Recent controversies over Western visual depictions of Mohammed — whether favorable, unfavorable, or neutral to the prophet — have typically resulted in complete capitulation to Islamic leaders by our media and our political leaders. Political correctness reigns supreme, and we are obliged by it to engage in self-censorship rather than risk causing offense to Muslims.This exquisite sensitivity to Mohammedan feelings is not, however, as recent as one might think. In the course of his researches, Dr. Andrew Bostom stumbled across a diplomatic incident about a statue of Mohammed that occurred in New York City more than fifty years ago, well before the onset of modern PC.
Back in 1955, New York’s judicial authorities planned to renovate a group of deteriorating statues that stood on a courthouse roof. One of these figures represented — you guessed it — Mohammed. There wasn’t much of a local Muslim population in those days, but word went out through diplomatic channels, and Muslim officials requested that the city destroy the statue rather than repair it.
The good burghers of Manhattan dutifully complied, and the statue was chiseled off its pedestal. Here’s what Dr. Bostom has to say about the incident:
NYC’s Insane Capitulation to Islam, Circa 1955 — Past as Prologue?- - - - - - - - -
Past as Prologue, 55 years ago? — Elegant statue of Muhammad “quietly” removed from the roof of the Appellate Division Courthouse on Madison Square, New York City in 1955, when seven feckless appellate judges, “encouraged” by the US State Department, needlessly submitted to Islamic supremacist dictates regarding “Tawsir,” or statuary.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mindless, craven cultural relativism — sadly pervasive in 2010 — has led NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg to capitulate to Islamic supremacism and support the odious Ground Zero mosque project of the cultural jihadist Imam Faisal Rauf, and his coterie. The rather witless Bloomberg, of course, cynically recasts his moral and intellectual cretinism as championing bedrock American values, notably freedom of religion. However, the ultimately self-destructive Islamic correctness we are witnessing vis a vis the Ground Zero mosque, may be an endemic phenomenon amongst Manhattan elites, dating back to at least 1955.
A res ipsa loquitur example of this tragic mindset when it comes to dealing with The Religion of Peace(r), specifically, was published on April 9, 1955 in the New York Times. Responding to demands from the Muslim consulates (via their ambassadors) of Indonesia, Egypt, and Pakistan, as well as “many letters from Mohammedans,” a statue of Muhammad (picture above) carved by Charles Albert Lopez (a Mexican sculptor working in the US for 22 years till his death in 1906), and erected in 1902, was singularly removed from the Madison Square Appellate Courthouse, where it had stood for over 50 years, alongside nine other renowned lawgivers representing other creeds and cultures. The existence of the statue was only drawn to the attention of Muslim diplomats and correspondents when newspapers published an account of required, impending repairs. As a result of the Muslim “intervention,” and with the formal “advice” of The US State Department “Near East Branch,” endorsed by the seven appellate court justices themselves, NYC authorities capitulated and refrained from re-erecting the statue of Muhammad, simply leaving the pedestal vacant.
The full New York Times account from April, 1955 is reproduced below. It is a refreshingly straightforward account unconstrained by contemporary era self-censorship when discussing Islam (including, for example, not capitalizing the word “prophet” as a non-Muslim journalist referring to Islam’s prophet).
Read the rest at Dr. Bostom’s place, including the contemporaneous NYT news article.
As a matter of interest, besides Ol’ Mo, the statues on the roof included Lycurgus, Alfred the Great (849-901), the Goddess of Justice, Louis IX of France, Zoroaster, Moses, and Confucius.
Political correctness did not descend upon us overnight. It has enveloped us gradually since World War Two, leaching away piecemeal at our vocabulary, our liberties, and our common sense. We are rapidly approaching the terminal stage of the affliction — there is a point beyond which a society cannot entertain such madness and still survive.
One assumes that back in 1955 the New York City authorities did not feel any particular political pressure to respond as they did — they were simply being tolerant and accommodating towards a quaint alien belief system. Little did they know what lay in store for their descendants a mere half-century later.
8 comments:
New York City, bending over and taking it since 1955.
