This is what religion is: they angle for fresh prey, and once they snag you, they swallow you up. You are embraced in the rugae and crypts of the gut of the church, all warm and pink and soft and wet and intimate, and each of the members is like a little villus — a multitude of villi brush adoringly against you, each telling you how wonderful and delicious you are, and each leeching away a little of yourself, your individuality, your independence. It feels good as you are slowly absorbed. Then at last, when your will is gone and your dependence is complete, you are digested by the body of Christ, and there you will be for all of your productive years. Eventually, when you are old and no longer active, you'll take residence in the colon of the church, serviced by occasional visits from a priest or a volunteer, in hopes of one final ka-ching from your will…and then your empty husk will be shat out into the church graveyard, with the leavings of other past meals. The churches of your community all ought to be viewed as predatory animals, some lazy and sated, others restless and hungry, but all eyeing you as potential fodder to keep the beast alive.
Fix that cartoon
Something about this cartoon doesn't seem right.
It's something in that last panel. The one that points out the arbitrariness and hypocrisy of the reactionaries crying "we've got to do something about guns". See how the man on the right – i.e., the hand-wringing, inconsistent public – reverses his reaction, from outcry against the killer to outcry against guns, when nothing really has changed. The dead guy and the small hand weapon are both the same; all that's changed is that the latter happens to be a handgun instead of a club...
But as a depiction of the ongoing gun debate, something about the cartoon seems oddly... off. What could it be...
Ah, I see it! Here:
In the last panel, replace the handgun with a military-style assault rifle.
And replace the dead guy with twenty dead kids.
There. With that fix, the cartoon would depict the real debate the public wants to hold, not the imaginary one the cartoonist seems to hope for.