The political world was rocked today, when prominent and influential blogger Sean Gleeson retracted his endorsement of actor Mel Gibson in the 2008 United States presidential election.
The retraction is seen as a setback for Gibson, who never showed any inclination to run for the office anyway, and had garnered no other supporters since landing Gleeson’s endorsement more than a year ago, on April 6, 2005.
Coming on the heels of Gibson’s disgraceful Malibu DUI arrest and alleged profane outbursts, Gleeson’s retraction will doom the actor’s political prospects, say most experts contacted for this story. “Yup, that’s right,” they all said. Gibson could not be reached for comment.
AND MY FOLLOW-UP POST: Bad boy, good guy, antisemite.
WE got him!
http://p.n3t.net/lamonte/mel/
Since Michelle Malkin included your Gibson announcement on her webpage, I assume you will add her site to your own list of blogs you read.
Your logic is unsound, Matt, though the conclusion is true. While I appreciate every blog that links to mine, I don’t as a matter of course add them all to my blogroll. My “Blogs I read” sidebar is reserved for a short list of some blogs which I think my readers would find informative or entertaining, or both. And that’s why Michelle Malkin is on it. (I also added Ace of Spades, Instapundit, and Wuzzadem today.)
Mel Gibson’s antisemitic mouth gives Sean Gleeson a long overdue cold shower
Picture it: Mel Gibson drunk off his face in the back of a police car in downtown Malibu shouting out Hitlerite sentiments such as “the Jews are to blame for all the wars in the world” and asking the arresting cops: “Are you a Jew?…
Now we know - Mel Gibson was influenced by his fat
Some of you have probably already heard the revolting news, that Mel Gibson mouthed off with anti-Semitic slurs when arrested for drunk driving. Here’s a PDF file of the arresting officer’s report. And some people wonder why Gibson was accused of ant…
Sean,
I say I nominate Mel Gibson for President….. Why………. Take a look at these Israeli quotes………… Disturbing these scoundrels…………..
Kind regards,
Robert Hassard
Foul-mouthed? Drunk? That didn’t stop our current president!
Mel need only first work off his checkered past in the purgatorial office of governor. [/sarcasm]
The conservative spin doctors, such as Sean Gleeson, should come to understand a basic fact regarding Mel Gibson’s situation: you are not in control of this outcome - we are. You can flood the press and internet with an apologist defense of Mr. Gibson, but his dilemma and “journey” will be over at a time and place of our choosing. We decided to not accept Mr. Gibson’s first apology because it was not sufficient. In forcing him to address the Jewish community, we attained our first goal: to have Mr. Gibson meet with prominent Jewish leaders to discuss his anti-Semitism. Once this dialogue has begun, rest assured that there will be 2 more press releases from Mr. Gibson in the future. One, he will directly repudiate the comments of his anti-Semitic father, Hutton Gibson. And two, he will apologize for the virulent and deliberate anti-Semitic content of his recent passion play, “The Passion of the Christ”. He will also reject the film and permanently disassociate himself from it as part of this apology. This is the path Mr. Gibson put himself on, and we have no intention of letting him stray from it. The alternative for Mr. Gibson is the end of his career. We’ve succeeded in forcing two apologies, and ABC’s decision to drop his Holocaust project. If he chooses not to complete his penance, we’ll ensure his movies do not get distributed through a series of boycotts that will make the entertainment business think twice about ever working with Mr. Gibson again.
Good luck with that, Bill.
“…One, he will directly repudiate the comments of his anti-Semitic father, Hutton Gibson.
He already has publicly repudiated anti-Semitism, hatred, and bigotry of any kind - both in his apologies and in the past when the issue has been raised. If Hutton buys into all the Jewish conspiracy theories, then he obviously falls into that category.
However, it is doubtful that he will single out his father publicly.
“… And two, he will apologize for the virulent and deliberate anti-Semitic content of his recent passion play…”
With all the charges of the Passion being anit-Semitic, where is the proof? What are the precise examples and scenes???? To this day I have yet to hear of any from those who make this charge - only that in general it is anti-semitic. In fact there were far more positive examples of Jews than bad ones in the movie. And mind you it showed good in all three of the groups shown. There were good and bad Jews, Good and bad Romans, and good and bad Christian-Jews. So, objectively speaking, no one group was singled out.
