Does the fact that the crescent is an Islamic symbol render it forever unusable?

Of course not. But don’t you think we may want to stay away from it when designing a 9/11 memorial?

I mean, come on jimbo, where in my post do I say it should never be used? But in this ONE situation, perhpas we should consider that particular symbol to be off limits because of the connection it evokes to Islam, and therefore to the people who perverted the faith to justify those horrible attacks which brought about the need for a memorial in the first place.

I’ve heard many voices in this debate so far, and quite a few now have used the spectre of “bigotry” to defend their points.

Well I’m not a bigot and to suggest this to justify your points is beneath you. I saw the design and I was concerned. Like it or not, the terrorists who brought down the towers and who were in Flight 93 were ISLAMIC extremists and therefore a connection between them and religious symbolism does exist, however unfortunate and unfair it may seem. So frankly, do we think now is the time to be pushing the boundaries by calling part of a 9/11 memorial the “Crescent of Embrace”?

Personally, I think the answer is no and since the jurors knew that this could be a problem during their selection process, I find it completely within reason to question their decision making now.

As I stated I DO NOT agree with the points made but those are saying tha the designers purposefully did this and created this for the terrorists. That’s IS an assinine idea. But does a connection exist? Of course, otherwise nobody would be talking about it.

Crescents have been used all throughout history and I hope they continue to be used. But in this ONE situation, I think it’s unwise. That’s my position.