Mel Gibson - Against Jews?

[Dak]

Hey everyone, looket me!!! i'm risking other peoples lives by drink-driving. *hic* plus, i dont like jews.

 

ZOMG, YOU DONT LIKE JEWS!!!!! YOU BASTARD!!!!!!

 

Some people hate Jews, some hate Christians, some hate Muslims and some hate all religions. Everyone has a view, why do people care so much?

 

That's a good point.

 

Surely we're not the thought police? He is entitled to his own personal oppinions -- including hating jews -- and, no matter how repulsive they may be to us, we have no right to expect nor demand that he does not have them.

 

Were he to try to incite anti-sematic feelings, then that might be a different matter, but -- as i understand -- he keeps these oppinions to himself, with the exeption of this one incident.

 

And tbh, i think that risking killing someone by drink-driving is worse, by a considerable amount, than insulting jews relatively in private.

[Phi for All]

Some people hate Jews, some hate Christians, some hate Muslims and some hate all religions. Everyone has a view, why do people care so much?

No one cares what you or I think, but Mel Gibson "owns Malibu" and has thousands of media outlets waiting to hear anything at all from him. His actions and words carry weight. What he does and says affects millions of opinions around the world. His "bandwidth" is enormous compared to the average person, so he does have a responsibility to use it wisely.

 

In fact, I have to give him credit for mentioning several times his responsibility to those his actions affect. He's aware that celebrity carries a heavy price.

[john5746]

Surely we're not the thought police? He is entitled to his own personal oppinions -- including hating jews -- and, no matter how repulsive they may be to us, we have no right to expect nor demand that he does not have them.

 

No one is forcing him to do anything.

 

Were he to try to incite anti-sematic feelings' date=' then that might be a different matter, but -- as i understand -- he keeps these oppinions to himself, with the exeption of this one incident.[/quote']

 

Well, he did make a movie showing Jews in a particularly bad light. When they raised objections, he changed a few things, but mostly said he and the film were not anti-semetic.

 

And tbh' date=' i think that risking killing someone by drink-driving is worse, by a considerable amount, than insulting jews relatively in private.[/quote']

 

He may go to jail for DUI. His other comments are not considered a crime. Why the news gives more attention to some stories than others, who knows.

[ecoli]

No one cares what you or I think' date=' but Mel Gibson "owns Malibu" and has thousands of media outlets waiting to hear anything at all from him. His actions and words carry weight. What he does and says affects millions of opinions around the world. His "bandwidth" is enormous compared to the average person, so he does have a responsibility to use it wisely.

 

In fact, I have to give him credit for mentioning several times his responsibility to those his actions affect. He's aware that celebrity carries a heavy price.[/quote']

 

This is essentially what the ADL is worried about. While nobody is really expecting something as bad as the holocaust on american soil, life for Jews in 50s in America sucked pretty badly.

 

A return of anti-Semitic feeling, though unlikely in the more urban areas, is still not desired, say in the heartland.

[-Demosthenes-]

Well, he did make a movie showing Jews in a particularly bad light. When they raised objections, he changed a few things, but mostly said he and the film were not anti-semetic.

He did?

[Pangloss]

"The Passion of the Christ" was not an anti-semitic film, any more than "Schindler's List" was an anti-German film.

[AL]

The man did apologize and extend an olive branch to the Jewish community, so I'm not sure we can ask for more out of him. Let's hope he learned something.

Well' date=' he did make a movie showing Jews in a particularly bad light. When they raised objections, he changed a few things, but mostly said he and the film were not anti-semetic.[/quote'']He did?

There were scenes deleted from the movie under pressure from groups like the ADL. The main deleted scene was the quote from Caiaphas that Christ's blood is "upon" the Jews. Now whether or not that's anti-Semitic depends on your views, but the ADL saw it that way.

[john5746]

"The Passion of the Christ" was not an anti-semitic film, any more than "Schindler's List" was an anti-German film.

 

The Passion is based on the New Testament, which can be seen as anti-semitic, IMO, but I agree that it is based on the Bible, so it can be seen as just the truth(even though it is BS).

 

Problem with The Passion

 

I am questioning Mel's motives in retrospect, not the film itself. He was told to take the blood on the Jews line out, but then it resurfaced again. He finally took it out when a Jewish film critic pleaded with him to remove it. I question why he even wanted to make the film in the first place.

 

Schindler's List is an anti-Nazi film. It is easier to seperate Nazi from German. But if Spielberg is pulled over and says similar things about Germans, then I question his motives for making the movie.

