, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walking DeadHow can so many viewers stomach the five seasons of weekly gore of “The Walking Dead” while cringing at the notion of watching the online videos of ISIS executing real people through the beheadings [scroll down for photos] and the burning alive [burning starts at 17:00 minutes into video] of caged souls?  Is it because one is harmless, graphic comic-book fiction and the other is the sickening taboo of realism?  Really?

What is the difference between the zombies of “The Walking Dead,” who are united by their “disease,” and the beings of ISIS (or ISIL, as the Obama administration chooses to officially label them) who are united by their belief in Sharia law?  Be honest.

The characters of Dale and Herschel in the first and second seasons of “The Walking Dead” represented the clear voices of civilized reason.  They wanted to protect the humanity of human beings by showing mercy toward those who would potentially, realistically and enjoyably kill them.  In a sense, they wanted to sit at a table with them over tea and reason with them.  What was their fate in response to their voices?

In “The Walking Dead,” the notion comes to light that we’re all infected and subject to becoming zombies upon “death.”  Can this also be true that we are all subject to the “infection” of ISIS and Sharia law?  How many “normal” youth have you heard about in the news recently, who suddenly succumb to the beckoning call of ISIS and fly to Europe, then Turkey, finally crossing over into Syria to join their “ranks.”  Where is the realistic line in a person’s mind between saying no to the infection or saying yes?  Is there no line, as “The Walking Dead” fictionally supposes?

If the idea of a zombie apocalypse were truth, would you willingly kill zombies or let them kill you?  Would your answer be the same for those in ISIS, who are united by the infection of Sharia law?  Be honest.

–Steve Bort