It has been said, possibly by me, that if we compare the amount of people simply shot with firearms, deliberately or otherwise, in this country, guns whose current state of regulation may not be touched, except to make less so, without strong public and corporate protest, it greatly overwhelms the number killed by “terrorism,” which we are regularly forced to forgo civil liberties as part of the “war on.”
To me, organized terrorism differs from the usual mass shooting we get in the US, because “mass shooting” often involves the perpetrators shooting themselves at the end, and it is difficult to determine what they thought they could accomplish. The recent Paris murder-fest was planned in advance, threatened about in advance, the people who did it knew exactly who they came to kill, and they got away. By NOW they have mostly been captured (by death by bullets), but the fact remains they intended to go on living afterward. Is that justification for monitoring my telephone calls and humiliating me at an airport? Not at all. If anything, I think the abuse of citizens by their own government is more valid justification for criminal acts than insulting drawings. But it proves these matters should not be considered the same thing. It is not just plain old murder. It is as bad as murder, but simply getting mad and sad at the idea of “terror,” a basic emotion that all people can experience, is not going to solve the problem. I do not know what will solve the problem, but I feel obligated to think about it, since I did not have an emotional reaction, but observed many such reactions.

Why are depictions of Muhammad banned? Allegedly because they might lead to iconography, worship of the symbol. Muhammad did not care how he was shown, he just did not want people to worship it. Or, rather, one segment of his followers thought he did not want his image, and possibly any images, worshiped, and then across a few centuries some subgroups remembered the main part of the rule but forgot why and got really serious about it. Would anybody worship an INSULTING picture of Muhammad? Of anyone? Killing over it makes no sense, even from a fundamentalist perspective. In fact this seems like the opposite of the prohibition’s intention, since you are holding the ban as sacred and infallible. The Law is your idol, your god, and you cannot be convinced that whatever you think it says is wrong.

It is difficult for people from non-fundamentalist-islam backgrounds to grasp the iconography issue, because so much of our culture is defined by ancient art, that was generally financed by religious fanatics, because they had all the money.
The odd thing about iconography, to me, is that this would seem to be descended from similar judeo-christian bans, bans which really did not stand the test of time, despite two iconoclastic periods in Byzantium and an entire dark age in which people were just too impoverished and miserable to make art. Consequently nobody actually knows what any of these constantly depicted figures looked like and Christianity’s number one symbol, the +-shaped cross is highly unlikely to have been the implement of Christ Christy’s crucifixion; evidence and records favor an X. Anything that shows a t cross is automatically wrong.
At some point The Church realized that its rituals and LATIN masses made no sense to the lay people, who all spoke mangled mixes of french, german and elvish, so then we had elaborate paintings, stain glass windows, decorated facades, all of ostensibly instructional value, plus gold to instruct peasants that the church is better than them. All in all a general business of exploiting people for money to pay for opulence for the church, forcefully financed by church patrons who probably cannot even afford to bury their kin who die of ludicrously preventable diseases. And they liked it! Or thought they did. They would travel all across Europe to visit all the churches and church relics, often body parts of saints, or just boxes that they were told contained such things. It’s really the thought of Saint Francis’ mummified trachea that counts. It is only the newest pope who finally considered, hey maybe the amount of money us popes hoard is totally incongruous to the message of humility and generosity we teach/name ourselves after.

And then this week, in a story that I admit I only read in the first place for a totally different reason, ol’ popey will be attending an event in Manila, in which people parade a statue of that darn Christ through the streets, a statue that supposedly has magical power to heal the sick and whatnot, and bring “good fortune.” Idol worship, witchcraft, greed, incontinence, all sorts of nonsense going on. It is ridiculous and has nothing to do with church doctrine, and yet it is a happier celebration than the mopey Catholic stuff I grew up with. Although I am also inclined to believe the home lives in any society so focused on a religious ritual is probably solidly patriarchal, abusive and opposed to change (but they always get cranky when they need one so no sense putting it off). We need to separate our joy from religion, and we need to separate our mandated misery from it. If Catholicism had been more jolly maybe I would have stuck with it and never gotten to the point where I realized there was no need for it. But if I did not have the freedom to quit church, or access to parts of life unrelated to church, and had been forced to believe in stuff that was made deliberately arcane and impossible to fully grasp, and thus impossible to question any aspect of, I might well have become the angriest, murderiest person on the planet.

