Posted on 11/28/2008 11:08:23 AM PST by The Conservative Yogini
Defenders of the Flight 93 memorial repeatedly insist that the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent HAS to be a coincidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegadflyblog.com ...
Virginia Father, Daughter Visiting India Confirmed Dead in Terror Attacks
Associated Press | November 28, 2008
Posted on 11/28/2008 12:20:24 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139700/posts
The Justification for Lying, Part III Economic Meltdown
Robert Ringer: A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World | NA | Robert J. Ringer
Posted on 11/28/2008 1:11:41 PM PST by RWB Patriot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2139724/posts
Exactly! And totaly forget the red maples. Replace those with oak. Its stronger, like America. Besides,our navys first warship the U.S.S Constellation(Old Ironsides) was made with it. It’d be a nice touch.
The architect calls it a crescent, and so does the Memorial Committee. Nobody’s panties are in a bunch but yours, with some tortured and pathetic analogy which no person who actually knows the derivation of the dollar sign would credit: it’s a U overlaying an S. Or do you think that the U and S in the dollar sign are accidental, too? It’s a crescent BY DESIGN. You’re mistaken; stop digging.
I cannot decide if you’ve lost your brain, or just didn’t ever get one.
I’ve got it! You’re just GAY!
It’s like nazis thinking they own the shape of the swaztica — how silly! Let’s design a Holocaust memorial in that shape.
Just so long as the toilets in the visitors center face the right way (a$$ side toward Mecca) I think we're OK with this!
I’malways impressed when the defenders of a point go personal. You have a nice day.
If the thing looked like a real crescent to me, maybe I'd be more concerned.
THIS I can go with.
Guess you've given up on the risible notion that you know more about the design of a memorial than the artist himself; smart move.
Nothing to do with this thread, just a couple of things I didn’t know/think of at the time!
You were discussing Theotokos on one thread; it came up on another I was on, so I looked in my old Missal. The preferred Latin — at least liturgically — seems to be
Dei Genitrix (seems like a more semantically accurate translation of the Greek), which occurs in the Libera Nos prayer immediately after the Pater Noster and in the Holy Saturday Litany of Saints. I didn’t find Mater Dei (Virgo Maria shows up a few times) anywhere in the litury — after an admittedly quick and cursory search. AFAIK there is no English equivalent of genitrix (sometimes spelled genetrix), at least not for humans; “dam” is used of humans only in sarcasm or (supposed) wit.
The other thing I remembered regards the discussion of how Anglicans saw themselves. I said they saw Canterbury as the golden mean between Geneva and Rome. You recalled (I think) the Squire in Tom Jones referring to himself as Protestant. IIRC, folks of the Geneva persuasion show up in 16th, 17th, 18th century English lit as “Dissenters” — of course the bulk of the literature was written by Anglicans! ;-)
See you around!
Mary
Oops! I meant that to be a private reply! Sorry! :(
No, I haven't given up. I still don't think it's a crescent. I know what a crescent is. (Among other things, in some heraldic systems it is the emblem of the second son.) And I still think the argument (not its proponents) on your side is ridiculous and paranoid. I suppose it is good to make the architect aware of a possible interpretation of an unintended and inadvertent aspect of his design.
The character of the response to the statement of a dissenting view suggests to me that there something going on here of which I am not aware. I, personally, am not worried about crypto fifth column Islamofacist sympathizers tricking me or the nation into paying homage to the perverted heresiarch. I am suspicious of arguments which need their proponents to imply that they are just so much more on the ball and so much wiser even than the bereft who have a strong personal connection with the memorial that those who disagree with them can only be vicious or stupid.
I guess contempt for those who disagree with one is not confined to Islamofascists.
Your ignorance of Islam is showing.
Of course Moslems demand such things, but if you’re not a Moslem why do you want to assist them in seizing symbols and demanding everyone else leave them alone?
