muslims butt hurt by drawings

Status
Not open for further replies.
We, as American, owe Mohammad nothing? So that means we, as American, owe Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary, God, etc. nothing either? I guess we better rewrite our entire pledge and stuff to remove the word "God" from the language. I guess we should remove Chaplains from military. I guess our soldiers should not be allowed to pray. There are thousands of fine men and women serving proudly in our armed force who worship Mohammad.

If there's one thing I like about America - it's utmost respect. Unlike other countries - we respect a lot of thing. Disregarding respect in favor of blind patriotism? no thank you. If that is how America should be like, I will gladly renounce my American citizenship.

Freizes from the SCOTUS

scotus4.jpg


Picture of Confucius and Solon standing on the sides of Moses. Moses has two blank tablets on his lap.

scoutse1.jpg


Menes (c. 3200 B.C.) First King of the first dynasty of ancient Egypt. He unified Upper and Lower Egypt under his rule and is one of the earliest recorded lawgivers. Menes is shown in the frieze holding the ankh, an Egyptian symbol for life.

Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.) King of Babylon credited with founding the Babylonian Empire. He is known for the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal codes. The first stone of the Code depicts him receiving the law from the Babylonian Sun God.

Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew. Commandments six through ten are partially visible.

Solomon (c. 900s B.C.) King of Israel and renowned judge. His name, meaning “figure of the wise man,” has become synonymous with “judicial wisdom.”

Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.) Legislator of Sparta. Lycurgus is credited with being one of the reformers of Sparta’s constitution. He left Sparta after convincing the Spartan leadership not to change his laws until he returned, but he never did.

Solon (c. 638–558 B.C.) Athenian lawgiver. He was appointed archon, an officer of state, and was charged with remodeling the Athenian constitution in 594 B.C. He was instrumental in codifying and reforming Athenian law, often revising the laws of Draco. His name has come to mean “a wise and skillful lawgiver.”

Draco (c. 600s B.C.) One of Solon’s legal predecessors in Athens. Around 620 B.C., he committed an Athenian code of laws to paper for the first time. His code included many strict penalties and death sentences, often for what seemed to be minor offenses. Thus, the word “draconian,” meaning harsh or cruel, is derived from his name.

Confucius (551–478 B.C.) Chinese philosopher whose teachings stressed harmony, learning and virtue. Within 300 years of his death, the Chinese State adopted his teachings as the basis for government. Although officially abandoned by the Chinese government in 1912, Confucianism continues to have an influence throughout the world.

Octavian (63 B.C.–14 A.D.) or Augustus. First Emperor of the Roman Empire. He brought widespread reforms to many facets of Roman life. He supported the concept of using previous opinions of leading jurists to aid in determining new disputes.

scoutse2.jpg


Justinian (c. 483–565) Byzantine Emperor from 527 until his death. He ordered the codification of Roman law and published Corpus Juris Civilis. This work was instrumental in preserving Roman law and encompassed what has become known as the Justinian Code.

Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.

Charlemagne (c. 742–814) or Charles I (the Great). King of the Franks and Roman Emperor. Charlemagne was reportedly an avid student who became an eloquent speaker of several languages and supported learning and literature throughout his realm. Under his leadership, most of Western Europe was united by 804 becoming the foundation for the Holy Roman Empire. He was also a reformer of legal, judicial and military systems.

King John (1166–1216) born John Lackland. King of England from 1199 until his death. His policies and taxation caused his barons to force him to sign the Magna Carta. This document, depicted in the frieze as a scrolled document in his hand, is regarded as the foundation of constitutional liberty in England.

Louis IX (c. 1214–1270) King of France who was canonized as St. Louis in 1297. He led the 7th and 8th Crusades and created the first court of appeals known as the “Curia Regis” or “King’s Court.”

Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) or Huig de Groot. Dutch scholar, lawyer and statesman. He is depicted holding De jure belli ac pacis (Concerning the Law of War and Peace), one of the first books on international law, which he wrote in 1625.

Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780) English law professor and jurist. He wrote Commentaries on the Law of England (1765–1769), which has had a major influence on English and American law.

John Marshall (1755–1835) Fourth Chief Justice of the United States, from 1801 to 1835. His 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison stated that the Supreme Court of the United States had the authority to determine the constitutionality of a law, establishing the power of judicial review for the Court.

Napoleon (1769–1821) Emperor of France from 1804 to 1815. He ordered and directed the recodification of French law into what became known as the Code Napoleon or Civil Code. Published in 1804, this code formed the basis for modern civil law. Napoleon, at St. Helena, is reported to have said, “My glory is not to have won forty battles; for Waterloo’s defeat will destroy the memory of as many victories. But what nothing will destroy, what will live eternally, is my Civil Code.”
scotusnfrieze.jpeg


The above is a close-up of a figure of Muhammad with a sword and Qu'ran in his hands. His face is shown here.


PDF: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
PDF: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
 
Last edited:
I missed nothing. I just disagree with a great deal of disgust. If not to honor the troops it could still be to respect families in mourning. Even the Qur'an teaches about proper mourning :)

My point isn't just about soldiers vs. Muhammad. It's about any belief vs. any other belief. One shouldn't just be disregarded because it's not shared by all.
 
My point isn't just about soldiers vs. Muhammad. It's about any belief vs. any other belief. One shouldn't just be disregarded because it's not shared by all.

Who said disregard????? There is a tremendous difference between not owing and disregard
 
Who said disregard????? There is a tremendous difference between not owing and disregard

btw - I've never ever said we "owed" it to Mohammad. I said we SHOULD show some respect - the same respect we extended it to our fellow men and women in uniforms. That's what makes us a better citizen than others.
 
