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.
Ping to a muslim apologist.
Is this a provocation too?
I’m certainly for removing Muhammed from depiction of “great law givers”.
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.
Add a layer of bacon.
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.
Destroy in the name of tolerance, muslims really do have a lot in common with liberals, both are evil decievers.
“Chief Justice William Rehnquist rejected the request to sandblast Muhammad, saying the artwork “was intended only to recognize him, among many other lawgivers, as an important figure in the history of law; it is not intended as a form of idol worship”. The court later added a footnote to tourist materials, calling it “a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor to honor Muhammad”.”
I wonder what will happen when they try it again?
Mohammed doesn’t belong in a line-up of great law-givers. So I’m all for sandblasting him out.
get rid of it
no references to Mo or his stinking cult belong anywhere in the USA particularly on US gubment property!
BAN MO NOW!!
Rehnquist declined the request to remove him from the frieze.
He is also depicted as a gargoyle on the Library of Congress building:
http://moorishsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/locfez2.jpeg
http://moorishsociety.com/tag/washington-dc/
