Posted on 02/07/2006 3:24:55 PM PST by new yorker 77
Tue Feb 7, 3:54 PM ET Close up of the Supreme Court building in Washington, DC. Amid an international outcry over cartoons of Mohammed, some American Muslim leaders have expressed concern about depictions of the prophet at US public buildings, including the Supreme Court.(AFP/File/Nicholas Kamm)
Amid an international outcry over cartoons of Mohammed, some American Muslim leaders have expressed concern about depictions of the prophet at US public buildings, including the Supreme Court.
At the same time they draw a sharp contrast between the cartoons, which they consider blasphemous and designed to offend, and statues or sculptures meant to honor Mohammed as a historical figure and lawgiver.
"We have expressed the Muslim community's concerns about a variety of images of the Prophet Mohammed, whether it be in textbooks, editorial cartoons or even in the Supreme Court," Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told AFP.
The sculpture of the prophet at the country's top court is part of a marble frieze depicting 18 influential lawgivers, including Moses, Confucius and Charlemagne.
The sculpture of Mohammed shows him holding a Koran in his left hand and a sword in his right. The frieze has adorned the courtroom since the building opened in 1935.
Hooper said CAIR in the past has requested that the sculpture be removed, as Islamic tradition forbids any depictions of the prophet. But the court turned down the request, saying that altering the frieze would compromise its artistic integrity.
It agreed, however, to change literature about the sculpture to refer to Mohammed as the "prophet" rather than the "founder" of Islam.
"The court ruled that the good outweighed the bad ... and the community's response was one that was very tempered," said Edina Lekovic, spokeswoman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington. "They (community leaders) came out and said that they disagreed with the court ruling but they apreciated the thought and the intention behind the sculpture."
Hooper said though Muslim leader still objected to the sculpture it did not "mean we are going to force our views on others."
A statue of Mohammed that stood in the Manhattan Appellate Courthouse in New York was removed in the 1950s following protests by representatives from various Muslim nations.
CAIR in 2001 also succeeded in having a 14th century Persian painting with an image of the Prophet Mohammed removed from a PBS documentary about Islam.
There have also been cases in which US Muslim leaders have succeeded in having images of Mohammed removed from public school textbooks.
Hooper said while depictions of the prophet on public buildings or in textbooks were objectionable, they bore no resemblance to the cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper and which have sparked violent protests in the Muslim world. One of the cartoons shows the prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
"The cartoons were published with the stated intent of incitement and insult," Hooper said.
He pointed to a cartoon that appeared in various US newspapers in 2002 that showed Mohammed driving a truck with a nuclear bomb and a headline that read, "What would Mohammed drive?"
"The stated intent in that instance was political commentary, not to gratuitously insult Muslims," Hooper said. "Intent is a big factor in this whole controversy."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
For once I agree with the moslem clerics.
Take that crap off of our hallowed public buildings.
Muhammad should be removed, as a rapist, murdering pedophile, he does not belong on anything having to do with this country.
cut its head off.
I don't think we should offend the poor Muslims. Lets chisel his ugly face off the building. I bet people would pay to get a swing with a hammer.
I had no idea Mohammed was even up there.
Which one is he? The one with the bomb on his head?
Why can't we just put women's underwear on his head and call it even?
Better yet...I hope the Muslims riot and attempt to burn those buildings. We want the moonbat left to defend the indefensible. And a full retraction of that idiotic State Department statement last week condemning the publication of the cartoons.
The sculpture of Mohammed shows him holding a Koran in his left hand and a sword in his right. The frieze has adorned the courtroom since the building opened in 1935.
1935? They just now noticed? So along with being evil they are stupid and uninformed?
ROFLMAO!!!!
The Suprme Court carvings are supposed to represent great law givers. What law that anyone but Muslims would respect, and that hadn't already been "given" by earlier law givers (Moses, Hammerabi, even Budha, etc) had not previously given. Having 4 wives, divorce via unilateral declaration, etc, do not count.
Wow. Something all of us can agree on. Take it off ASAP.
AHH, a compromise solution. I like it.
Little piggies on the underwear perhaps? :)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf#search='frieze%20supreme%20court'
Here ya' go...
