
Where I wrote “one upright and at least one horizontal” it was supposed to say “one horizontal and at least one upright.”
People don’t “make” an association between the crescent and Islam. The association clearly exists already. As I said, any other association comes in a distant second, unless you seriously want me to consider that the artist may have intended this to be a Marian/Wiccan/Ottoman inspired monument (with a nod to South Carolina thrown in for good measure – personally, South Carolina is the first thing I think of when I see a crescent).
The lengthy “some people will argue Hitler was a Christian” paragraphs only serve to underscore my previous problems with your arguments. “SOME people” think we never went to the moon. You used four paragraphs muddying a point that everyone but you gets. You may as well allow that the hijackers might have been aliens. After all, has anyone shown that they weren’t?
the pond at the site serves the purpose of substituting for a star.
Which pond? I see at least five ponds, none of them corresponding to the usual single-star position (e.g. on the flag of Turkey) or to the many-stars used by Comoros or Turkmenistan.
The original Murdoch design (see the whole Post Gazette article) looks like a smaller arc than the final Murdoch design. Did the design change? Does anyone know when, or who changed it?
I’ve also been looking at this so-called qibla map, used to argue that the proposed memorial points toward Mecca, and I’m not so sure I’m buying it. Look closely at the lines. The “qibla” line does not cut through the middle of the crescent of trees, nor does the perpendicular transverse appear to line up with any obvious “hey, this is where to draw the line” points on the design. (This lack of obvious points is even more obvious on the original Murdoch design.)
So though it looks OK at first glance, the “qibla” line looks forced upon further scrutiny. If someone really “shot the bow” of the crescent (to use the terms of the qibla line theorists), it the arrow would land east of Mecca.
unless you seriously want me to consider that the artist may have intended this to be a Marian/Wiccan/Ottoman inspired monument
Just the opposite. I think you and everyone else should seriously consider that the designers may have intended no reference to Islam (or Mary, or Wicca, or Byzantium, or South Carolina) and that it’s just a stupid, bad, inappropriate design, and nothing more.
Maybe, just MAYBE, the designers really intended what they said they intended and nothing more!
personally, South Carolina is the first thing I think of when I see a crescent
It is when I do, but that’s because it’s my home and the meaning I grew up with.
And just for the record: hell no, I’m never conceding it to Islam even if they did want it all to themselves.
The lengthy “some people will argue Hitler was a Christian” paragraphs only serve to underscore my previous problems with your arguments. “SOME people” think we never went to the moon. You used four paragraphs muddying a point that everyone but you gets.
I’m not “muddying” anything. I tried to make all those points as clearly as I could. I even gave my personal opinion regarding both the highjackers and Hitler.
Why do we really need certitude that the terrorists were “assuredly, unambiguously and demonstrably MUSLIM” if we’re all working on the belief that they were Muslims?
Roundup can work wonders . . .
And another was a devout Evangelical.
ut unam sint. . .
I think you and everyone else should seriously consider that the designers may have intended no reference to Islam (or Mary, or Wicca, or Byzantium, or South Carolina) and that it’s just a stupid, bad, inappropriate design, and nothing more.
I can agree to this. As I said, I don’t think reference to Islam was intended; but I think the design is bad largely in part because reference to Islam can be interpreted (whether intended by the designer or not).
Engravable Silver Jewelry
tourneau watchgear, tag hauer watch repair, engravable pocket watch, watchusetts, 925 buja jewelr
Prescription somas at pricing of 9.99.
Somas engineering consultants. Somas. Somas soil bed. Prescription somas at pricing of 19.99. Somas do they have codeine in them.