Lest people get too freaked, the problem in Washington to which David
referred -- involving a depiction of Mohammed on a frieze at the Supreme
Court -- sounds worse than it may really be.

The protesting Moslems acknowledge that the inclusion of Mohammed on the
frieze, when the building was constructed in the '30s, was meant to honor
him among the great lawgivers.  It was not meant to offend, for which
they are grateful, and their protest is in the form of a respectful
request, not a threatening demand.  One request was to veil the figure,
rather than to destroy it.

Apparently a compromise solution may be made possible because the figures
on the frieze are not labeled, and also of course nobody knows what
Mohammed really looked like, so the figure is not a "real" depiction; I
believe the Court has agreed to remove his name from literature about the
frieze that is sold in their bookshop, and the Moslems have said they are
grateful for this "first step."

On the other hand, I only know what I read in the papers.  Maybe David
has the inside story...

Andy Finch
[log in to unmask]
AAM Government Affairs