With the fervor over the Mohammed cartoons dying down, we happened to be checking out our archives and hit upon an old Rant about the Ten Commandments. For that Rant, we created an animation out of the actual freizes on the north and south walls of the Supreme Court to illustrate the difference between acceptable government displays containing the Ten Commandments and unacceptable ones. However, something else occured to us when we revisited the animation. Check out the figure on the north wall, second from the right (not including the allegorical representation of "Philosophy" or his nubile young boy toy):
That clinches it: the terr'ists don't hate us "for our freedom," they hate us because we put a sculpture of their unsculpturable prophet on the walls of the highest court in our land! That must be it. Now that's something to be upset about, isn't it? After all, we know damned well that any image of Mohammed is strictly forbidden, and here we are insulting Islam by — er — honoring Mohammed as an important, historical lawgiver. What bastards we are!
— • —
[Note: Yes, we're aware that we're not entirely consistent throughout our site with how we spell Mohammed, or Mohammad, or Muhammed, or whatever. Keep in mind that, technically, no (or any) English spelling of the guy's name is correct, since they're all just approximate transliterations. If we wanted to get it "right," we would've spelled it , just like the prophet himself did. Unless, of course, that would piss off the hardline extremists even more. In that case, we'd write it in our own excrement.]
Cool animation, guys, and funny comments; who knew we credited Mohammed as a law influence on the Supreme Court frieze? I like that Weinman included most of the world on it, without excluding Africa or Asia as so many often do. How many Deep South courthouses can claim the same equality of "display?" Most of them just post the Ten Commandments - and think we won't notice or believe that they're trying to sneak religion into the justice system.
I loved your comment re: the kid wielding the sword. LOL.
Did anyone notice who is NOT there? Jesus.
Hmmm... I guess even the court's builders KNEW his role in US jurisprudence was non-existent. I wonder how the fundies would feel if people started saying we should follow the Sharia, since Mohammed IS there.
Of course, they could argue it supports their crusading madness, since several of those figures were imperialists -- Napoleon, Charlemagne, Louis IX, Justinian. Not exactly great role models for a democratic court system.