Mel Gibson: Traditional Catholic, Emerging Anti-Semite?

[headscratcher4]

Did anyone see the interesting article in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine on Mel Gibson, his father, his "traditional" catholicism, seeming anti-Semetic views and his upcoming movie on the death of Jesus?

You may need to register to get access to this:


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/magazine/09GIBSON.html

Here are some samples:


Mel Gibson is also known in traditionalist circles as the most famous son of Hutton Gibson, a well-known author and activist who has railed against the Vatican for more than 30 years. His books on the topic include ''Is the Pope Catholic?'' and ''The Enemy Is Here.'' (Precisely where is indicated by a map on the dust jacket -- it's a cartoon of Italy, drawn by one of his 49 grandchildren). Gibson père also publishes a quarterly newsletter called ''The War Is Now!,'' which includes all manner of verbal volleys against a pope he calls ''Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser.''

Which made it all the odder when he (Gibson Sr.) launched into one of his complex conspiracy theories. On our first night together, he nursed a mug of sassafras tea while leading a four-hour tutorial on so-called sedevacantism, which holds that all the popes going back to John XXIII in the 1950's have been illegitimate -- ''anti-popes,'' he called them. As Hutton explained it, the conservative cardinal Giuseppe Siri was probably passed over for pope in 1958 in favor of a more reform-minded candidate. Hutton said Cardinal Siri was duly elected, but was forced to step aside by conspirators inside and outside the church. These shadowy enemies might have threatened ''to atom-bomb the Vatican City,'' he said. In another conversation, he told me that the Second Vatican Council was ''a Masonic plot backed by the Jews.''

He moved on to the Holocaust, dismissing historical accounts that six million Jews were exterminated. ''Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,'' he said. ''It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?''

Across the table, Joye (Mrs. Gibson Sr.) suddenly looked up from her plate. She was dressed in a stylish outfit for church, wearing a leather patchwork blazer and a felt beret in place of the traditional headdress. She had kept quiet most of the day, so it was a surprise when she cheerfully piped in. ''There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe,'' she said.

The entire catastrophe was manufactured, said Hutton, as part of an arrangement between Hitler and ''financiers'' to move Jews out of Germany. Hitler ''had this deal where he was supposed to make it rough on them so they would all get out and migrate to Israel because they needed people there to fight the Arabs,'' he said.

Mel Gibson has shown some of his father's flair for conspiracy scenarios. In a 1995 Playboy interview, he related a sketchy theory that various presidential assassinations and assassination attempts have been acts of retribution for economic reforms that challenged the powers-that-be. ''There's something to do with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy did and Reagan tried,'' he said. ''I can't remember what it was. My dad told me about it. Everyone who did this particular thing that would have fixed the economy got undone. Anyway, I'll end up dead if I keep talking.''

A friend of the Gibson family has his own ideas about how traditionalist thought is informing ''The Passion.'' Gary Giuffre, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says Gibson told him about his plans for ''The Passion'' on a recent visit. ''It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before.'' Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified.

In his conversation with Bill O'Reilly (who prefaced the interview by disclosing that Gibson's production company has optioned the rights to O'Reilly's mystery novel), Gibson was asked whether his account might particularly upset Jews. ''It may,'' he said. ''It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible. But when you look at the reasons why Christ came, why he was crucified -- he died for all mankind and he suffered for all mankind. So that, really, anyone who transgresses has to look at their own part or look at their own culpability.''

Mad Max, indeed...:eek:

[corplinx]

Gibson warned that people were getting ready to do a hit piece on him vis a vis his parents.


Guess he was right.

[shecky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Gibson warned that people were getting ready to do a hit piece on him vis a vis his parents.


Guess he was right.

Given some of the views he's given over the past few years, I'm surprized there haven't been more hit pieces. The first interview I read of him where he seemed a bit off, was around the time when he did a movie having to do with conspiracy theries, I think that may have been the title. Once on the subject matter, he seemed to go off on a few wacky ideas before seemingly coming to his senses and back down to earth. I didn't know if he was joking, if it was, it was rather odd and unfunny.

The upcoming Jesus movie concept alone seems like enough to make one wonder about his connection with reality.

Unfortunately, I can't recall where this interview appeared. May have been in one of the local media rags. Then again, it may just be the liberal media trying to tar and feather yet another freethinker. :rolleyes:

[RSLancastr]

Just when I thought that it was impossible for me to care less about something than about the opinion of a celebrity, I find out that I care even less about the opinion of a celebrity's parent.

Huh.

