Don’t Take Flight 93 To Mecca 5-26-2009
by Big Dog on May 26, 2009 at 05:08 Flight 93, Political
Two Memorial Project Commission members quit over the Project’s bad behavior
Two Pennsylvanian’s quit the Flight 93 Memorial Commission last week, protesting Park Service plans to condemn five crash-site properties that it never negotiated for in good faith. Consider the case of the Lambert family, who have been on their land for three generations:
“It’s absolutely a surprise. I’m shocked by it. I’m disappointed by it,” said Tim Lambert, who owns nearly 164 acres that his grandfather bought in the 1930s. The park service plans to condemn two parcels totaling about five acres – land, he said, he had always intended to donate for the memorial.
“To the best of my knowledge and my lawyer, absolutely no negotiations have taken place with the park service where we’ve sat down and discussed this,” Lambert said.
Lambert said he had mainly dealt with the Families of Flight 93 and said he’s provided the group all the information it’s asked for, including an appraisal.
They are condemning land that he was trying to GIVE to them, just because he had the gall to expect the Park Service to actually do its part.
Project members have embraced the “absolute moral authority” conceit
How dare anyone not rush to give these grieving 9/11 family members whatever they want? Didn’t they hear Maureen Dowd’s proclamation that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq [or on 9/11] is absolute”?
When crash-site owner Mike Svonavec put up a donation box to try to cover some of the cost of hiring security guards for the hugely popular Temporary Memorial, Patrick White, cousin of Flight 93 hero Louis Nacke, told the press:
That land has been paid for with 40 lives … the donation box is an insult to that cost.
When Svonavec insisted that the Park Service follow its own legally required procedures for assessing property values (procedures that, as it happens, take into account current property values, not just pre-crash property values), White accused Svonavec of trying to profit from the blood of his cousin:
“I think Svonavec believes his land, because it has the blood of my cousin and 39 other people, it’s worth more,” he said.
Using the flag of victim-hood to defend Paul Murdoch’s terrorist memorial mosque
Project members use the same trick to deflect criticism of the giant Islamic-shaped crescent that is now being built on the crash-site. When people point out the hidden terrorist memorializing features-things that no one knew about when the Crescent of Embrace design was chosen-like the Mecca-orientation of the giant crescent, or the 44 glass blocks emplaced along the flight path, Project members not only deny these easy to verify facts, but they pretend that they are being accused of intending to honor the terrorists:
“That’s an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact,” said Edward Felt’s brother, Gordon Felt [about the 44 blocks claim].
He says he is insulted people would believe he would participate in anything that honored his brother’s killers.
In The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter slammed the media for granting the Jersey Girls an “absolute moral authority” card, not questioning the Girls’ practice of blaming the Bush administration instead of al Qaeda for their husband’s deaths on 9/11. The Jersey Girls were bad enough, but nowhere is the flag of victim-hood being used to cover up more bad behavior than at the Memorial Project.
Active cover-up of an ongoing Islamic supremacist plot
Like the Jersey Girls, the Memorial Project gives Islam a pass for 9/11. Project members might not have known about the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace, but they DID know that it was a giant Islamic-shaped crescent. Now they are doing far worse. Now they DO know that the giant crescent points almost exactly at Mecca, and are consistently misleading the press about it.
Their own Muslim consultant told them not to worry about the Mecca-oriented crescent, claiming that it can’t be seen as a mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built) unless it points EXACTLY at Mecca (a claim that was contradicted earlier this month by Saudi religious authorities).
So what does Project Supervisor Joanne Hanley say when asked about the Mecca-orientation claim?
The only thing that orients the memorial is the crash site.
They are actively and knowingly covering up clear evidence of an ongoing al Qaeda sympathizing plot. Bad behavior indeed.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: blogburst, Flight 93, Mecca
The egregious use of “Eminent Domain” to grab the land for this false memorial is but another example of the overreaching of the federal government and the blatant placation of Islam. The heck with Islam- this is a Judeo- Christian Nation, and there should be NO placation, or kowtowing to Islamic religion. It has no place in our history- Islam has to earn its way FIRST, and so far, its not looking good.
The claims of this article are so bizarre it’s hard for a non crazy person to grasp them.
Let’s see if I get this right:
The US Parks Service is overtly trying to build a monument to honor Islam on the flight 93 crash site?
Oh my.
BLAKE said: “The heck with Islam- this is a Judeo- Christian Nation…”>>
DAR
No actually, we’re not. There was a treaty drafted under Washington’s administration and signed by John Adams. It’s quite specific. The pertinent part reads as follows:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
–Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by John Adams
Our treaties are binding law.
