Is Kevin Swanson going to maintain that nothing questionable would slip out of his mouth while battling a genocidal Artificial Intelligence on the cusp of perpetrating an extinction level disaster?
The radical homeschooler’s critique of the film went beyond questionable dialog selections on the part of the screenwriters.
Tony Stark in particular was condemned as an individualist and not being much of a team player.
But isn’t that the characteristic of Robert Downey’s interpretation that has made his performance endearing over the course of the interlocking Marvel films and one with which sarcastic loners with a tendency to dance to the beat of their own drum have been able to identify?
As the review progressed, Swanson finally revealed the nature of his ultimate disapproval with the film.
For you see, with the exception of the archer Hawkeye, the protagonists are to be condemned because the are SINGLE (as in unmarried) for a variety of reasons.
For the most part, shouldn’t these characters be applauded for that decision because of the particular vocations in which they find themselves?
Captain America was in suspended animation for over 70 years while the woman he loved, Agent Peggy Carer, aged at a normal rate and if developments in her own TV miniseries are any indication, eventually moved on to marry somebody else as she didn’t even know those many decades that he was even still alive.
So in the eyes of the radical homeschoolers, is Steve Rogers not supposed to work through that profound emotional trauma before wedding someone else that he might not really love?
As to the Incredible Hulk, despite the slight sparks there with Black Widow, perhaps Bruce Banner has character enough to realize that he is better off without a relationship in which the normal stresses of which could set off his condition to the point where he wouldn’t simply snap at his wife in a less than courteous tone but instead level his entire neighborhood.
Though it was amusing to discover that Hawkeye had a secret family that he had concealed from his colleagues in the espionage and costumed adventurer communities and that served as a reminder of what these heroes are fighting for, these are action adventure films (not chick flicks).
While passing romance and flirtations add flavor to the narrative, the primary purpose for these films is to see robots and aliens blown up.
I don’t really care to see Superman flying Lois Lane from store to store looking for new drapes for the Fortress of Solitude.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing said by Swanson in his analysis was that we must be careful not to limit the designation of witchcraft to those claiming to be witches.
Instead, anyone whose power comes from a source other than God is guilty of this grievous offense.
An argument can be made as to the technical accuracy of that claim.
However, it must be remembered that Swanson advocates a political philosophy known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism that calls for the implementation of Biblical law as the nation’s comprehensive social policy and statutory code.
Since that is the case, how ought and to whom should the Biblical injunction of “Suffer not a witch to live” be applied?
For if definable limits are not placed upon such a principle, it could certainly be manipulated as a clever way to justify executing your political and philosophical opponents.
Vigilance is required whether one is dealing with a maniacal artificial intelligence or a podcasting minister that hasn’t fully considered the implications of his theological pronouncements.
By Frederick Meekins