Who said disregard????? There is a tremendous difference between not owing and disregard

By saying that "Americans" owe nothing to Muhammad and owe something to soldiers, you're disregarding the beliefs of Americans who do believe they owe something to Muhammad. By trying to point out that worshipping Muhammad is a choice and not pointing out that respecting soldiers is also a choice, you're putting your own beliefs before the beliefs of others.
 
Nice ramble...... But the point is as a nation we owe respect to our troops. They fight for all of us. Not all of the nation follows Mohammad.....do we owe respect, as a nation, to Mohammed or do we honor freedom of speech and allow those that want to mock Mohammad do so. :dunno: and frankly don't care. But I do know any respect we owe Mohammad as a nation is in no way equal to what we owe the troops. And that was the point.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We, as Americans, should show some respect to all people of all background and religion especially those who serve in armed forces.

You ask "do we honor freedom of speech and allow those that want to mock Mohammad?" and you frankly don't care but you care that we suspended freedom of speech for out of respect by censoring media coverage on our fallen soldiers because of disrespectful war protesters?

I don't know about you but I believe every men and women in uniforms will defend to the death your right to say it even if they detest what war protesters say. The President should not have enacted ban on media coverage.
 
By saying that "Americans" owe nothing to Muhammad and owe something to soldiers, you're disregarding the beliefs of Americans who do believe they owe something to Muhammad. By trying to point out that worshipping Muhammad is a choice and not pointing out that respecting soldiers is also a choice, you're putting your own beliefs before the beliefs of others.

Wrong.....I am not saying that some American's do not owe respect to Mo.....I am saying the nation as a whole does not owe Mo any respect....keyword owe.

However...all Americans owe respect to the Men and Women who defend our nation whether they choose to give it or not. I pointed out already that, sadly, American's do have a choice to disrespect these brave people. AND I pointed out the irony that the military fights to give them that right. Apparently you need to read more carefully. But the fact that the military fights to protect this nation is not a belief. It's a fact.

If people choose not to respect our service members that is their choice. And it is my choice to be disgusted by those pieces of dung. And it is my right to believe that those people don't deserve to live under Our flag.

Ain't rights grand.
 
Thank you for ignoring the point in favor of semantics. However it is still correct that some (the word I used) choose to worship Mo be it proper or not.

I have gotten past the 100 level of world religions myself. Not something I care to waste alot of time on here at AD. My post had nothing to do with extremism of any religion but rather, whether it is reasonable to equate the amount of respect we as Americans owe our fallen troops to the respect Americans owe to a religious figure. I assert that it is not.

I apologise. :Oops:
 
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We, as Americans, should show some respect to all people of all background and religion especially those who serve in armed forces.

You ask "do we honor freedom of speech and allow those that want to mock Mohammad?" and you frankly don't care but you care that we suspended freedom of speech for out of respect by censoring media coverage on our fallen soldiers because of disrespectful war protesters?

I don't know about you but I believe every men and women in uniforms will defend to the death your right to say it even if they detest what war protesters say. The President should not have enacted ban on media coverage.

I already eluded to this....

However I agree with a ban on filming caskets and funerals. It's not just about war protesters but also about privacy for a family in mourning and not desecrating the memory of the fallen by allowing there death to be used as a political pawn. The ban only prevented unwanted intrusion. Families of the fallen had the right to allow cameras if they wanted. So basically lifting the ban only served to prevent families of the fallen to mourn in peace.
 
I already eluded to this....

However I agree with a ban on filming caskets and funerals. It's not just about war protesters but also about privacy for a family in mourning and not desecreting the memory of the fallen by allowing there death to be used as a political pawn. The ban only prevented unwanted intrusion. Families of the fallen had the right to allow cameras if they wanted. So basically lifting the ban only served to prevent families of the fallen to mourn in peace.

Kind of like saying it's ok for the Phelps clan to interfere a family's funeral in peace of their loved one, a soldier, who died in combat. There's not much difference when a family cannot mourn in peace. Just obnoxious.
 
I disagree with the ban being lifted. We already have those out there that are fanatics that will be disruptive.

Since the ban is lifted, the only thing I can think of is contacting the PGR and telling them that they may have to help out when the Fallen come home.

I highly doubt that the ban will be reinstated. Not unless all who do not approve of it voices it.
 
Yeah, and the MSM all of sudden got real quite about taking pictures of caskets after the election when it was a real ruckus before. I'm calling them out as bunch of hypocrites.
 
Yeah, and the MSM all of sudden got real quite about taking pictures of caskets after the election when it was a real ruckus before. I'm calling them out as bunch of hypocrites.

but it's ok to show offensive depiction of Mohammad when this would fuel a flood of hate crimes and violence?

btw - what does MSM stand for?
 
Yeah, and the MSM all of sudden got real quite about taking pictures of caskets after the election when it was a real ruckus before. I'm calling them out as bunch of hypocrites.

What does men-on-men sex have to do with caskets?

I didn't know you're into necrophilia.
 
I already eluded to this....

However I agree with a ban on filming caskets and funerals. It's not just about war protesters but also about privacy for a family in mourning and not desecrating the memory of the fallen by allowing there death to be used as a political pawn. The ban only prevented unwanted intrusion.
I disagree. It was done to shield public from knowing the human cost of war.

Families of the fallen had the right to allow cameras if they wanted. So basically lifting the ban only served to prevent families of the fallen to mourn in peace.
Under new policy which lifts the 18-years ban, the families of the fallen do reserve the rights to allow media coverage or not. The government has no say in this matter.... the families do.
 
what does MSM stand for?
 
what does MSM stand for?

Well, given the context, it could means men sex with men, men seeking men, mechanically separated meat, military service medal, Miami Sound Machine.

All fit nicely in place of an undefined acronym.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top