Deficit reduction benefit...one swing for 10k.
You forgot the pitchfork :)
"The stated intent in that instance was political commentary, not to gratuitously insult Muslims," Hooper said. "Intent is a big factor in this whole controversy."
Now I see those cartoons as "political commentary".
I also find Muslim violence and intolerance, gratuitously
insulting.
I am going to agree with the Muslims on this one....Mohammed does not belong on the Supreme Court Building and should be removed post haste. I am deeply offended!
It was not a condemnation per se, but rather something more along the lines of "we understand that the Muslims find them objectionable, we find some of them objectionable as well" BUT "we strongly defend the right of the publishers and artists to publish and create them". Not a direct quote, but go look up the actual statements (informal answers to "journalist's" questions) on the state department site (www.state.gov) contained in the daily briefings for 3 and 6 February.
"I had no idea Mohammed was even up there."
such was his importance.
Why not? The pigeons need to sh#t somewhere.
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.
This part should never have been said: "we find some of them objectionable as well"
So let's have a vote: should the image be removed by having its head cut off, being blasted off with a bomb, or having acid thrown in its face?
Preach it from the rooftops, CAIR. Go ahead and make your masses of ignorant, foaming troglodytes the world over look even stupider and more barbaric than they already do.
The Mohammed figure should have its head removed. Then it would no longer offend as it would no longer be identifiable as Mohammed.
They just now noticed it? Stupid F***s
What a bunch of wimps. Doesn't saying he is the "prophet" imply an endorsement of an establishment of religion? I could maybe live with "Said to be the prophet", or "Called the prophet", but the only thing he ever prophesied was death to infidels, and lots of nookie for himself, the younger the better.
Have they condemned 9/11 yet?
Oh and BTW, I would'nt mind if we got rid of I by a few strategically placed explosives. The basis of that cult has no place up there.
You can't even give honor to the Cult Of Two-Legged Pig People without having them burst into whatever "emotion" it is that they've been expressing lately.
I've given up trying to define the "emotion" because I don't believe it has a human equivalent. It's like....if road apples could throw temper-fits.
Chisel that f*cker off the frieze and replace him with someone who wasn't a psychopath.
An even better idea!
I find some of them objectionable as well. Some of them show old Mo as simple camel herder, with no hint that he was really a murderous whacked out nut job, with a taste for young, very young females.
Tear the hateful pedophile off that building! Send the statue home with one of his buddies... like Teddy drunken Kennedy.
Ha ha! Charlemagne is right next to Muhammad, clutching a sword, staring him down, with a look on his face that just screams "see this? It's a large life-ending instrument."
Couldn't we find something that includes pig parts in it?
Maybe we could just plaster it over with bacon. :)
"Have they condemned 9/11 yet?"
Haven't you heard? 9/11 was an expression of muslim oppression. similar to the failure of our government to give all our money to the slums of pre-katrina slums. the world needs to be more sennnnnnnnnnnsitive. Problem is, if you cut off the head of the DMV clerk who is taking too long to get your driver's license renewed, usually the 50 or 60 people behind you tend to get upset. No real basis for a culture or government. "The Horror, the Horror."
Put a burka on him.
Maybe, after removing it from the Supreme Court, someone can build two giant replicas in the caves where the Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues.
And plaster them over with bacon.
Muhammad, the first Islamic terrorist.
Muhammad, the first Islamic terrorist.
Yeah, put it somewhere where I can piss on it.
Do they support removal of this statue in the name of separation of church and state, and in support of excruciatingly sensitive multi-culti consideration of the feelings of the poor offended Muslims?
Or do they squawk about artistic integrity and "artist's rights" and freedom of speech, as they do every time workers in some office building get tired of a modern turd-in-the-yard sculpture and push for the eyesore to be hauled off to the dump?
Decisions, decisions... In the end, I suspect it will come down (as usual) to whichever choice gives them the best opportunity to parade their sneering, preening contempt for bourgeois Amerikkka in front of their comrades.
-ccm
Well, he is represented with Napoleon and King John, neither of which are particularly illustrious. It is interesting to note, though, how many of the other figures have him under surveillance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.