I went to see the new rendition of the LDS oriented film, Saturday’s Warrior. As is often my place in life, whereas I wish I could say something nice or not say anything at all, I am going to instead say something that makes people on both sides of the spectrum mad at me. What is that? I both loved and was uncomfortable with Saturday’s Warrior. It struck an emotional cord and made me cry and it also made me cringe--just a little bit.
Saturday’s Warrior had all the elements of a powerful and engaging musical: the hook, familial love and commitment, the mystical romance in which we all seem to feel that there is that one special person for each of us, good acting, teenage rebellion against tradition and a loving family, the conflict between the “us and them”and between independence and conformity the power of love to bring the rebellious teen back home to all that is good and pure, and last but not least, incredible vocal performances and a well-written score.
Saturday’s Warrior also had all the elements of a superficial and propagandistic morality play: stark, unsophisticated and stereotypical depictions of good and evil; the fantasy of the mystical romance; the depiction that teenage rebellion invariably leads to addiction and heartache; the puerile depiction of “bad people,” who have opposing ideas and “good people” who conform to convention;” the depiction that true love always means complying with the expectations of others; good acting; and last but not least, incredible vocal performances.
My ambivalent feelings about Saturday’s Warrior are similar to my view on abortion. On rational and moral grounds, I personally oppose abortion and wouldn’t want anyone that I love and care about to have an abortion. Yet at the same time, just as many conservatives have an issue with undocumented immigrants and refugees coming to inhabit our country, I have an affinity for and understand a woman who through rape, incest and other similar compelling circumstances do not want to have an “uninvited” conception and burgeoning child come to inhabit their bodies for nine months. What I wish for is that religions, societies, and institutions create dynamics in which abortions, through the exercise of agency and individual responsibility, are a rare thing. Yet I think they still should be legal and the decision to have one needs to be made, not by the government, but by the individuals involved and their physicians.
Saturday’s Warrior also creates an interesting springboard for discussions about population growth. The film appears to advocate that families (or maybe just Mormon families) should have as many children as they can regardless of circumstances. It appeared to propagandize that those opposed to such a position simply advocate for “zero population.” This is a false dichotomy. While I agree with the proposition stated by the late, and sometimes maligned, Mormon leader Boyd K. Packard that our position on family planning is that we plan to have them and we plan to take care of them, there has never been a position stated by the LDS church that a certain-sized family is the appropriate one. Therefore, how big should families be?
In that regard, the film also presents an interesting cognitive dissonance among many Americans who, on the one hand view themselves as religious and advocate that to be a true God-fearing American we must bear as many children as possible and there is no issue regarding resources for them, while at the same time they argue that there are not enough resources for us to invite immigrants and other refugees to our country. In fact, they suggest that we are so short on room and resources, we need to deport the 11 million undocumented families that currently live in the United States.
Again the fact is that it is not either one or the other. It is a complex and difficult problem. Our own policies, practices and humanity require that we have some flexibility in our treatment of immigrants and refugees. Yet our economic, geographical and cultural reality and our security require that we are cautious about the number of refugees and immigrants and the specific persons we permit to come and reside in our country and that we be equally judicious about the rate of our population growth. This is because while some of our resources are enhanced by population growth and its concomitant human ingenuity and enterprise, most of our resources and certainly our geographical square miles are finite and limited. Also, population growth and immigration bring with them an unavoidable degradation of our environment and an unsustainable depletion of our food sources.
Just as it is intellectually dishonest to believe and think that unlimited immigration will not have adverse consequences, it is equally intellectually dishonest to believe that our quality of life will remain the same regardless of the number of human beings that populate our country or our earth.
So, plan to have a family if that is your desire, but also plan to take care of it. And when, due to circumstances both specific to you and generally to your world, having more and sometimes any children would be selfish, unwise and harmful to you and your perceived family, be circumspect in your ultimate choice--sometimes the right choice may be to have few or even no children. Loren M Lambert, April 4, 2016 ©
Saturday’s Warrior had all the elements of a powerful and engaging musical: the hook, familial love and commitment, the mystical romance in which we all seem to feel that there is that one special person for each of us, good acting, teenage rebellion against tradition and a loving family, the conflict between the “us and them”and between independence and conformity the power of love to bring the rebellious teen back home to all that is good and pure, and last but not least, incredible vocal performances and a well-written score.
Saturday’s Warrior also had all the elements of a superficial and propagandistic morality play: stark, unsophisticated and stereotypical depictions of good and evil; the fantasy of the mystical romance; the depiction that teenage rebellion invariably leads to addiction and heartache; the puerile depiction of “bad people,” who have opposing ideas and “good people” who conform to convention;” the depiction that true love always means complying with the expectations of others; good acting; and last but not least, incredible vocal performances.
My ambivalent feelings about Saturday’s Warrior are similar to my view on abortion. On rational and moral grounds, I personally oppose abortion and wouldn’t want anyone that I love and care about to have an abortion. Yet at the same time, just as many conservatives have an issue with undocumented immigrants and refugees coming to inhabit our country, I have an affinity for and understand a woman who through rape, incest and other similar compelling circumstances do not want to have an “uninvited” conception and burgeoning child come to inhabit their bodies for nine months. What I wish for is that religions, societies, and institutions create dynamics in which abortions, through the exercise of agency and individual responsibility, are a rare thing. Yet I think they still should be legal and the decision to have one needs to be made, not by the government, but by the individuals involved and their physicians.
Saturday’s Warrior also creates an interesting springboard for discussions about population growth. The film appears to advocate that families (or maybe just Mormon families) should have as many children as they can regardless of circumstances. It appeared to propagandize that those opposed to such a position simply advocate for “zero population.” This is a false dichotomy. While I agree with the proposition stated by the late, and sometimes maligned, Mormon leader Boyd K. Packard that our position on family planning is that we plan to have them and we plan to take care of them, there has never been a position stated by the LDS church that a certain-sized family is the appropriate one. Therefore, how big should families be?
In that regard, the film also presents an interesting cognitive dissonance among many Americans who, on the one hand view themselves as religious and advocate that to be a true God-fearing American we must bear as many children as possible and there is no issue regarding resources for them, while at the same time they argue that there are not enough resources for us to invite immigrants and other refugees to our country. In fact, they suggest that we are so short on room and resources, we need to deport the 11 million undocumented families that currently live in the United States.
Again the fact is that it is not either one or the other. It is a complex and difficult problem. Our own policies, practices and humanity require that we have some flexibility in our treatment of immigrants and refugees. Yet our economic, geographical and cultural reality and our security require that we are cautious about the number of refugees and immigrants and the specific persons we permit to come and reside in our country and that we be equally judicious about the rate of our population growth. This is because while some of our resources are enhanced by population growth and its concomitant human ingenuity and enterprise, most of our resources and certainly our geographical square miles are finite and limited. Also, population growth and immigration bring with them an unavoidable degradation of our environment and an unsustainable depletion of our food sources.
Just as it is intellectually dishonest to believe and think that unlimited immigration will not have adverse consequences, it is equally intellectually dishonest to believe that our quality of life will remain the same regardless of the number of human beings that populate our country or our earth.
So, plan to have a family if that is your desire, but also plan to take care of it. And when, due to circumstances both specific to you and generally to your world, having more and sometimes any children would be selfish, unwise and harmful to you and your perceived family, be circumspect in your ultimate choice--sometimes the right choice may be to have few or even no children. Loren M Lambert, April 4, 2016 ©
No comments:
Post a Comment