Excuse me, but I also think all statues, pictures, books etc. with Muhammad should be eliminated from the face of the earth, except perhaps Ibn Ishaq and Al-Tabari. They bring nothing but strife and discord ('Fitna'), and the world would be a lot better off without them. This here messy Quran in particular.
The rather witless Bloomberg, of course, cynically recasts his moral and intellectual cretinism as championing bedrock American values, notably freedom of religion.
One might presume to ask the not-so-honorable Mayor Bloomberg as to exactly how one goes about promoting freedom of religion by championing a cause which specifically abolishes all freedom of religion. Echoes reverberate of that infamous Vietnam war excuse; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".
This Chamerlainesque sort of appeasement will only forestall and make worse the war that is brewing with Islam, as did attempting to ameliorate Hitler's threat before World War II.
Responding to demands from the Muslim consulates (via their ambassadors) of Indonesia, Egypt, and Pakistan, as well as “many letters from Mohammedans,” a statue of Muhammad (picture above) carved by Charles Albert Lopez (a Mexican sculptor working in the US for 22 years till his death in 1906), and erected in 1902, was singularly removed from the Madison Square Appellate Courthouse, where it had stood for over 50 years, alongside nine other renowned lawgivers representing other creeds and cultures.
Similar to Henrik R Clausen, my argument is also in favor of removing Mohammad's loathsome presence from such august company but for an entirely different reason.
Any respectable body of law must have at its core a broad applicability plus a prudent combination of justice and mercy.
Due to how it serves Muslim interests only, Islam's sharia law is narrow in its scope and lacks the the overarching applicability that honest jurisprudence must demonstrate. Additionally, shari'a violates a raft of human rights in thought, spirit and deed making it unworthy of the respect all proper lawgiving must engender.
Therefore, it is only appropriate to have removed Mohammad's form as his sole contribution to this world has been a code of preferential treatment for Muslims that sees all other people as less than human and deserves only scorn from civilized society.
A pedophile bandit has no place among such models of human wisdom.
One assumes that back in 1955 the New York City authorities did not feel any particular political pressure to respond as they did — they were simply being tolerant and accommodating towards a quaint alien belief system.
Finally, one might be entitled to think that such a display of appreciation for Muslim beliefs might have generated a little reciprocal consideration. Clearly, all memory of this gesture was conveniently dispensed with the moment it served Muslims ends. Otherwise, Islam's interminable whining might come across as little more than the infantile tantrum it always has been.
Goodness knows that the West has done far more than its share of accomodating Muslims and their skinless sensitivity to all foreign cultures. An immediate halt should be called to all further adjustments for the benefit of Muslims and that freeze should be kept in place until Islam demonstrates complete reciprocity in all matters.
If that requires waiting until Hell freezes over, so be it. Not one more gesture of kindness until Muslims purchase a clue and behave like civilized people. If they cannot do so, we have no obligation to extend the least further coutesy to them.
55 years ago, an Islamic demand struck the administration of New York City, and the self-defense mechanisms of the West have stopped working ever since. We at the Western Civilization Preservation Society think Western Civilization should be preserved exactly the way it was before the Islamic invasion! Save Western Civilization! Save Western Civilization!
"But I'm afraid it is happening ... all of it!"
In hoc signo vinces
"In the last reported sighting — in 1983 — the statue was lying on its side in a stand of tall grass somewhere in New Jersey."
Sounds like a scene from The Sopranos.
I side with Clausen and Zenster - the statue had been actually meant as a tribute. If they dont want Mo among other lawgivers, that's fine by me, too - and we should feel the same way about Sharia - that it's not a law that merits respect.
"The rather witless Bloomberg, of course, cynically recasts his moral and intellectual cretinism..."
What a pithy turn of phrase, awesome!
I just have one little question: how did such a stone-cold moron as Bloomberg ever make a billion dollars?!
Similar to Henrik R Clausen, my argument is also in favor of removing Mohammad's loathsome presence from such august company but for an entirely different reason.
And a good reason, too. Muhammad has no role to play as a lawgiver, as the source for Islamic law (Sharia) makes no sense in a modern, civilized society. Modern law implements Good and Bad in practical details, whereas Islamic law defines Good and Bad, the life of Mo being the primary source for that.
We need to ban Sharia from the civilized world.
Post a Comment