If we are a “Judeo- Christian Nation” why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
If we are a “Judeao- Christian Nation,” why were none of our first six presidents Christian? Note:
“One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.”
–The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420.
If you would like to learn more about this “Christian Nation” issue I recommend starting with this short and informative tract:
“Is America a Christian Nation?”
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php
It’s a doosey, all true, and you’ll learn lots.
D.
—————
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
–Thomas Jefferson, The Jefferson Bible
When John Adams said that we were not founded on the Christian religion, he was emphasizing the non exclusionary extent with which we tolerate religions of other types- everyone’s welcome- but it is true that our precepts of law have come from a basic understanding of the Ten Commandments.
Now I know you love to argue, but how many angels on the head of a pin types of arguments bore me. The fact that while Christianity is not our “state” religion, nor should any religion be so, the fact is that a majority of this country is Christian, just as the majority in Iran is S’hia.
That’s just a fact.
BLK
it is true that our precepts of law have come from a basic understanding of the Ten Commandments.
SAV
Oh really? To which of the three versions of the Ten Commandments are you referring?
Let’s talk about a few commandments:
“Thou shalt not have any other Gods before me.”
But right there in the Constitution, we find the protection of the right to have whatever religious beliefs we want. This certainly cannot be considered a precept of law that has come from a “basic understanding of the Ten Commandments.” Fail.
“Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain.”
There is no law against how God’s name is used. Fail.
“Thou shalt not make graven images/idols.”
No law against this one either. Fail.
“Keep the Sabbath holy.”
There is no law against Sabbath-breaking. Fail.
“Honor thy father and mother.”
No law mandates “honoring” your parents, whatever that means. Fail.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
There is no law against adultery. Fail.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s [property].”
There are no laws against thoughts. You may wish you had your neighbor’s wife, but such a wish is not a violation of law. Fail.
“Thou shalt not murder.”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness.”
“Thou shalt not steal.”
These are the only three commandments codified into law. But these three moral codes preexist Christianity and exist in modern societies where Christianity cannot possibly be argued to be the basis for the law. These mandates neither originated with Christianity nor are perpetuated because of it. Fail.
BLK
… the fact is that a majority of this country is Christian…
SAV
So if the majority of this country is female, does that make the country a “female nation”? a “feminine nation”? How can you possibly think that a majority in this context has any real meaning?
The laws of this nation were from the Ten Commandments as well as others such as the Code of Hammurabi. The Ten Commandments are inscribed in the door of the Supreme Court.
There are laws against adultery, most of them are civil laws.
And Blake did not say all of them came from the TC, just from a basic understanding. There are plenty of symbols relating to laws of others around the SCOTUS and no doubt we draw some of our laws from them.
DOG
The Ten Commandments are inscribed in the door of the Supreme Court.
SAV
Let’s suppose that this were true. Would this negate the afore-mentioned points that U.S. law is demonstrably not based upon any of the multiple versions of the ten commandments?
The fact is that the commandments themselves are not on the door; instead, the building as a whole — designed of course by architects and artists, not lawyers — contains allusions to multiple notions of law and justice. Why pick a single one and pretend that it must be the defining source? Even you, Dog, realize that that’s nonsense:
DOG
“There are plenty of symbols relating to laws of others around the SCOTUS and no doubt we draw some of our laws from them.”
SAV
No doubt that varied societies have overlapping statutes because of common moral values, even in those societies that developed these laws largely independently of others.
DOG
There are laws against adultery, most of them are civil laws.
SAV
So it’s hardly a legal thing at all, decided by *some* states at the *state* level, not the federal level. Evidence that this is a Christian *nation*? No.
DOG
And Blake did not say all of them came from the TC, just from a basic understanding.
SAV
But I’ve shown that that’s crap, too. The only three codified did not come from a basic understanding of the Ten Commandments but from laws that predated the commandments. Do try to keep up, Big Dog.
DOG
No but most liberals are feminine, even the guys.
SAV
And most liberals I know aren’t insecure enough to be baited by immature potshots taken in ignorance. In fact, we’re quite happy merely mentioning how pathetic it makes the shooters look.
In his frieze sculptor Herman A. MacNeil pays tribute to the civilizing effects of legal authority. A trio of ancient lawgivers—Moses, flanked by Confucius and Solon. If it’s Moses, what do you suppose he’s got propped on his knees?
