All religious texts should be written in blood. The christian Bush hagiographers at Southern Methodist University running W's library should have no trouble getting a version of the Bible inscribed variously in the blood of the torture victims at Abu Ghraib, some of the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, or any of the thousands of poor bastards from his own country he sacrificed in his vanity war.
On the one hand, making something like that could be construed as an act of faith, and a fairly serious one.. on the other hand, in the article it is mentioned that it is forbidden to write the book in blood, which makes it just a dictator being bug-house nuts as usual.
On the other hand, it is fucking awesome of itself and I will be sad if they destroy something so awesome.
It's a very similar context to blood in Hebrew kashrut - it's treif, it's bad, why the heck would you write a holy document in it?
Christianity has a less strained relationship with "blood, generic" due to some pretty important symbolism, but I think someone writing a copy of the Bible in blood would still be looked at as alarmingly kooky... and someone writing it in, say, menstrual blood would probably get a similar reaction as this is getting.
I think what's disturbing everyone is that they can still sort of see why he thought of this as a serious act of devotion. And it's totally freaking them out because it's just WRONG. It's like a creepy stalker showing up on your doorstep with your noisy upstairs neighbors head on a spear, saying "I DID THIS FOR YOOOOOOU".
I don't think that Saddam was religious at all - his Baathist party was secular. He was a prime nutso though and would do anything in his pursuit of power. I think, in his twisted thinking, this may have been his way of asserting his personal power over the religious leaders and his peoples' religious mindset - a sort of magic spell, in fact. Blood has a primal power, you can't deny that.
I'm a big fan of hemoglobin and all that useful metabolism stuff, but the only thing in the human body that comes close to feeling "magical" to me is this weird emergent system in my head that I call myself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 04:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 05:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 06:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 06:23 pm (UTC)Or, you know. The Return of the King.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 06:26 pm (UTC)Not that I disagree mind you, that's the only one I've read more than once.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 06:23 pm (UTC)On the other hand, it is fucking awesome of itself and I will be sad if they destroy something so awesome.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 06:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 08:11 pm (UTC)Christianity has a less strained relationship with "blood, generic" due to some pretty important symbolism, but I think someone writing a copy of the Bible in blood would still be looked at as alarmingly kooky... and someone writing it in, say, menstrual blood would probably get a similar reaction as this is getting.
I think what's disturbing everyone is that they can still sort of see why he thought of this as a serious act of devotion. And it's totally freaking them out because it's just WRONG. It's like a creepy stalker showing up on your doorstep with your noisy upstairs neighbors head on a spear, saying "I DID THIS FOR YOOOOOOU".
Gives me the wibbles, that's for sure.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 08:23 pm (UTC)I think, in his twisted thinking, this may have been his way of asserting his personal power over the religious leaders and his peoples' religious mindset - a sort of magic spell, in fact. Blood has a primal power, you can't deny that.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 08:49 pm (UTC)People often treat blood as if it had magical properties, yes.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-21 11:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-12-24 04:12 am (UTC)