|
February 03, 2007
"Into" spilling children's blood?
It's that time of year for gruesome scenes in Lebanon like this: A victim of Israeli atrocities, perhaps? I mean, why not? It looks like something Israel would have done, and we all know that Israel is the source of all the world's evil, so why not just admit the truth? The Israelis routinely wound innocent babies, so why not that one? And the best thing about using that picture to depict Israeli atrocities is that no photoshopping is required! OK, the above was satire, and in very bad taste. I am not accusing anyone of using that picture to depict Israeli atrocities or insinuate the blood libel stuff again, OK? I should learn not to be so cynical and distrustful of people. Let this be a moral lesson to me. What the above does depict is a centuries-old religious tradition, in which fathers slice their children's heads open -- "for the sake of Hussein." Fortunately, the ritual does not seem to be practiced in the United States. It might be seen as carrying the First Amendment too far. Some people might say that about the pictures in this post. But what the hell. As the Washington Post's headline says, "Some Shiite Children Are Into Bloody Rite." Really? Is that what the kids are "into"? If you read the accounts, it looks like they're crying and trying to get away. Lest anyone think that only sick right wing bloggers are interested in this macabre ritual, pictures of the quaint custom are getting quit a bit of mainstream circulation. Lest anyone think that first picture depicted an Israeli victim, here's an earlier picture of the same baby with his proud dad: And lest I appear sexist in my portrayals, mommies are into the cutting edge action too:
Which means that Americans should feel free to condemn it too, without any fear of offending cultural sensitivities. As for the First Amendment, it seems to me that if we can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater, we shouldn't be able to slice children's heads open in a crowded mosque -- or haul people up to the tops of pyramids to cut their hearts out. Heck, I wouldn't even allow religious wife beating. I know I'm being intolerant of what people are "into," though. Maybe some sensitivity training is in order. posted by Eric on 02.03.07 at 09:22 AM
Comments
Interesting read about an appalling situation. (I suppose Singer might object to the head cutting ritual if it were done to dogs, though.) Eric Scheie · February 3, 2007 11:07 AM Progress is being made, Eric, bit by bit. Justin J. Case · February 4, 2007 12:05 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
How intolerant of you!! A little ritualistic wife beating is only done in the best interest of the woman receiving the beating. I'm too ignorant to link you, but check out Pete Singers recent op-ed in the
NYT through Keith Burgess-Jackson's website.