"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

The Flight 93 Memorial

We admit to being slower than we would like on the uptake regarding the Flight 93 Memorial. We have been surgical consumers, which slowed our momentum, but we are beginning the catch-up. We are joining the fight against the proposed red crescent design which seems frankly treasonous and morally corrupt, to say nothing of ugly--to say nothing, yet.

Michele Malkin has a beautiful column today in Jewish World Review concerning Flight 93 itself and the disgusting "tribute" proposed. It is worth the full reading. We will take just one small section to emphasize.

...[T]he official Flight 93 memorial unveiled last week is now embroiled in overdue public controversy. Funded with a mix of public money and private cash (including a $500,000 grant from Teresa Heinz's far left Heinz Endowments), the winning design, titled the "Crescent of Embrace," features a grove of maple trees ringing the crash site in the shape of an unmistakable red crescent. The crescent, New York University Middle East Studies professor Bernard Haykel told the Johnstown, Pa., Tribune-Democrat, "is the symbol of ritual and religious life for Muslims."

Some design contest jury members reportedly raised concerns about the jarring symbol of the hijackers' faith implanted on the hallowed ground where the passengers of Flight 93 were murdered. But their recommendations to change the name of the memorial (to "Arc of Embrace," or some such whitewashing) were ignored. Memorial architect Paul Murdoch, whose firm emphasizes "environmental responsibility and sustainability," did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment, but he did emphasize to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that his creation was about "healing" and "contemplation." He is also proud of his idea to hang a bunch of wind chimes in a tall tower at the site as a "gesture of healing and bonding."

(View the memorial design at Voice your concerns by e-mailing


  • At Sat Sep 17, 05:13:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Architect Paul Murdoch is reportedly open to more "evolution*" of the memorial design.

    > Murdoch did not say if the design should change or how. What he did say, though, is that there are three main qualities of that part of the design that must remain: that the tribute is seen as coming from the land -- using the topography of the site; that the flight path cutting through the bowl-shaped piece of land is still represented; and that there is still an embracing gesture of the crash site.

    I don't know about you, but the idea that this memorial featuring "an embracing gesture of the crash site" evokes the 'we had it coming' attitude. There is no mention of any response to requests for patriotic symbolism? . . .to "Let's roll"? . . .to the absolute resolve to
    DEFY instead of SUBMIT?

    Even though Murdoch is open to modification suggestions, I just don't think our voices have been heard as loudly as need be.

    For heaven sake, Sandy Dahl, the wife of Flight 93 pilot Jason Dahl, took offense to the negative interpretation of the "Crescent of embrace" memorial design. She worked with the board for the memorial design for three years.

    After listening to this interview*

    I believe that she had all good intentions but is utterly clueless to the implications of this design.

    She would much prefer that the aerial view be ignored since one can find something evil in every design. She feels islam doesn't own the crescent moon and people should see the natural beauty of the crescent moon instead.

    How sad, the islamic terrorists slaughtered her husband and (even after four years) she still cannot bring herself to seek out why!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home