No need to be snide, Andy. Like you, all I know about Mohammed on the
Supreme Court frieze is what I read in the papers--and the Post said
that one proposal was to sandblast the offending representation to
oblivion. You're right that the problem may be much less serious than it
appeared--it could also turn out to be MORE serious--I don't have a
crystal ball. I found it problematic that anyone would even CONSIDER
destroying a sculpture which all agree was not intended to offend. I
think that represents an extremely serious threat of artistic censorship
by itself. The fact that the sculpture offends primarily because of the
Muslim injunction against representations of Mohammed raises the issue
of whether it is fair, legal, or appropriate to extend this prohibition
to non-Muslim artists because a Muslim might spot the sculpture 60 years
later? Does a Catholic who abstains from meat on Good Friday have a
right to demand that McDonald's sell no hamburgers that day because an
awareness of meat might offend him?

Frankly, I'm rather offended by the possibility of a solution via
intellectual sleight of hand--SAYING that the figure on the frieze is
NOT Mohammed (since we don't know what he looked like anyway), even
though the artist INTENDED IT to represent Mohammed. This is a
compromise which should dissatisfy all equally. Don't censor the art,
just the brochures, guidebooks, etc. Swell! --David Haberstich