Archive for abortion and euthanasia

Braveheart, Weakheart, or No Heart?

By | November 4, 2019 | 0 Comments

wallace

Mel Gibson in “Braveheart”

Life consists of choices. Sometimes we can evade the choices, but often we can’t. Sooner or later, we as individuals – and we as a nation – must choose whom we want as our role model: Braveheart or Weakheart.

When Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated at the depth of the Great Depression, he told Americans, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” He sensed the strength of the generation that went on to survive the Depression, then conquered Nazism and Japanese imperialism in World War II.

When Barack Obama was inaugurated during a lesser economic crisis, he repeatedly warned us to fear disaster if we did not enact his massive program. So we did, without debating it − or even reading it. He sensed the weakness of this generation.

True, there are many brave Americans. But most of them are fighting in Afghanistan, or are waiting to deploy there. America is like one of those fancy drinks in which the cream is layered on top, but does not mix with the bulk of the liquid. The cream knows that freedom is worth fighting for. The rest are content to wait for Big Brother to bail them out.

In the climactic scene of the film “Braveheart,” Scottish leader William Wallace as played by Mel Gibson is being tortured to death by the English. The executioner asks if he has any last words, hoping he will beg for mercy and acknowledge the English king.

Instead, with his last breath, Wallace shouts “Freedom!”

But what if the story took place in present-day America? First, we would fire Mel Gibson. He is too much of a rebel. If he were an animal, he would be a lone wolf, not a sheep. Such a person would not be suitable to portray many modern Americans.

Our new star would have muscles well rounded from a fitness program, not stringy and lumpy from actual work. There would be no scars. Scars would show that he believed in something enough to fight for it. But there might be tattoos and body piercing. Strong beliefs, no − narcissism, yes.

At school our new hero was taught that religion and patriotism are obsolete, so the chief sources of strong beliefs were removed. And with no God to be the center of his universe, he himself would be the center.

His teachers insisted, “I don’t care who started it − you’re both going to the principal’s office.” So he learned to tolerate bullies.

Without strong beliefs, there would be no reason to be a rebel. Besides, one does not advance his career by displeasing those in authority, or by sticking with friends who do.

He would have remained single, or married and divorced repeatedly, and probably fathered children by other women as well. Lasting commitments were not his “thing.”

Having replaced the star, we would now update the screenplay. The scene would be set in modern-day America, because much of the audience would have learned little history or geography in school, and would have difficulty relating to anyone unlike themselves.

They might have had a “multicultural” curriculum, but it did not include actual knowledge of other cultures. Instead, it consisted of trashing American and Judeo-Christian values.

The basic theme of an oppressive ruler might be retained, but in the form of an evil corporate executive. However, the relation of the hero to the boss would not be one of rebellion, which would be viewed as bad career-wise and therefore unbelievable.

There could be conflict, but it would be resolved amicably. The hero might regain his boss’s support by stabbing out-of-favor associates in the back − figuratively, of course. Loyalty also wasn’t his “thing.”

Even better, the hero would find new ways to rip off investors. Best of all, the hero would impress his boss by getting federal bailout money through his political connections. There’s nothing like “free” money − taxpayers’ money − to bring a smile to the face of the greedy and the amoral.

There would be no battle scenes. The hero would depend on police to protect him from criminals at home, and military personnel to protect him from enemies abroad. Despite this, he would look down on these brave defenders as ignorant Neanderthals. Gratitude wasn’t his “thing” either.

But he would conceal his cowardice and apathy under the mantle of “nonviolence.” He would see himself as too elevated for such a primitive notion as personal responsibility for defending himself, his loved ones, and his homeland.

In short, the hero would be no hero at all.

On the personal side, the hero would marry the boss’s daughter and dump his pregnant girlfriend. An abortion would solve this trivial problem. The fact that the fetus was viable would not be seen as significant. Why should it when, as a state senator, Obama voted three times against requiring medical care for babies born alive after “failed” abortions?

The story would end with the hero celebrating his million-dollar bonus in his new luxury townhouse with several scantily clad young women − who would be co-workers with equal salaries. We may not be moral, but we are politically correct.

Freedom would not be important enough for him to think about, much less shout about.

This film might not be an Oscar winner, but it would depict characters and situations more in keeping with many modern-day Americans:

● Government agents shoot to death Randy Weaver’s dog, son, and wife (in that order), but few complain.

● An unpopular religious cult is surrounded near Waco by government agents, and 84 human beings − including 26 children − are gassed and burned to death, but few complain.

● Six-year-old Elian Gonzalez is found clinging to an inner tube after his mother drowns trying to bring him to America. He is returned to the communist dictatorship in Cuba at the point of submachine guns, but few complain.

● Many people see themselves as children and the government as their parent, so they expect it to take care of them and make important decisions for them.

● Universities and businesses decree speech codes, and those who express politically incorrect ideas  – or even use politically incorrect pronouns – are punished, but few complain.

● The crime rate was falling; nevertheless, the government continues its efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens, but few complain.

● Many complain that security measures taken after 9/11 decreased our civil rights. But the complainers say nothing about Weaver, Waco, Elian,  or speech codes. Their concern lacks credibility and is politically motivated.

● Many complain about the living conditions of terrorist detainees. But the complainers say nothing when many American troops live under worse conditions. Their concern lacks credibility and is politically motivated.

● Liberals assert that we must follow the Europeans’ example in dealing with aggressors and terrorists. But why should we emulate failure?

● Fanatical dictators in North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons, while screaming myths of racial or religious superiority. But many insist that we should do nothing and not “cause trouble.”

● Activists insist that airlines no longer begin announcements with “Ladies and Gentlemen,” and that teachers no longer address kids as “Boys and girls,” and we shut up so as not to “cause trouble.”

● Planned Parenthood is revealed to be selling fetal organs for profit, and now whole fetuses. Breaking news: “Fetus” in Latin means “offspring,” not “piece of meat for sale.” But we don’t demand that Congress stop using taxpayer money to promote these inhuman activities, because we don’t want to “cause trouble.”

If we wish to describe William Wallace – or our own founding fathers – not wanting to “cause trouble” is the most erroneous expression imaginable. They caused a great deal of trouble as they fought for freedom. But we, their ungrateful heirs, are satisfied if we just don’t “cause trouble.” Is it any wonder that the Liberty Bell has cracked?

William Wallace shouting “Freedom!” with his last breath made an exciting scene, but one we have difficulty relating to today. Many of us just don’t have the heart for it.

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.