9/11 Tribute in Madison Gets it Right
September 12, 2005
Posted by kris at September 12, 2005 07:20 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1077
I meant to go take a picture of this cool 9/11 tribute from the Mendota Beacon on UW-Madison's Bascom Hill yesterday, but the Ironman traffic made traveling downtown nearly impossible. So, even though it's not original photography, it's still pretty nice:
There's a flag for each victim of the attacks. It's a much more fitting memorial then either the International Freedom Center or the Crescent of Embrace.
After seeing the excellent Flight 93 documentary, The Flight That Fought Back on the Discovery Channel last night, I'm even more upset about the horrible crescent-shaped memorial to those brave men and women. I don't buy that it's just a coincidence that the memorial incorporates the Islamic symbol. Especially when the center of said crescent just happens to point towards Mecca.
I find it very hard to believe that either than International Freedom Center or this Crescent will ever actually get built. Americans, outside of looney lefties, are not ones to flog themselves.
Posted by kris at September 12, 2005 07:20 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1077
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # September 13th, 2005 2:49 PM mbrlr |
| I actually agree with you that it was a bit impolitic to do that, although I do think the creator of the piece made the error unintentionally.
But demonizing Islam isn't the way to go on dealing with all of this. Islam produced, amazingly fast, a culture and civilization that made both the Christian religious and civic cultures of the middle ages (those would be the cultures we came from, essentially) in both East and West look quite deserving of the "dark ages" label. Perhaps we might react to this current era in the islamic religion and culture by thinking that perhaps they're going through their own dark ages, with zealots behind every corner, but we should not label the entire religion as evil or think that islam was responsible for the downing of the planes on 9/11. Zealots and very evil people were responsible for that and used islam merely as a cover and a means to energize the actors. You'll notice Osama didn't elect to go down with a plane or a bus...gee, we don't have Osama yet, do we? |
| # September 13th, 2005 3:05 PM kris |
| Who's demonizing Islam? I only ask that the most well-recognized symbol of Islam not be incorporated into a memorial for people who were killed by Islamic religious maniacs. Sounds reasonable enough.
Islamic culture was brilliant, I'm certainly not ignorant of that, but I don't know what that has to do with today. |
| # September 13th, 2005 3:09 PM BVBigBro |
| Curious that you ask that Islam not be demonized today, but then proceed to demonize the "christian" middle ages. |
| # September 13th, 2005 3:18 PM james |
| "gee, we don't have Osama yet, do we?"
he's dead, duh. step one to not making him into a martyr and prompting more of these whack jobs to do whack job things is not announcing that fact. islam deserves to be demonized. mullahs with allah "speaking through them." whack job civilizations where women have no rights. you defend a religion that glamorizes jihads and advocates "peace, but peace on our terms" yet you'd be the first to attack some red-stater christian for simply saying "god bless america." george bush is evil and has to go because he prays, but a mullah that declares a woman be beheaded for disobeying her husband is just practicing his religion and should be left alone. don't even try to pretend that islam is "religion of peace and tolerance." islam isn't just a religion, it's a complete system of religion belief, government, culture, conduct and way of life. one of the central tenants is INTOLERANCE for others' beliefs, or lack of them. give me a break. |
| # September 13th, 2005 3:51 PM mbrlr |
| Kris, I don't disagree. But I worry that the religion itself and not the zealots who use it as an excuse will be blamed.
