|
19 Jun 09 - 04:56 PM (#2660462) Subject: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: 3refs I've tried, but for the life of me I just can't understand how or why this is the way it is. Why would the US intentionally piss off a billion people by having a carving/statue that is forbidden by that faith? |
|
19 Jun 09 - 05:01 PM (#2660465) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Mrrzy Cause they have no clue? I mean, they make statues of all kinds of people, all of which are forbidden by Islam, it isn't just the Prophet you aren't supposed to represent. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 05:16 PM (#2660472) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Riginslinger What statue are we talking about? |
|
19 Jun 09 - 05:19 PM (#2660474) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: 3refs Some walls of the Court are covered with lawmakers from history. Muhammad is just one of them. Moses, Napoleon and so on. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 05:31 PM (#2660486) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: pdq The Supreme Court's job is to decide whether government actions conform to the US Constitution. They aren't responsible for interior decorating or religious opinions. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 06:03 PM (#2660500) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: 3refs So if you hang a noose from a tree, that's a no no! Rightfully so! I get that! But if you do something that's offending to another entire group of people, that's OK? Isn't Freedom of Religion written somewhere in the US constitution? Does that not mean that as a religion, you get to decide what is acceptable and what is not, within the law of the land! Or does Freedom of Religion really mean you can be whatever kind of Christian you want! |
|
19 Jun 09 - 06:04 PM (#2660501) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Riginslinger Oh, is that all! |
|
19 Jun 09 - 06:22 PM (#2660519) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Bee-dubya-ell Simple solution: Leave the statue there, but change the name of who it's supposed to represent to somebody else. It's not a free-standing statue, but part of a frieze. It can't be simply removed. It would have to be sandblasted away. Then there'd be a big ugly hole where it was and they'd have to put something else in its place. So make some minor changes, if that's what it takes, and turn it into someone else. Hell, call it Muhammad's law clerk if that will make everyone feel better. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 06:52 PM (#2660538) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: CarolC Are there any current stories about this? I wasn't able to find any more recent than 2006. I think they could easily say that it's not Muhammad, since we don't really know what Muhammad looked like (and technically, they would be right), and just call it a representation of the law under Islam, in the way we use the depiction of a woman to represent justice in this country. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 08:31 PM (#2660607) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: plnelson Isn't Freedom of Religion written somewhere in the US constitution? Not exactly. Does that not mean that as a religion, you get to decide what is acceptable and what is not, within the law of the land! Or does Freedom of Religion really mean you can be whatever kind of Christian you want! There is nothing exactly called "freedom of religion". We have "separation of church and state", otherwise known as the "Establishment Clause", i.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". What this means is that the government cannot favour one religion over another or tell you what to believe or how to practice. Making a statue of Muhammad, or, for that matter, a cartoon of him, does not violate that clause. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 08:39 PM (#2660612) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Q (Frank Staplin) This seems to be a non-story. But to fill in the background, here are descriptions of sculptural features on the Supreme Court Building and above he justices' bench. East pediment- Figures are Solon, Confucius and Moses. These are flanked by figures that symbolise ideas: Means of enforcing the law; Tempering justice with mercy; Carrying on Civilization; Settlement of Disputes between States. Architect MacNeill- "Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former covilizations. ...suggests...such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East." West pediment- Liberty guarded by figures who represent order and authority. Although these sculptures are metaphorical figures, they were cared in the likeness of real people. Right side- Chief Justie Hughes, the sculpture Robert Aitken and chief Justice Marshall as a young man. Left side- Chief Justice Taft as a youth, Sec. State Elihu Root, and the architect, Cass Gilbert. A frieze of 18 lawgivers on the wall above the justices' bench includes a portrayal of Muhammad, between Charlemagne and Justinian. The Council on American-Islamic Relations complained that the figure was shown with the Quran in one hand and a sword in the other, reinforcing stereotypes.. Chief Justice Rehnquist told CAIR the image could not be changed and explained that swords were used throughout the court's architecture as symbols of justice.. "Altering the depiction of Muhammad would impair the artistic integrity of the whole," Rehnquist wrote. "Additionally, it is unlawful (under the U. S. Code) to remove or in any way injure an architectural feature in the Supreme Court." Visitors literature was revised to explain and to show more respect for Muslim beliefs. No further complaints have been received that I can find. |
|
19 Jun 09 - 09:54 PM (#2660634) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Riginslinger The really funny thing--or maybe not--is it was included as a tribute to Muhammad, but... |
|
20 Jun 09 - 12:49 AM (#2660692) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: CarolC I'm sure the people at CAIR appreciated the sentiment. But according to their beliefs, it's a sacrilege to make any representations of Muhammad. It looks to me, though, like they have accepted the explanation they were given, and the modifications to the visitor brochure, because they lodged the complaint back in 2006, and I wasn't able to find anything more recent than that on the subject. |
|
20 Jun 09 - 01:38 AM (#2660704) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Barry Finn It's not Muhammad, it's Moses. I know you can't tell the difference & that one statue looks just like another but isn't there a statue on limits on this kind of shit? Is there a statue of Linclon saying "You can't fool all of the people all,,,,,,,,,,,,"? Barry |
|
20 Jun 09 - 07:04 AM (#2660793) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Riginslinger In any event, the statue has run! |
|
20 Jun 09 - 12:23 PM (#2660948) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Q (Frank Staplin) Barry Finn, Moses is outside, on the East Frieze, exposed to the horrible D. C. weather. Mohammad in inside, above the justices' bench, protected from vagaries of the weather and spiders' webs. Naow, don't that show proper respeck fer Muslim beliefs? |
|
21 Jun 09 - 01:29 AM (#2661304) Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Supreme Court and Muhammad From: Barry Finn shore 'nuff |