And this was in the era of “Jesus loves you.” Jesus did not always love the proverbial you.

“Christ Pantokrator.” I know it is called that. I had to memorize what this was during my ill-advised art education. But what is a pantokrator? I do not know, but I presume it describes someone who does whatever jesus does when he makes that face.

Who cut this tin can in half and glued it to my plastic wig? Just because that knife you bought off the tv CAN cut a can that you subsequently attach to Christ does not mean you SHOULD. Christ is displeased. Thou shalt be pantocrated.

Religion, in general, does not wish the best for us, I think, overall. If you grow up thinking God is angry, and you aren’t allowed to think about anything else, you will be very very angry. There are indeed nations, entire countries, where it is ILLEGAL to quit the local brand of Islam. In United Arab Emirates, the punishment for trying is death! Like it is not enough that Allah will hate you and condemn you for your deed, you have to die NOW. In 2015! Or at least in 1996, which is when wikipedia’s source dates from. But the shooters, they were my age. I lived through 1996. Don’t think I don’t remember when RENT and that third Mighty Ducks movie came out. This stuff didn’t happen so very long ago.

And there probably are Christians today who think all depictions of Jesus are evil. They just do not get angry or motivated enough to shoot anyone. Over that reason. Maybe they will shoot you for being gay. But arbitrary conditions for slaughter is certainly a part of their Christian history. It is part of American history. This nation is as backward as it is because we “won” all our wars and were never forced to pay for our bad history by people badder than us. A murderer is a hero in a land claimed by murdering. Beside the point!

And I wonder, for people angry enough to plan a spree-execution like our recent one in such detail over insults, past the point of reasoning “hey I GOT to France, nobody has the legal authority to kill me for not being angry here” what makes them happy? If they believe the path to salvation involves wholly forgoing joy or whimsy in life, perhaps killing is the only fun they have, and the only fun they learned to have. This article‘s writer thinks the shooters actually are not so bothered by cartoons and just want an excuse to shoot people and jumpstart retaliations toward Muslims in general so that they can plan more counter-retaliation attacks. That almost makes more sense. Since up to that point nothing made sense, I will go with that idea. In fact I know somebody who thinks the Newtown, Connecticut shooting, a few towns over from where I am, was arranged by the US government as an excuse to take away The Guns and/or encourage a race war for some reason. Which does not mean I also believe that, but there are people out there who think a race war is really coming or could come, and maybe they would do what they could to encourage it if that sounded like fun to them.

I wish they could find more socially acceptable ways to have fun!

I have been on the internet too long, because this comes across to me like the person being interviewed is way too into the idea of people wearing diapers. This can be read as if he is issuing a general recommendation for all people to wear diapers in their every day lives. Life would just be so much BETTER if you wore a diaper. *smiles* The police are REQUIRED to wear diapers. They have no CHOICE. Oh yes the news was well received. *big smile* Who knows maybe they’ll like it *laughs*

I like the statement that he will “try” to wear one also. As if to suggest it is a challenge that only the most worthy and dedicated may take on, and he wants to pretend he has not been doing it all along and looking for an excuse to pretend it is someone else’s idea, then pretend to be surprised when he takes to it really well.
Well if you say so maybe I’ll give it a whirl *giggles* Hey maybe someday we won’t be allowed not to. Might as well hop on the bandwagon! *chortles*

He is turning into a Charmin bear in my mind and that is really not what I came here to-

Cease this talk at once! And don’t you dare try and touch my sequined copy of my book about me! Pantocration is imminent!

*I* don't even want to read all this, Blogroll | (8) comments | Squirmalink