The Courtroom friezes were designed by sculptor Adolph Weinman. These friezes are located well above the courtroom bench, on all four walls. The South and North wall friezes form a group that depicts a procession of 18 important lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Moses is holding blank tablets. The Moses figure is no larger or more important than any other lawgiver.
The oak doors separating the courtroom from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building contain a representation of tablets bearing the Roman numerals one through ten; the Commandments themselves are not written out. The tablets depiction is located on the inside bottom of the doors.
Good points “mother.”
Snopes has a good debunk of a common letter that gets passed around about this. It’s worth checking out because it has pictures of these things too:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp
The idea that the ten commandments were the foundation of “the laws of this nation” is such an old howler (yet we here it today) I am going to back about 115 years and quote Robert Ingersoll who answered this well in his day:
***
“Some Christian lawyers — some eminent and stupid judges — have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.
Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt — laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as old as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love….
If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: ‘Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men.’
He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: ‘The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband.’
He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: ‘Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence’….
All that we call progress — the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages — has been done in spite of the Old Testament.”
–(About the Holy Bible, 1894). [From Robert E. Nordlander, quoting Robert Ingersoll)
As my Bible scholar friend Ralph once put it:
“The Commandments in Exodus 20 are un-American, unconstitutional, immoral, and irrelevant. The first one, to worship only Jahweh, is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. So is the one about keeping the Sabbath (which lasts from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday).
The holding of slaves is contrary to the 14th Amendment. Punishing children for the sins of the parents unto the third and fourth generation is child abuse, and therefore immoral. But the Commandments are entirely irrelevant to non-Jews, because they are specifically addressed to the
Hebrews by their God Jahweh.”
–Ralph Nielsen
The First Commandment is not a violation of the First Amendment. If the Commandment were law it would not be Congress establishing an official religion of the state. In fact, the writer is wrong because there is no Constitutional provision for separation fo church and state. That does not exist and the quote comes from a letter written by Jefferson, a quote that was taken out of context.
The Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion NOT PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. In other words, people may worship as they see fit and the Congress may not make a law establishing s state religion (as the one they left; the Church of England).
Please familiarize yourself with case law and findings (especially the Lemon test) while you’re brushing up on your law. Madison and Jefferson championed non-interference even before the Constitutional Convention, and a reading of the Danbury letter makes it clear that Jefferson meant exactly what he said: no governmental meddling in religion.
What I always find incredible is that the loons who ought to be happy that the government doesn’t pick sides are the ones who insist that separation is a farce.
But the question of separation doesn’t even matter in this case. It’s really quite simple: The First Commandment says that you have no choice; there is one god and no other gods can be accepted before that one god. The First Amendment guarantees you from being penalized for not accepting what the First Commandment says. Thus, the First Commandment is NOT the basis for any U.S. law and is in fact contradictory to the Constitution.
The Danbury Baptists wondered about this and Jefferson answered them with his letter. But he wasn’t the only fellow to refer to this separation of church and state (he coined the word “wall”).
Regarding your claim that there is “no Constitutional provision for separation of church and state.” Let’s ask James Madison his opinion. I’ll limit myself to three examples:
***
1) MARCH 2, 1819
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
Source of Information:
Letter to Robert Walsh from James Madison. March 2, 1819 Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, in Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. Vol. III, J. B. Lippincott & Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty, Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
2) JUNE 3, 1811
“To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.”
Source of Information:
Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress, Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865), pp 511-512.
3) 1817-1833
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents’ already furnished in their short history. . . .”
Source of Information:
Madison’s Detached Memoranda. This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison’s hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946
***
DAR
They teach this stuff in elementary school I am sure, but apparently it cannot counteract an entire Christian Nation industry (David Barton etc.) that has devoted itself to spreading revisionist lies about basic American history.
I have many more examples of course. It’s a bit of a specialty.
No but most liberals are feminine, even the guys.
Is Savonarola a friend of Darrel or is Darrel pretending to be someone else. The response style is exactly the same and the arguments are like group think. This must be one of the friends from the anti religion cult who thinks it is necessary to parse words and try to demean. Like the idea that the 3 commandments codified predate Christianity. Sure they do, the Ten Commandments were written to the Jews by God long before Christ arrived. This is a Judeo Christian nation regardless of what some might tell you.
Well, the Obama voters say since they got a majority that makes this the nation of Obama and they act like it.
I think they are on to something. It is an Obamination…
DOG
Is Savonarola a friend of Darrel or is Darrel pretending to be someone else.
SAV
I’m someone else. You can also find me on the Fayetteville Freethinkers forum.