Yes, it did show that the Pharisees were plotting against Christ, but this is in the New Testament. So, is the New Testament, which was written by Jews, anti-semitic? Is the New Testament or film anti-apostle or Christian because it records how they all pretty much abandoned or betrayed Jesus - save John? If that’s the basis, the same charge could be made.
In the movie, Mel even showed how some of the Pharisees were divided over how to proceed. They spoke out against the trial - I’m not sure that’s even in the Bible. If not why even bother adding it, if his goal was to make the Jews look bad? If it was anti-semitic, he wouldn’t have showed that would he? If it was anti-semitic why make anyone Jewish look good or reasonable?
Mel also illustrated what the charges against Jesus were - blaspheming and making Himself God. From the Pharisees perspective, this is obviously a very serious thing to be making. So, when Jesus confirmed it saying “I AM.” The double entendre was confirmation and they tore their clothes - illustrating how serious it was to them. It could be readily seen that from their perspective - since they did not believe Jesus was the Christ - why it would be so serious to say such things. And although the punishment may be considered extreme in our times, back then I’m sure most people accept that people meeted out more extreme forms of punishment - in some places of the world they still do for things that would seem insignificant to us today.
In addition, if Jesus, Mary, and all the aposotles were all Jewish-Christian, how could it be anti-semetic? If Simon was a Jew and shown as kind of a hero - standing up to the ogerish Roman executioners - how was it anti-semitic? Again, I believe this was extra-biblical. I don’t think there is any recorded account that Simon momentarily stood up to the Roman soldiers. This was a nice artistic touch and again makes a Jewish character look good, heroic. Again if his goal was anti-semitic messages, why make a Jewish character - or any Jewish character for that matter look like a hero?
So, all of these elements contradict anti-semitism. I think that’s why when most people have heard these claims and then seen the film, they scratch their head and wonder if they saw the same movie.
From what I understand, the only specific thing even remotely anti-semitic about it the ADL asked that Mel remove from the script. That was the passage from the Bible when the Pharisees say “…Let his blood be on us and on our children.” And from what I heard, he did acknowledge and remove it out of respect to the history surrounding that statement.
Yet even at that, this statement in of itself is not anti-semitic. However, I can see how it may be mis-interpreted if one does not regard the New Testament as a whole and myopcially focuses on one passage without consideration of the others.
First, there was never a command by Jesus to hate or kill Jews - this would contradict his other commandments and he himself was Jewish. In fact if anything, Jesus showed a preference for his people - commisioning the disciples to preach to them first. Whether one agrees with those teachings or not is a whole other issue, and a personal one for each person to decide for themselves. But the main point is that he showed love and respect for his people. So, anti-semitism goes against all the tenets of the Christian faith - as even Mel has publicly acknowledged.
Second, the Bible records the Pharisees that were against Jesus making this statement - not Jesus. So, what real weight does that have? The Pharissees said and did alot of things which are the antithesis of what Christianity teaches. Why should this be different?
If they really thought in their own minds that what they were doing was wrong, they obviously would not have done it would they? Nor would they want to be responsible for Christs death, nor would they naturally want their children and relatives to suffer for it. In fact, they thought what they were doing was right and just because in their minds Jesus had blasphemed and sacrileged.
So, from this perspective, that statement obviuosly comes across more as a sarcastic challenge to expedite the proceeding and placate Pilate’s conscious more than anything. It is certainly not a call for Christians to hate or attack Jews on grounds of “deicide.”
“The Passion of the Christ”. He will also reject the film and permanently disassociate himself from it as part of this apology…”
You’re dreaming if you think he will ever do that. Since the film was not anti-semitic that’s also an unreasonable expectation to hoist up.
Actually, Mel Gibson saying what he said wasnt even anti-semetic. Semetic actually refers to the middle-east. He didnt even say anything anti-Jew. What he said was “Jews were responsible for all of the wars” that deffinatly wasnt anti-semetic and was hardly anti-jewish.
I am Jewish, and I will admit that my people love being offended. I have friends who say very very very hateful things about christians and very very very very very very very very hateful things about muslims, and than they had the nerve to bring up Mel Gibson. I hate to say it, but we are a bunch of hypocrits.
Apology from the underground of the jewish community that you goys wouldnt understand.
Oooh. I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Lunz. “The Jews are to blame for all the wars in the world” is what I would characterize as a self-evidently antisemitic remark. Furthermore, Mr. Gibson himself has admitted it was an antisemitic remark, and I am happy to take him at his word.
