Posted on 05/06/2015 8:39:17 AM PDT by FR_addict
Offended by a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad etched in marble inside the U.S. Supreme Court chamber, a coalition of Muslim organizations is quietly pushing to have the artwork sandblasted into propriety.
A petition signed by 16 groups across the country has asked that the larger-than-life frieze of great lawgivers be altered "in the spirit of religious tolerance and pluralism" because Islamic tradition discourages artistic renderings of people, and showing the face of Muhammad is considered particularly offensive.
The Supreme Court refused to comment publicly on the controversy, but coalition spokesman Nihad Awad said there already has been one "fruitful" meeting and "a lot of phone calls" since the 66-year-old artwork first came to its attention three months ago. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
So will they attack the Supreme Court next or did they give in and alter the image?
Sounds good to me! Let’s go further and ban mosques and Korans.
Perps and pervs always hide their faces
I’d make them a deal: We will sandblast Mad Mo from the Freize just as soon as we sandblast Islamofacist influence from this country and this administration.
Stop the Islamization of America before is too late.
Hear Hear!! but not before Obama attends the opening of the 1/10th of a billion dollar Turkey finances Maryland mosque. I am pretty sure I have the facts on that one right. Also, horrified to see how many mosques in US. and mortified to see story in FOX LATINO bragging about the defeat in battle of Americans against Mexico in the early 1900s. There I am done lol.
Al my frustrations in one text.
BTW, anyone good with windows know WTH I did to make a my fonts get so much smaller, as well as icons!!!
Changing font and icon size to larger the usual way didn’t work
Ping to a muslim apologist.
Is this a provocation too?
I’m certainly for removing Muhammed from depiction of “great law givers”.
And let public entities know that they don’t have to provide accommodations so Muslims can stick their butts in the air.
In the interest of pluralism.
This “defacing” of a relief sculpture would perhaps make sense if indeed there had been an unbroken tradition of NO images of Mohammed. However, even the Muslims broke this rule in ancient Persian manuscripts from centuries ago. So give me a break.
In the spirit of fairness, let’s have a rematch and see who captures the most troops.
Add a layer of bacon.
Hold down control key and roll the middle button on mouse shifts overall size of icons and fonts. A quick adjustment for public monitors to match your eyes.
The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with:
Oxford Dictionary.
...the EXISTENCE of... The muslims and other groups of radicals want to wipe out the existence of everything they don’t agree with.
If Amish do not drive cars, then they themselves should not drive cars. It doesn’t mean that others must follow this rule of their religion.
If Muslims do not permit images of Mohammed, then they themselves should not create images of Mohammed or take them into their homes, businesses, or mosques. It doesn’t mean that others must follow this rule of their religion.
This is not difficult to understand.
Remember the outrage when the Taliban destroyed the 1,700 year old statues of Buddha in the Bamyan valley of Afghanistan back in 2001?
Isn’t the motivation for erasing the depiction of Muhammad etched inside the U.S. Supreme Court chamber the same as that leading to the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas?
The purpose of both actions is to eliminate anything offensive to muslims.
In Iran there are billboards and public murals that show Mohammad today.
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.