It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Muslim leaders Object to Mohammed sculpture on top US court

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   
uhg...This is why I'm glad that I dont follow/listen to any religious beliefs.

Anything involving a religion is automatically gonna be view completely different judging by what your own religion is.


As far as the statue...I dont really care if it stays or goes...I'll only take an interest if it gets violent, and riots occur...But it wouldn't get nearly as bad in the US as it has in the EU...cause roit police would have allready beat the crap out of those protesters.




posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
some of you guys need to take a chill pill I think.....

-------------------------------------

"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.""

(taken from the news article in the original post)

--------------------------------

this is rather old news really if it's already been through the courtsystem. why, all of a sudden is it coming to light?

the court gave their decision, the value of the artwork would be compormised too much if the image of mohammed was taken out. and the islamic community, although they disagreed with the decision....(we all never ever disagree with the decisions of the courts or government, now, do we???).....said that they appreciated the intention behind the sculpture at least...
no riots, no burning buildings, heck there was less of a ruckus than most of us will make when the next bush rumor starts to fly!! it all went down, the court hearing and all, and most of us knew nothing about it.....

so, well, lay off of our american muslims.....most of them seem to be too busy living their lives and enjoying our materialism to risk losing it all by acting so stupid......


islamic cleric after islamic cleric, fatwa after fatwa has been sent out from the middle east trying to get the islamic community to blow up, murder, whatever, this has been going on since before 9/11.......

and well, much to the dismay of the militant muslims......all has been rather quiet on the american front over here.. my guess it will remain that way unless WE act stupid and give them a reason to "fight" our oppressive behavior.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's been there for almost 75 years.
And I'm sure it
was probably put up there to placate Muslims to begin with
so they wouldn't claim to be disenfranchised.

geeeeeeze. Darned if you do and darned if you don't.


If they truly wanted to placate Muslims, they would have done their research and NOT MADE IT OR PUT IT THERE.

The reproduction (image, statue, painting or otherwise) of a person (and I think.. of anything living thing) is prohibited by Islamic law. Who are we to make a statue of THEIR prophet to 'placate' Muslims, if it is strictly against their laws and religion?

Why do you think mosques are filled with gemoetric shapes and patterns? Apart from being pretty..



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Are muslims the global cry-babies or what?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by moslem
do you know who is the greatest human in all the world at all times,and why


Yep, I sure do my man.... George Bush.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by moslem

Mohamed is the greatest human in the existence



I hope you realize that statement is highly subjective. I can think of far more men that have contributed to man kind then Mohamed.



And she embraces the Islam because it is the peace religion



Give me a break. You have to be kidding they will call for a jihad/holy war just because someone they do not like passes gas and you know it.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Muhamed has never contributed anything to society. NOTHING. He contribued NOTHING. Get over it you religious wack-job. Muhamed contributed nothing to this world. NOTHING!

Train



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
There is nothing wrong with what CAIR is doing.

They are going about in a legal, peaceful and respectable way. What more could you people ask for? As sardion2000 mentioned, US Christian leaders did the same thing with that TV show...Book of Daniel or something like that.

And what's the big deal taking it down, not that I think it should removed. But any other time people would say that it should have never been up there in the first place, and now that it may have a chance of being removed the same people wish to keep it up just to piss of the Muslims.


It agreed, however, to change literature about the sculpture to refer to Mohammed as the "prophet" rather than the "founder" of Islam

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

About the "prophet" vs. "founder" thing. I don't see anything wrong with having something like Mohammed is believed to the prophet according to Islam or the Koran or whatever else. But History and the story or whatever of the people above the supreme court are "supposed" to be as factual as possible....and saying that Muhammed is a prophet is not cool for American History.

And yeah, when it some to religious tolerance, Muslims do tend to be more "my way or the hi-way" than other people.






[edit on 17/2/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   


That's not Muhammad! It's Alfred E. Newman.


But if you give a chisel & hammer, and an afternoon,
I can make sure that is shows Heidi Klum holding a six - pack.


[edit on 17-2-2006 by dr_strangecraft]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I was reading these posts...

and then all of a sudden I notice that people are quoting a member named "Moslem" as saying something about who the greatest human in existence has been.

Where are his/her posts at?

Is this a common thing to have posts removed?

I smell conspiracy...


Ram

posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft


That's not Muhammad! It's Alfred E. Newman.

I never read the Koran - But how many kills did Muhammed make?

I like the sword...
Did he make that book?
who? Alfred E. Newman..


No Muhammed! - did he make that...book?
What book...? We can't say that...can we?



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by unmarked01

Where are his/her posts at?

Is this a common thing to have posts removed?

I smell conspiracy...


I would assume a MOD found the member in violation of T/C and either put the post in the trash bin where it really belonged or put the author on global ignore. You had to see the post to appreciate why it was done, it contributed nothing at all to the topic of the thread it was just a religious rant (very Very long I might add) as I saw it. No conspiracy at all.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   


Say goodbye to islam. Sometime in my lifetime, that religion is going to get swept clean, and its not only gonna be by the US, but probably most every democratic country on the planet.


That's sensible. Deal with a few terrorist attacks and a couple riots by fanatical fringe groups by launching the genocidal extermination of roughly a billion human beings, 99.999% of whom had nothing to do with any of it. Brilliant.

To the mods, why is this drivel tolerated?
If the targeted group was blacks, or Jews, or gays, or even Christians, calling for their extermination, one thinks, would garner at least a warn...

To the poster, how are your comments that Islam ought to be "swept clean" morally any different from the Iranian president's recent comments that Israel ought to be "wiped off the map"?

Congratulations, you have become exactly what you claim to despise.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
In the first place, I don't understand why such posts are allowed. First it was just plain old discussion and then it turns into Islam bashing thread. Mods, you disappoint me.


Just to make this clear, the blasphemy law does not have its basis in the Quran. However, it is instill in the Shar'ia Law as a means to keep religious tolerance and peace in any Muslim state. This applies to periods where there were Muslim states with people of multiple race and religions.

Such laws wouldn't hurt does it?

No insult to anyone's religion or faith.

That is an Islamic Law and if they want to have it and stand by it than it's their problem. Even laws such as Death Penalty are widely argued between countries. Again, if it's their law then shut it.

I guess freedom does not approve of that. (look at signature)



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram


Just to make this clear, the blasphemy law does not have its basis in the Quran. However, it is instill in the Shar'ia Law as a means to keep religious tolerance and peace in any Muslim state. This applies to periods where there were Muslim states with people of multiple race and religions.

Such laws wouldn't hurt does it?



Laws such as you propose are against the US constitution. The government cannot endorse or make any laws based on religion.


First Ammendment of Us constituation
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



As for hurting anyone if they were possible, yes they would once again our constitution guarantees us freedom of speech something that cannot be taken away from us. (see above)



[edit on 2/19/2006 by shots]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Laws such as you propose are against the US constitution. The government cannot endorse or make any laws based on religion.


First Ammendment of Us constituation
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



As for hurting anyone if they were possible, yes they would once again our constitution guarantees us freedom of speech something that cannot be taken away from us. (see above)





There are still blasphemy laws in effect in some states. I'm not sure if they're enforced now but at one time they were.

Blaspemy in Mass.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join