[a_unique_person]

i think we got a pretty good look at him in 'we were soldiers once'. the prayer scenes were reminded me of frank burns in 'mash'.

as for anti-semitism, the whole back to the real past bit they embrace is full of ideas that are just as mad. the current pope is doing his best to head in gibsons direction, too, and leaving the majority of catholics behind, especially in areas such as birth control, and wondering what the hell is going on.

[sadluxation]

Well, as you all know.
Mel Gibson is an anagram of Big Melons. This is also a food stuff that Jews and Christians can both eat without fear of recrimination.
Paranormal or coincidence?
You decide!

[sadluxation]

Well, as you all know.
Mel Gibson is an anagram of Big Melons. This is also a food stuff that Jews and Christians can both eat without fear of recrimination.
Also a type of melon is a 'honey dew', which sounds a bit like, "horney jew", aka Mel Gibson.
Paranormal or coincidence?
You decide!

[zakur]

I've read that Mel Gibson is an anagram of Big Melons. At least a couple of times. :D

[John Harrison]

i think we got a pretty good look at him in 'we were soldiers once'. the prayer scenes were reminded me of frank burns in 'mash'.

I think that had more to do with the fact that his character (Hal Moore) was a very religious man.

[Melissa Johnson]

This is interesting and disturbing to me--and I know of what I speak, as I come from a deeply traditional Latin Mass Catholic background and recently had to bite my tongue during a telephone conversation with my mother. For some reason we got talking about current events--for sanity's sake I usually stay away from religion or politics--and boy, did I get a revelation. Not only is Bush being controlled by the Jews, he's in league with the Masons, etc. etc. etc. Insert your favorite woo-woo wacko conspiracy about Rockefellers, Bildenburgs, Illuminati and so forth. I was so aghast (don't know why, I shoulda expected it) I nearly dropped the phone.

It's scary stuff, this sedevacantism, truly. You all out there looking on from the atheist perspective probably don't see much difference between the sect and mainstream Catholicism, but believe me, there is. Miles of difference. They're not all that far removed from wacko Muslim sects, to tell the truth. I'm going to keep an eye on ol' Mel. Well, for more than just his boyish good looks, too :D

[Alaric]

Ive always thought the guy was a tool-he doesnt seem to like England much either..Braveheart(oh freakin lord was that innacurate) and the Patriot(um...i dont know how to properly capture the feeling I have when an Aussie show me the meaning of American defiance of the Brits).

That sort of leaning in movies had already made me weary of him...and then he turned out that lame movie where he could hear womans thoughts....dear god. Did you HONESTLY need more proof he is a loon?

[Tom Head]

I dunno; I'm going to wait and see how the movie looks. If he walks carefully, he can blame 1st-century religious authorities for Christ's death without making an overtly antisemitic film. It all depends on whether he wants to or not. I have to believe that if he had strong antisemitic feelings, we would have heard about them a long time ago (but then, life and movie stars are full of surprises).


Cheers,

[hgc]

So why is it supposed to be a bad thing that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus? If he died to wash away all our sins, and was born for that very purpose, isn't it a good thing that someone down here on Earth facilitated the blessed event?

[headscratcher4]

Yes, which is why Judas is a Saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church...

[Thumper]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Yes, which is why Judas is a Saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church...

Is he? Danng! I learned something new today. I guess I can go to bed now. :)

[Brown]

Here's the take from snopes.com. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp)

Based upon past performance, I do not trust Mel to make a movie that is "historically accurate," by any reasonable definition of the term.

[Reb]

Just a quick bump to note that I just read an article (An AP article titled "Gibson's film gets selective screening" by Amy Westfeldt) this morning which quoted Cal Thomas, a "conservative syndicated columnist" as calling the film 'the most beautiful, accurate, disturbing, realistic and bloody depiction of this well-known story that has ever been filmed'.

Accurate? How can a movie which is based upon 4 contadictory stories (the Gospels) be termed "accurate"?

Reb

[Reb]

And if Gibson were interested in laying the blame for the death of Christ anywhere, why wouldn't he lay it at the "feet" of the truly responsible being: God?

[Marc]

Originally posted by Reb
Accurate? How can a movie which is based upon 4 contadictory stories (the Gospels) be termed "accurate"?

Reb

Simple, because it is not directly based on the Gospels, it is based on traditional christian beliefs, which is a bizzar amalgam of of them. Not to mention a rather heavily edited version of the entire bible.

For example, in my catholic upbringing I had heard the story how when Jesus died a tapestry in the temple ripped in half, sky darkened, earthquake. Curiously they don't mention the dead rising at that point, even though that is the next line in Matthew. As a kid watched some of those christian cartoons, the one showing Lot fleeing from Sodom left out the bit about offering his daughters to the crowd of rapists. Guess that little bit has been left out of the official christian story.

