This is akin to logic seen earlier in this thread, for example references to the crescent wrench. Context is everything. It's not just that it's a memorial in the shape of a crescent. I don't think anyone would universally object to a particular shape because it happens to be used by a particular group of people. That's stupid.
I, for example, despise the Christian church, and their symbol is the cross, but I'd take no issue with the use of a cross shape in all sorts of situations - it's a common and aesthetically pleasing shape.
However the case in point isn't a tool, it isn't a building, it isn't a delicious snack - it isn't even just some generic memorial. It's a memorial specifically to an event which is directly and undeniably linked to an entity that uses the given symbol to represent itself.
There's two distinct arguments here.
One is:
"You shouldn't use a symbol that is often associated with Islam for a memorial because Muslims are our enemies"
This is the argument of the conservative, the extreme right winger, and it's obviously an invalid argument.
But there's also:
"You shouldn't use a symbol that is often associated with Islam to commemorate victims of Islamic Terrorism"
I think this argument has far more validity than the first one.
And the distinction between these two arguments is not mere semantics, it's rather fundamental. So if you're going to bash Brainster for holding position 1, make sure he does actually hold position 1 first, because frankly to me it sounds more like he's arguing point 2. And whether you agree or not, he shouldn't be lumped in with idiots arguing point 1 if he's actually arguing point 2.
IMHO as always.
Andrew,
You hear what I'm saying, but you're not getting the meaning. I agree that crescent wrench, pillsbury crescent rolls, and croissants are absurd things to get one's shorts in a knot about. That's why I'm using them! To emphasize the absurdity. You're taking my words at face value and not reading the sarcasm and the absolute absurdity and moral outrage I feel over this issue.
The point I'm making is that we've allowed the word to be co-opted to represent just one thing. Are you actually going to the extreme to say that anyone using any design in the shape of a crescent or semi-circle, in any structure that might have something to do with history, civics, jurisprudence, health and well-being, etc... Is going to be eschewed because someone sees a political symbol for a religion which they seem to think they're at war with.
The crescent is seen in many structures. It's part of the design, as I mentioned in any wide-set amphitheatre. Are you going to give up theatre because of the imagined political connotations?
And I'd say you should think more about your example in the previous post. The swastika is a hated symbol for a reason. (None of that crap about it being a good luck symbol in some cultures, everyone knows which crooked cross we're talking about.) It was the emblem of the Democratic Socialist/Nazi Party in Germany.
And the crescent? I haven't noticed it as part of the logo of AQ, have you? It's a symbol to hundreds of millions of muslims the world over. It says to them "Here is a representation of your faith. It is important to our XXXXX (country, organization, state, whatever)." It does not say, "Hey let's strap on bombs and murder innocent toddlers in a mall." People says those things,... idiotic murderous malevolent people. And idiotic murderous malevolent jackals follow them. But they ARE NOT representative of the entire population that follows Islam.
The logic of ignoring a cross-shape in a design, does not work for me. On the one hand, you despise the church, yet seeing a cross embedded in something does not get your ire up. Even if you haven't stated that you despise Islam, let's assume that you hold the same opinions of that faith as you do Christianity. (I do, by the way.... I'm anti organized religion of any sort, so I'm not trying to sneak a rhetorical point in here.)
Why then would the crescent, a naturally occuring shape, a common design element, and just coincidentally a symbol of a religion.... Why would it get any more attention or reaction from you than the cross-shape used by many in modern architecture?
I'll let Brainster speak for himself.
But, yes... I think it was a coincidence of the design, much like Apple Mecca that got so much attention a few years ago, and people with axes to grind have taken over the discussion and made a mountain out of a mole hill. The argument would just be silly if it wasn't for the constant waffling of intelligent people trying to justify the utterances of their sacred cows, IMHO.
With apologies to Alan King, who I think I stole this from:
Guy has his first appointment with a shrink.
Doctor: "Well, Mr. Taylor, I'm going to show you some ink blots, here, and you just tell me the first thing that comes into your mind when I turn up the card. We're not looking for any particular answer. There is no right or wrong, just mention the first thing that you think of."
Taylor: 'Kay
Doctor: This one?
Taylor: Tits
Doctor: Okay, and then this one?
Taylor: A woman's ass.
Doctor: Another?
Taylor: More tits.
Doctor: And this one?
Taylor: Heh, heh, that's a vagina, doc!
Doctor: Mmm, okay, I think that's enough. It's quite obvious that you're obsessed with sex, Mr. Taylor.
Taylor: Me???? You're the one showing me all those dirty pictures!
