I chose this picture because I think that it constructs religion as being violent, but atheism as being non-violent. In the first picture the caption reads “Militant Islamist” and the character is holding an automatic rifle and has explosives strapped to his chest. The next section has a man standing and blowing on a recently used handgun, while standing over a body in front of an abortion clinic. The next section is titled “militant atheist” and has a bored looking man holding an unknown beverage. 
	The artist that drew this cartoon is constructing an anti-reality. In the first picture the Kalashnikov, the iconic weapon of choice of terrorist, is in fact a weapon that was produced by the atheist Soviet Union, a rifle that has taken more lives that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The Author also chose not to pictures of massacres committed by atheists. The author could have used any number of leftist atheist groups (Tamil Tigers, FARC) to illustrate the militant atheist, but chose not to.
	The second picture also has something the other two do not have: a body. It seems that the symbolism of a hooded man holding a Kalashnikov in the first picture was enough to express the author’s intended meaning, but in the second, the author felt he or she needed a body to convey the meaning. If militant Christians shooting people outside of abortion clinics was so common and representative of militant Christianity, why the need for the body? 
	In the picture of the militant atheist, there is no weapon. How can someone be a militant without a military grade weapon? This picture suggest that militant atheist do not carry weapons, and instead walk around drinking beverages. There are many groups of atheist militants in the world today killing in the name of their belief system, yet this cartoon choses to ignore them and pretend that they do not exist to give the impression that religions are violent, yet atheism is non-violent. 