[Pangloss]

What difference does it make what his motivations were? And why does it have to be either "truth" or "BS"?

 

Do you have the same misgivings about, for example, Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11", or communist Howard Shore's blatantly apocryphal novel "Spartacus"? Are you at least consistent in your politically correct prejudice?

 

(Edit: Or would that be "post-judice"?)

[john5746]

What difference does it make what his motivations were? And why does it have to be either "truth" or [/i']"BS"?

 

The argument for showing the mob of Jews is that it is in the Bible. I happen to think the Bible is BS, but that doesn't matter. He could have toned down those scenes, but he chose not to do it. It may just be coincidence that he did that and has his ignorant views of Jews.

 

Do you have the same misgivings about' date=' for example, Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11", or communist Howard Shore's blatantly apocryphal novel "Spartacus"? Are you at least consistent in your politically correct prejudice?

 

(Edit: Or would that be "post-judice"?) [/quote']

 

Moore's motivation for making 9/11 was inspiration from God.

 

All I am saying is that I suspect that Mel Gibson is a very polarized and prejudiced person, similar to Michael Moore. I don't pay too much attention to the details of hollywood stars' lives and opinions, so I wasn't aware of it. Now I am. I didn't like the gore in the Passion, but I didn't think it was anti-Jew. I saw all of humanity wanting to kill the guy. Maybe that is what he wanted to show.

 

But I was reponding to Dak, who said he didn't think Mel had tried to inspire anti-Jew feelings. Well, the Passion did that in Europe for centuries and still does today. That doesn't mean he was trying to do it, but his recent outburst casts doubt, IMO

[Pangloss]

The argument for showing the mob of Jews is that it is in the Bible. I happen to think the Bible is BS, but that doesn't matter.

 

Huh? What WOULD it be? A mob of wayward Tasmanians? Perhaps a group of Native Americans, recently returned to Earth by aliens?

 

But seriously, you don't find it plausible that a "mob of Jews" could exist in Judea in that time frame, or that it might protest various political events at the time?

 

Are you not aware that Roman accounts exist from that time? Pliny... Josephus... Tacitus actually recorded the passing of a "Cristus" during the governership of Pontius Pilate.

 

I happen to share your position on the Bible, but what you're saying smacks of agenda, not a search for truth. That's about Making Christians Wrong.

[Phi for All]

To be honest, I find the fast-moving pace of this story to be amusing and indicative of the inherent hypocrisy of both the news industry and the public relations/special interest group complex[/b']* -snip- (*That's my new thing, stealing from the concept of Ike's "military-industrial complex". What do you think? The inherent irony of naming a collective bent upon labelling things is intentional. I admit the name could be catchier; suggestions are welcomed!)

Howz about STST for, "Spin there, spun that"?

[john5746]

Huh? What WOULD it be? A mob of wayward Tasmanians? Perhaps a group of Native Americans' date=' recently returned to Earth by aliens?

 

But seriously, you don't find it plausible that a "mob of Jews" could exist in Judea in that time frame, or that it might protest various political events at the time?

 

Are you not aware that Roman accounts exist from that time? Pliny... Josephus... Tacitus actually recorded the passing of a "Cristus" during the governership of Pontius Pilate.

 

I happen to share your position on the Bible, but what you're saying smacks of agenda, not a search for truth. That's about Making Christians Wrong.[/quote']

 

And oops, there it is. Long before The Passion's full release (the scene is from a trailer), Mel Gibson's film has already ignored the guidance of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1988 for dramatizers of Christ's last hours. The advisory warns, among other things, against "changing the small 'crowd' at the Governor's palace into a teeming mob." Why? Such an exaggeration, the bishops claim, would misleadingly suggest that the Jews as a body, indeed as a race, wanted Jesus dead.

 

 

The above quote is from the link I provided previously. I am not attacking the Catholic church. I am not even attacking the movie.

[Pangloss]

A number of stars are speaking out in Gibson's defense.

http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1223467,00.html

 

It's interesting that he spent all afternoon before the event with producer Dean Devlin, whose wife is Jewish. Her comments in the story are interesting.

 

Not what the anti-Gibson crowd wants you to hear, but then it's not as much fun to forgive a conservative as it is to destroy one, is it?

[Phi for All]

Not what the anti-Gibson crowd wants you to hear, but then it's not as much fun to forgive a conservative as it is to destroy one, is it?

For me it has nothing to do with whether he's a conservative, and it has absolutely nothing to do with forgiveness. I love him as an actor and still do. I've loved most of the movies I've seen him in.

