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