I don't demonize the middle ages, but we have to recognize it wasn't one of our best times intellectually or socially. His death is not a fact. It's been stated that he is and then stated that he isn't, so reports do differ on that and I ain't seen the body. My point (big surprise) was that we seem to have forgotten he was the bad guy on 9/11 and we didn't get him. I'm sure the cave was unpleasant though, and well, Saddam was just too big a threat. Yeah, well. Just throwing a standard but true political toss from both the center and the left; I'm sure I'll get more denunciations for that. I regret that the dark ages have fallen on Islam because I know it's capable of more. However, do realize many followers of Islam aren't crazy and aren't terrorists and deserve better than to be lumped in with a bunch of crazy zealots. I wouldn't whack anybody for saying "God Bless America". I say that myself, except for that "under god" part we added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s. I won't say that because I believe in strict separation of church and state. We may have a majority of Christians, but we have folks who aren't and this is their government, too. I know the view from the right is that we started out as a Christian nation, but that isn't so. The Founders were diverse and recognized the need to honor that diversity; read Jefferson's bible to see what I mean. He thought Jesus was a really nice fellow, but that was about it. And although I don't have the cite, we actually stated on record in the very early years that we were not a Christian nation. It was in some treaty with one of the then middle eastern countries, I believe. The fact is that we are not a Christian nation and the separation of church and state protects all beliefs and has allowed us to be amazingly religious compared to other nations in the West. Separation of church and state shouldn't be viewed as a problem; it's a...well, let's call it a godsend. And I don't want Bush gone because he's evil. I want him gone at the end of his term with as little harm done to the nation as possible. Also, I don't think beheading folks is good and I believe those things should be prosecuted. States should be civil rather than religious and their laws should protect their citizens. Back to Bush...I wanted him gone initially because I thought the SC screwed up (in an opinion designated as not to be cited as precedent, oddly enough) and, post-2004, just haven't been impressed. This last bit is tragic and I wish he hadn't lived down to my expectations. Like it or not, islam is a religion and protected under our Constitution. Historically, islam's record on tolerance is actually better than ours. Take a look at pre-reconquista Spain, for example. But it, and all religions, have aspects that can be distorted and times that those distortions are legion. Examine some aspects of American Christianity; if the know-nothings on our side of the fence who refuse to acknowledge such God-given things as science and reality were used as a representative example, I'd have a very dim view of the faith. Obviously, since I'm a Christian, I don't take that dim view, but I do regret the trend and pray (no kidding) that the strict separation of church and state is honored for the sake of my country and my faith. |
| # September 13th, 2005 4:06 PM james |
| "i know the view from the right is that we started out as a Christian nation, but that isn't so. "
that's the view of the right as trumpeted by those on the left. it ain't "the right"'s view just b/c you say it is. i know the view of the left is that we should all be vegetarians.... silly. religions arent "protected" by the constitution, nor are those that practice them. the government is prevented from making laws that endorse or promote religions (first amendment), for that purpose (church of likumi-babalau-eye or something), that's it. laws that say that you cant get unemployment benefits if you use drugs dont "discriminate" against indian religions or their adherents b/c they advocate peyote use. (empl div v. smith) islam's teachings arent protected by the constitution any more than david koresh's or charles manson's were. |
| # September 14th, 2005 2:20 AM mbrlr |
| "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So... 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion 2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion 3. The freedom of speech portion also comes into this just a bit, as well There are many on the right who say we started out as a Christian nation and they ain't shy about saying it as often as they can. I think Kris (forgive me if I've gotten that wrong) actually stated it in one post. That isn't the case and it's a distortion of our history to claim that we were or are. I'm a good catholic, but I refuse to say the "under God" part of the Pledge of Allegiance, added in 1954 or thereabouts when we were fighting godless communism, and I'm even made uneasy by the "In God We Trust" on our money. I don't know offhand if that was on the money to begin with, but if so, I tend to think it was a bit of a joke on the part of Alexander Hamilton. Wow. The left wants us to be vegetarian? I'll have to move to the right, I will, rather than give up . Look, that's a silly statement to set up as an argument against the right's recent predisposition to bring us back to Jesus. As a catholic, a sect that until rather recently --- up till about 1960 --- was viewed with some fear by the general public in this country, I value the First Amendment and its clarity. Your right to believe as you believe, or not to believe at all, is protected by the First Amendment and that includes those people and beliefs that are deemed (who's doing the deeming, btw?) silly. That's the basis of the "religions are protected" language in my earlier post. The state cannot disband a church or other similar entity and say "y'all can't believe that." Can the state ban or legislate concerning certain things that may impact a specific religion or its adherents adversely? Certainly. I believe all of Manson's adherents were jailed. However, they were jailed not for their beliefs but for their actions. The peyote case cited and others in that vein also deal with the state's authority concerning actions, not belief. As with Manson, the beliefs of Koresh are protected. However, the actions that constituted violations of the law are not. I have the right under the First Amendment to believe that one of my kids (I think the younger fits this example a bit better since he's in the terrible two stage) is God come down among us once more based upon his obvious belief and actions that indicate he considers himself entitled to do just about anything he pleases. I have a perfect right to believe that, but the state has the right to legislate to make sure that Jesus, Jr. is well-cared for and that I fulfill my obligations as a parent...but I still have the right to believe that so long as I fulfill my obligations as a parent and do not violate the law. However, if the law tries to state that I may not believe he's the Lord come again, the law violates the First Amendment. I'll grant you that he'd probably be taken away from me when the state decides I'm crazy as a betsy-bug, but that decision concerning my sanity could not legally be based upon my religious beliefs. Finally, Islam is not in the same vein as Koresh or Manson. On the basis of both history and common sense, that's a bit beyond the pale. There are many, many islamic citizens of both the United States and the UK --- and many who follow the religion elsewhere --- who are not adherents of violence and they have the right to follow their faith. No one, and that includes me, is arguing that they may plan actions or participate in actions that are harmful to other citizens, but the key there is "actions" and the harm to others. I'm curious --- would you support banning the construction of mosques in the US and on what basis? Does being muslim count as some sort of probable cause to investigate? |
Log in here
or Get an Account here.