Calling his detractors kooks in the same sentence he implies they're humorless and stupid, is not, in the opinion of the terribly subtle Mad Dawg, "going personal."
No, I haven't given up.
There is no one so determined as a person determined to be wrong.
The artist SAYS it's a crescent. The memorial committee SAYS it's a crescent. But Mad Dawg says it's not. In his infinite subtlety he knows both the unseen nuances and subconscious motivations of the artist and the committee members which even they themselves cannot see.
I still don't think it's a crescent. I know what a crescent is.
And you are the ONLY person in the galaxy who does. Congratulations.
(Among other things, in some heraldic systems it is the emblem of the second son.)
Among other things, no doubt, it is the shape of the bowl you use to cut your hair. And that is as relevant to the subject at hand as some inane arcana about the second son; the inclusion which is is pretentious and pedantic [but its proponent -- of course -- is not.]
And I still think the argument (not its proponents) on your side is ridiculous and paranoid.
Another not badly intended and terribly subtle remark.
I suppose it is good to make the architect aware of a possible interpretation of an unintended and inadvertent aspect of his design.
What utter nonsense.
As Captains Quaters blog made clear when the design was first proposed:
"This was not mere ham-fistedness. There is no group more attuned to symbolism and the “meaning” of structures than architects. It is their business to take drawings and, ultimately, wood, glass, and stone, and create meaning out of it. That this design is in some way accidental or coincidental is preposterous."
And I would parenthetically add, among all architects, memorial architects are the ones most highly attuned to the symbolism of their designs.
The character of the response to the statement of a dissenting view suggests to me that there something going on here of which I am not aware.
Talk about gormless irony.
[The statement, that is, not -- of course -- its proponent.]
I, personally, am not worried about crypto fifth column Islamofacist sympathizers tricking me or the nation into paying homage to the perverted heresiarch.
In your overarching desire to attribute motives to your detractors which they do not have, you are projecting. [Or perhaps your argument, but -- of course -- not you, are projecting.] No one on this thread has made any such argument, so you can go and argue with your straw man and leave the rest of us "kooks" alone. Again, at the time the design was first adopted, a blogger (Junkyard Blog) laid out the artists motivations best:
"Look, this was almost surely conceived innocently by an idealistic liberal as symbolic of “peaceful Islam” healing and bonding with those slaughtered for Allah,"
There is no grand conspiracy here, just the usual banality of lefty political correctness. The number of glass blocks employed in the design is 44, intended -- by the artist's explicit direction, -- to symbolize the people who died on flight 93. Unfortunately, one cannot get to that number unless one also includes the terrorists in the count. Another accident? Or does the subtle Mad Dawg count differently from the the rest of us paranoiacs as well? The point is that the artist's intention is clearly that of a reconciliation between the victims and their murderers in Eternity. And what better way could there be to reconcile them other than within the crescent of the true and correctly understood peaceful Islam which has never done, or thought any man harm (retch, puke, barf)?
I am suspicious of arguments which need their proponents to imply that they are just so much more on the ball and so much wiser even than the bereft who have a strong personal connection with the memorial that those who disagree with them can only be vicious or stupid.
More projection.
I guess contempt for those who disagree with one is not confined to Islamofascists.
You are not contemptible. But your ideas are. They are also absurd: to claim more knowledge of a design than the architect himself is truly preposterous. Give up.
Because by allowing this type of symbolism on any 9/11 memorial is disgraceful and a slap in the face to anyone who died in flight 93. Believers of Islam will definately look upon this symbolism and consider it a "victory" to the fallen comrades that drove the plane into the ground. Those who divorce the symbolism from this are ignorant of Islam the consequences of pretending moslems will not be emboldened. Europeans have tried this tactic for the last 20 years and look where it got them.
We build memorials to honor the dead. To honor in any way those that brought about the killing should not be allowed.
How about an imam with a rich friend in Saudi Arabia?
We could do this jackboot crushing a crescent under the heel perhaps ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.