DOG
The response style is exactly the same and the arguments are like group think.
SAV
The style is effective. How do I know? You’re arguing against the style and making accusations of groupthink instead of actually addressing the arguments with responses that aren’t nonsense.
DOG
This is a Judeo Christian nation regardless of what some might tell you.
SAV
Repeat until people accept it, huh? And you accuse me of parsing words. Is the majority of the population Christian? Yes. Does that make this country a “Christian nation” in any meaningful way? No. I tried demonstrating this with an analogy, but apparently you can’t quite grasp sixth grade logic.
DOG
Well, the Obama voters say since they got a majority that makes this the nation of Obama and they act like it.
SAV
No, it makes Obama the President, and it makes the Democrats have a majority in both houses. Consequences of those facts are direct consequences of those facts, not direct consequences of elections.
Let’s try turning this around. Suppose the majority of people are Muslims. Does that make this a “Muslim nation” in any legally meaningful way? No, and you’d say the same. Would that majority give Muslims the right to impose their beliefs and morality upon you? Once again, no, and you’d say the same. But you selectively don’t quite understand this when it doesn’t work in a way that allows you to take shots at people who don’t share your views. Interesting, don’t you think?
Your analogy was comparing a gender majority to a religious majority. And, had you used the analogy of, “So if the majority of this country is male, does that make the country a ‘male nation’?” the answer from me would be “It was when the nation was created and up until women were given equal rights”.
BIGD: must be one of the friends… who thinks it is necessary to parse words and try to demean.>>
DAR
This from a person who just the other day thought it wasn’t sexist to demean a woman by calling her the most vile and insulting name for her genitalia?
Sometimes the hypocrisy and inconsistency here takes the breath away.
Regarding “this is a Judeo Christian nation regardless.” I’ve already shown in binding law, a treaty, that the “United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
That seems pretty straight forward.
And you ducked my question:
If we are a “Judeo- Christian Nation” why did they completely forget to mention this in our *Godless* constitution?
Wouldn’t that have been a good thing to mention?
D.
—————–
“The obvious first step in seeking out our nation’s origins is to read its founding documents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity. There is also no reference to any Christian church-Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist-nothing. Not a word, nor a hint. If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it.” –Judith Hayes
Look up the definition of sexist and tell me how that meets the criteria. I did not discriminate based upon sex. I treated the women no differently than the men and I use that to refer to people who try to insult conservatives. I would call your mother one if she insulted me.
Equal rights and opportunity.
“Look up the definition of sexist and tell me how that meets the criteria.”
DAR
Bigd, I am for freedom of speech. I am with George Carlin and think you should use whatever words you like. No exceptions. On our freethinker forum we don’t ban words.
It’ just curious that you find it important to set your filter to not let a person type the word “circumstance” without it being censored and yet you at the same time have no trouble posting the most harsh and demeaning word available to use toward women.
It’s just curious behavior.
I am not one who things inserting a few asterisks makes any difference.
Leaving religion aside for a moment, the First Amendment says no such thing and you are, as is usual, distorting it. Jefferson said there should be a wall of separation between church and state and he was saying that the Government should not be getting involved in religion. No matter what you think it means, it says that Congress will make no law establishing religion and that the right to exercise religion shall not be prohibited.
That means freedom OF religion not freedom from it.
As far as filtering words. The software filters out the things you say. The other word you mention is filtered as well. I have no problems with people saying what they want and the fact that you do not filter at your place is good for you and your right. At my place I am free to filter and since there are people who come here who do not like that kind of stuff then it is filtered. And I don’t want to end up in search results for filthy sites. I cannot (or do not know how to) change the filter to keep it from filtering words that are legitimate.
It is not curious behavior. Some words sneak in but even when I use my reference it is not done directly.
If we were talking somewhere we could say whatever. But we are not the only ones who read this and people of all ages and all beliefs read it and they do not need to see vulgarity.
I am sure you can express yourself without it.
So I am curious. If you NOW want to look at what the Founders said about religion (and we can find many examples of them mentioning it one way or another) why not look at what the guys who wrote the other amendments said?
Why not look at the Second and determine it is Individual because it is among the individual rights and the guys who wrote it said so.
Why not look at the 14th and see that the guys who wrote it expressly said that children of non US parents born here were not citizens?
But, Jefferson and the others were discussing government encroachment into religion, not the other way around.
A Cross in a cemetery is OK, the Menorah in a building is OK. Nor shall they prohibit the free expression (free means anywhere).