Crescent of Betrayal Controversy

Some people have a mindset that is likened to the depiction of three monkeys of "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" fame.

Sometimes there is a fourth one that is missing, so the first three state (scroll down a bit at the link):

"We have a fourth brother, admit no evil, but he left the group for a career in politics!"

The radical left liberals typically tend to "admit no evil," yet, they often do not hesitate to speak evil against those with whom they disagree.

Case in point.

It appears that Mike Rucker disagrees with my post yesterday regarding the Flight 93 Memorial petition. Of course, it is his right to do so. However, when someone utilizes that liberal bastion of "political correctness" (a.k.a. the New York Times) to make one's point, be ready to receive much more accurate counterpoints.

Here's Mike's comment:

mike rucker said...

a different perspective here.

an excerpt:

Sandra Felt, whose husband, Edward, died on Flight 93, said she could not fathom why people continued to see Islamic symbolism in the design.

“The land speaks for itself,” she said. “It’s in the shape of an embrace.”

After initial complaints, the original design title, “Crescent of Embrace,” was changed to “Circle of Embrace.”

Trees were also added to the plans to encircle the site and not leave a gap that created a crescent.

s. Felt told board members on Saturday that she strongly disagreed with the sentiment of the design critics.

“Wow. Such hate. I’m shocked,” she said, her voice choked with emotion. “When you insult the place and inflame events, I want you to know you hurt us, too.”

this might say something as well:

Memorial officials say that Mr. Burnett, and his wife, Beverly, are the only family members of victims who have spoken out against the design.

unless someone investigates the memorial's designer, Murdoch, and finds that he's closet al-Qaeda, i think those of us not directly tied to the ones who died should do a little less judging and allow those closest to the catastrophe to lead the way. to think that they, among all people, would approve something that smacks of Islamic influence is naive at best, but more likely just plain cruel and self-serving.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com

Why is it that liberals don't like to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence?

I've got my own theory on that - but let's go back to the subject at hand.

Notice how the one woman describes Mr. Burnett's viewpoint as "hate," and she claims that she's "shocked." One can't miss the black-tar-bitter icing on her radical liberal cake when she states:

“When you insult the place and inflame events, I want you to know you hurt us, too.”

Lady...LOOK IN THE MIRROR...PLEASE!


It appears that Mike agrees with the woman because he states:

i think those of us not directly tied to the ones who died should do a little less judging and allow those closest to the catastrophe to lead the way. to think that they, among all people, would approve something that smacks of Islamic influence is naive at best, but more likely just plain cruel and self-serving.

So. Mike thinks that Mr. Burnett - whose son perished in the tragedy - should not express his judgment against the design? He wasn't "close enough to the tragedy" like Ms. Felt was? His views are "naive at best?" His views (as well as mine and the thousands who are signing the petition) are "just plain cruel and self-serving?"


Here is my response to Mike:

Of course there are differing opinions, Mike. No one is saying otherwise.

However, Mr. Burnett (and the thousands who are against the design and have signed the petition) have the right to be heard and to share their grievances.

The Islamic symbolism may not mean much to many non-religious Americans. After all, many people wear crosses as jewelry - without adhering to the true significance of the cross of Christ.

I ask you. If the memorial was in the shape of a cross, do you think that there might be objections from non-Christians?

People would be furious! Even though many Christians onboard that flight were responsible for preventing the plane from reaching the intended target (either the White House or U.S. Capitol.)

Also, it is a fact that symbolism is VERY important in the Islamic world. That one fact alone should make the designers change it from the current crescent shape.

And Mike, did you go to the links and read about the other objections to what is being planned for the memorial site?

If not, go here and discover that there is much more than just the crescent shape of the memorial.

What do you think of including 44 glass blocks along the memorial - one for each person who died - including the four terrorists?

Excerpt:

...a new book from World Ahead Publishing, Crescent of Betrayal, describes the many Islamic and terrorist memorializing elements in the winning Crescent of Embrace design for the Flight 93 Memorial. Most importantly, a person facing directly into the half mile wide central crescent (still present in the superficially altered Bowl of Embrace redesign) is facing almost exactly at Mecca. A crescent that Muslims face into to face Mecca is called a mihrab and is the central feature around which every mosque is built.

Author Alec Rawls started investigating the crescent site-plans after the winning design was unveiled in September 2005, and spent much of 2006 trying to get the Memorial Project to come to grip with his findings. Every element of the entire crescent design turns out to be a typical mosque feature, realized on the same epic scale as the half-mile wide central crescent. The minaret-like Tower of Voices part of the memorial turns out to be a gigantic Islamic prayer-time sundial. There are 44 memorial glass blocks emplaced along the flight path, exceeding the number of our murdered heroes by the number of their murderers. And on it goes, for over a hundred pages of Mr. Rawls’ 300 page exposé.