Whether some Jews “love being offended,” and whether they “say very very very hateful things about Christians,” are irrelevent to the issue. These postulates have absolutely no bearing on whether an antisemitic remark is antisemitic.
ITs not anti-semetic, he didnt say anything about the lebonese did he? He didnt say he wanted the Jews to all die did he? He didnt say anything about ANY OF THE COUNTRIES SURROUNDING ISRAEL (yes, middle eastern countries, even though we know israel is only technically european) I think that you are being to sensitive. In fact, how do YOU know, that Mel Gibson didnt say to the police officer “Are you Jewish” Because he was afraid he might had offended the man if he were! Look Whenever anyone has anything negative to say about our people, everyone starts pissing there pants, but we rant and rave about people all day, and i think that its a load of crap that anyone would even say that if we talk bad about muslims and christians all day than it has nothing to do with anything concerning this matter.
You my friend have absolutely no clue about your own Jewish religion do you! When others smite us, we are to make effort to forgive, and not to slander. We can disagree with them, but to start slanderizing is a sin and you know it, we will be placed on the same leve. So start thinking about things.
I’ll just let you have the last word, Lunz. Thanks for commenting. Shalom.
At the end of the day, any person and anyone can be a bigot and hate monger, right? The problem becomes that on a social level we generally only see it as one group or another being capable of it - when in reality we are all humans and therefore all capable of it.
In an objective sense, isn’t bigotry and hate wrong no matter who or what group employs it? Therefore, shouldn’t we all try to objectively examine ourselves and thinking to see if it is or not?
The question then becomes, how much intolerance can a society or culture tolerate?
Also, is all discrimination bad? For instance, we discriminate all the time in the laws we enact. So, we should be careful to speak in the absolutes and interchanging the words discrimination and hatred etc..
Someone like Mel who was both drunk and speeding was discriminated against, but not on the basis of who he is. It was his behavior not his ethnic race or religion etc…that was at issue. And for the safety of the public and himself, he and anyone else that behaves that way rightly deserves to be discriminated against and punished.
With respect to religion, whatever the faith, shouldn’t we examine the founding documents first - the basic tenents? The reason being is that we will be able to find both good and bad examples in every faith or culture for the simple reason that some will take their faith and beliefs more seriously than others and interpretation can become an issue.
For Christians, it would mean examining the Bible and primarily the New Testament for possible passages of discrimination. For example, the passage I addressed earlier in the New Testament. This being a historic justification by ‘Christians’ to persecute Jews - but is it a direct command from the founder of the religion or is it a misinterpretation or taken out of context of the whole.
Jews would have to examine the Torah and Talmud as I believe those are the source documents. Are there examples of bigotry and racism within it that advocate violence or persecution of others?
Muslims would have to examine the Qu’ran. Are there bigoted and racist passages that encourage violence or persecution of others?
Thats a good point (and sorry if I came about a little strong, didnt mean to sean),
The New Testament is always speaking against the Jews as people, this i do know. But it doesnt ever knock the Judaism, as this would contradict the belief in yeshu as their messiah (even though it is contrary to most jewish belief that he fulfilled all the prophecies),
Judaism itself speaks of expelling the idol-worshippers from the land, and converting goyim (gentiles) and destroying their pagan temples.
and Islam, well, the Koran is the most direct, in when it says “do not befriend the Jews and Christians, for they are friends with eachother.”
“The Jews turned their back on G-d” (christians believe this as well). “The Jews are infadels and will be crushed.” “Christians have half the story correct, so they should be granted second chance to correct their ways”
Islam will never be considered anti-semetic though, because they are of semetic race. The funniest part is that we are all related as well.
I do agree in the sense however that if we were to say ” Blacks create all the violence in the streets”, its a stereotype, its not necessarily true. But the black urban communities do suffer from high levels of violence. That would be rascist of me to say however, since not all black people are violent. Their are alot of violent white folks as well. ANY RACE.
Thats what i guess we should agree upon than:
that
Mel Gibson is at fault of a fallacy of logic and reason called: Hasty Generalization.
Yeah, that’s right. What Mel would be more correct in saying is that most of the more recent wars in the world have been about Jews or involved them. For instance, the holocaust in WWII, the present fighting in the mid-east over whether Israel has a right to exist.