 

However, as an alcoholic, I can tell you that being drunk is never an excuse for horrible behavior, no matter how much you want it to be. And being drunk doesn't put words in your head, it just makes you stupid enough to give voice to the words that are there already, no matter who they hurt. Alcoholism is not a disease, it's an addiction. Calling it a disease makes it somehow not your fault. And this was definitely Mel's fault.

 

But he merely showed us his prejudice, his opinion of Jews, so it's not up to me to forgive Mel Gibson for what he said while he was drinking. This is not something he did against me that needs my forgiveness. It's really not about the Jews forgiving him either. We now know he blames Jews for many things and it's up to us to decide whether or not we want anything to do with him anymore. Mel Gibson is entitled to his opinion about Jews. And I'm entitled to think less of him for it.

[Pangloss]

That's quite a conclusion about a man you've never met. But then, we've all seen the 3-d holodeck reproductions of the event in question, complete with mental synapse induction that grants us complete and utterly thorough understanding of the mental processes taking place in the accused at the time of the crime. So yes, I'm sure you're right. ;-)

[silkworm]

A number of stars are speaking out in Gibson's defense.

http://people.aol.com/people/article/0' date='26334,1223467,00.html

 

It's interesting that he spent all afternoon before the event with producer Dean Devlin, whose wife is Jewish. Her comments in the story are interesting.

 

Not what the anti-Gibson crowd wants you to hear, but then it's not as much fun to forgive a conservative as it is to destroy one, is it?[/quote']

 

Why do you feel it necessary to be his advocate?

[Pangloss]

For exactly the same reason that you felt that post necessary.

[gcol]

Pangloss:

 

If You want a seconder for your "advocacy", count me in.I would be an advocate for the devil if I thought he had been victimised unfairly and given a bum deal. All hypocritical fundamentalist pressure groups offend me intensely. As an atheist denies all Gods, so should a reasonable and even-handed person shout for fairplay.

[silkworm]

For exactly the same reason that you felt that post necessary.

 

So, we both think you're just being a pain in the ass? Because the reason I posted it is because I thought you were just trying to be a pain in the ass. I thought you might have stumbled onto something profound, something to which we could all find the stength to rally around Mel Gibson. I guess that hope is lost.

[Pangloss]

No, we both think that forming opinions based on poor information is a bad idea.

 

Now, shall we objectively assess the value of each other's information? Yours is based on National Enquirer-level "news" reporting. Mine is based on the concept of refraining from forming judgemental opinions in a near-void of accurate information.

[Dak]

No one is forcing him to do anything.

 

my point was just that it's not really that big a deal if he hates jews. he's just one person.

 

If he publically hates jews and spouts-off anti-sematic stuff then, given that he's in the public arena, that's a different story, but -- my point -- he doesn't, exept this one occasion when he's drunk.

 

So... even if he is an anti-semite, is it really that bad, given that he keeps it to himself exept for this one occasion?

[GutZ]

Maybe if a common ground was created you guys wouldn't bicker like little ninnies (HAHAH, ninnies..I crack myself up).

 

I think everyone can agree that if statement X was said which severity of insult passed a specfic point like...the quotes stated, then it would be the wrong thing to say.

 

Also the possiblity that statement X is valid, is questionable, given the media notorious exaggerations of these types of statements.

 

There!

[silkworm]

No' date=' we both think that forming opinions based on poor information is a bad idea.

 

Now, shall we objectively assess the value of each other's information? Yours is based on National Enquirer-level "news" reporting. Mine is based on the concept of refraining from forming judgemental opinions in a near-void of accurate information.[/quote']

 

Pangloss. He's just Mel Gibson. There are supposedly recordings, police documents, etc. I do think the media is too obsessed with worthless people such as Mel Gibson, and so degrade in "National Enquirer-level" news reporting. I don't care enough about Mel Gibson to research any further, and you've provided nothing to show that he was really plotting in church and mugging the homeless all night like good little conservatives do.

 

Go ahead and warn me again, I find it ammusing when you're petty (which is pretty much all the time - thanks for the laughs).

[lightwave]

Silkworm is the one who is being petty and being extreme about it.

 

As for Mel Gibson, the topic of this thread. Who cares really what he said about jews. Jews are constantly attacking everybody else, especially Christians but suddenly someone speaks out about jewish attitudes and the jews go ape about it... Ok, so what?

 

Go Mel, you let it all hang out. Ignore the petty twits and go for it.