From the earliest of times,man has worn tattoes..whether permanent or temporary (such henna, which I understand carries some degree of significance on the subcontinent) Ritual tattooes are still freuquently worn (Among women,particulalrly among nomadic tribes in India and elsewhere) Either way, this gentleman clearly is not " a beast", nor some back-street ruffian...The tattoo is also, not ostentatious,it would not be seen under normal circumstances,so can hardly offend the sensibilities of more sensitive folk..It is also worn as a memorial,Does your God have nothing more pertinent to add on the matter of the (presumably,Unadorned?) humans who behaved worse than beasts, who killed this man's father? Shame on you, sir,for your peculiar moral barometer, if this is all that offends you about this matter..