I agree mostly with what you say about the New Testament. However, I am still not convinced it is anti-Jewish in the true sense of the word. I don’t see where specifically it speaks against the Jewish people as a whole. I can find however, plenty of places where Jesus spoke out against the Pharisees. His POV being that there was an over emphasis and abuse of the interpretations of the law. Whether one agrees with that is up for debate. Naturally, I can see how from the Pharisees POV, this would come across as disrespectful and maybe even disobedient. If Christians did not believe that Jesus was the Word made flesh, he would have no greater authority. Again, this a matter of debate and ultimately faith. It was a hardness of heart that Jesus was against, and the same could be applied to modern Christians as well. When I look around, I see the same problems now in the church that were prevelant then.
Yet even though Jesus and many of the Pharisees were at odds with each other, it must always be remembered that even on the cross it is recorded that Jesus prayed for the Pharisees and asked that they be forgiven “for they know not what they do.” If “no servant is greater than his master,” Christians are called to this same attitude and spirit. A true anti-Jewish or hate filled spirit is incompatible with living a real Christian life. And Christians have plenty of evidence to back this up and admonish other ‘Christians’ who are wrongly mis-interpreting and/or persecuting Jews.
However, a case could be made that Christianity is anti-Jewish (or against Judaism) in the sense that there is a disagreement over the teachings and whether Jesus is the Messiah or not. What I’m saying is that by the fact that it is different from Jewish understanding. But in such cases, any religion becomes anti-any other religion by default - that is by the fact that they are different.
I have absolutely no problem with people holding different views and different belief systems. It would be unrealistic and irrational for any of us to expect everyone to believe exactly the same thing.
I thnk the problems become when hate, discrimination, and ultimately violence based solely on these differences is promoted from the source documents. I believe that is where the line has to be drawn - especially the violence.
From what I understand, the Talmud may be a source or perpetuation of anti-Christian sentiment within the Jewish community. I’ve read arguments against it, and I’ve read apologists explanations of it. If there truly are disparages of the Christian belief, I can see the basis for it as outlined earlier - although it still would not be justifiable to advocate hate or bigotry on that basis. Why, because hate begets hate and bigotry begets bigotry. And we should be at the point in human’s history where we can move beyond those things, and trust that the tenets of our belief are believable and persuasive in and of themselves.
Whether it is or isn’t ant-Christian, I don’t know. From what I’ve read it doesn’t advocate killing Christians or Muslims specifically. That is my main concern.
With respect, to the Quran in one breath it preaches getting along with “people of the book.” But in another breath it preaches outright hostility and violence toward Jews, Christians, and non-believers.
Which one is it? Whenver, there is a terrorist attack and the Muslims say that the terrorists don’t represent their religion. Fair enough, there are extremists in every religion. There are those who misinterpret passages etc… Therefore an allowance must be made for this.
However, can they back it up with their founding documents - the Quran and Hadiths? Can they prove to the non-believers and to their own community that hatred, bigotry, violence, and terrorism are not in keeping with the spirit of Mohammad and the Quran?
They may qoute that to kill one person is like to kill the whole world, but what about all the other passages that advocate hate, bigotry, and violence against those who do not share their beliefs? Who is the real Muslim? In any text, passages can not be read in isolation of the other - otherwise it is “cherry picking”, “pick and chose.”
How can one possibly mis-interpret “smite at their necks.” Or ”
Soon shall We cast TERROR into the hearts of the Unbelievers.”
With these kinds of passages, how can peaceful Muslim apologists honestly admonish their own radicals and extremists in all fairness?
Some make the argument that this an English translation of the Quran and there are variances with translation etc…
Fair enough, but that’s qouted from a Muslim website. And reasonable observation demonstrates that this is most likely not a linguistic misinterpetation. We see Muslims “smiting people at their necks” and casting terror upon those who differ in beliefs.
If people want to know the truth about any religion, that’s why I suggest we not just take people’s word for it. The old saying of trust but verify comes to mind. And it must be taken into account that there will be good and bad people in every religion. And there will be those who truly try to follow it and those who are more culturely or ethnicly tied to it but don’t practce it. The question then relies not just on personal examples (although they can be a barometer), but on what the actual religion and founding documents and traditions teach.
Mel Gibson said, “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world”
He was driving drunk and people think his biggest mistake was saying that ?
Big damn deal - Cindy Sheehan says, “George Bush murdered my son” and Hollywood starts naming streets after her.
America has come to a point where we have freedom of speech & freedom of religion, as long as it’s a popular one.
Even more so, that it’s almost always the people that demand action against someone like Mel Gibson (and his comments) that also claim they advocate freedom of speech.