[Reb]

Originally posted by Marc


Simple, because it is not directly based on the Gospels, it is based on traditional christian beliefs, which is a bizzar amalgam of of them. Not to mention a rather heavily edited version of the entire bible.
According to this article: CBS News article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/08/entertainment/main567445.shtml)

Gibson has said the film is faithful to the account of the crucifixion in the four Gospels and is meant “to inspire, not offend.”

So I repeat: how can a movie base on 4 contadictory stories be termed "more accurate" than any previous movie on the subject?

I know, I know: publicists' hyperbole, but still...

Reb

[I'll_buy_that]

As soon as i read this, i had to come here to search for a thread on the subject. In a recent article posted in Reuters

"...has touched off a firestorm of controversy among organizations and people concerned about anti-Semitism"

"Jewish leaders have raised concerns it might portray Jews as collectively guilty for Christ's crucifixion, while Catholics have expressed worries that Gibson might use the film to challenge church teachings. "

for something that was supposed to have happened 2000 years ago and which may have never happened and if it did, is probably not a religious event? :eek: Wasn't Christ a jew?

and, what about the question Reb brings up? wasn't this supposed to happen? wasn't it god's doing? so how can the jews be blamed for it?

UGH! :mad:

[bignickel]

Well, evidently, they can reconcile this by thinking that even though Jesus acted like a Jew, he was really a Xtian -> because he's Christ!

Anyways, I predict that this movie, like all other tales before it, once again fails to put the blame for the crucifixion where it really belongs.

The Romans.

I mean, come on: the Romans executed any suspected revolutionary or rebel with out any qualms. Jesus was a suspected revolutionary: they seized him, and executed him. End of story.

To think that the Jewish leaders actually got the Romans to act on the Jesus matter is laughable. They would have had as much influence over who the Romans arrested as the Chinese.

So where does the bad rap on the Jews come from: yep, the Gospel and Letters writers. Wanting to get in good with the Romans, they placed the blame on the Jews.

Wierd how many people have bought it after so many years.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by bignickel
Well, evidently, they can reconcile this by thinking that even though Jesus acted like a Jew, he was really a Xtian -> because he's Christ!

Anyways, I predict that this movie, like all other tales before it, once again fails to put the blame for the crucifixion where it really belongs.

The Romans.

I mean, come on: the Romans executed any suspected revolutionary or rebel with out any qualms. Jesus was a suspected revolutionary: they seized him, and executed him. End of story.

To think that the Jewish leaders actually got the Romans to act on the Jesus matter is laughable. They would have had as much influence over who the Romans arrested as the Chinese.

So where does the bad rap on the Jews come from: yep, the Gospel and Letters writers. Wanting to get in good with the Romans, they placed the blame on the Jews.

Wierd how many people have bought it after so many years.

I think you are wrong about most of this.

The earliest Xian persecutors were in fact Jews.
The earliest Xian piece of literature is 1st Thess. written about 51CE, about 20 years after the death of Jesus.

Paul states in 2:15 - "the Jews who killed Lord Jesus."
Some have argued this is an interlopation because it is an early refutation of the current more liberal trend to make the Romans solely responsible for death of Jesus. However, all mss contain this.

This was a letter to a small church in Thessolonia, why would he make that up to get in "good with the Romans." There is no record of Roman persecution of Xians until about 64CE under Nero. (Tacitus - Annals)

Remember Jesus's brother James was stoned to death by Annus the high priest in 62CE. (Flavius Josephus -Antiquities of the Jews book XX)

The idea that it is "laughable" that the high priests could get the Romans to kill someone is not borne out by the records of Philo and Josephus. Pillate and Caiphas worked for 10 years together and indeed they had a sort of deal it seems. Pilate whose base most of the time was Ceasera Martinia left it up to Caiphas to keep order in Jeruselum.

It is not absurd that some guy throwing tables over in the temple and causeing a scene would get the high priests to want him dead in order to avoid further bloodshed. Also, that he was predicting the temple's destruction would not have sat well with them.

They would turn him over to Pillate who was there for passover would only be too happy to do something that would end any possible disturbance.

Perhaps, you might want to look at this further before you make such blanket statements.

The tragedy is that Xians have used some of this info. as justification for killing Jews.

[bignickel]

"A guy's overturning tables in the Temple!"

"What? We better have the Romans execute him!"

Sorry, but when it comes down to the nitty-gritty, Jesus was a nobody on the religous and social radar back then. No one, no one mentioned him anywhere when he was alive.

Hardly the kind of press we'd expect from someone the High Priests (they're as bad the Nazi's aren't they? They should be in the next Indy Jones film, I think) need to have the Romans take care of. Especially when a knife between the side ribs in a dark alley would be alot less public. And alot more quiet.

The Romans occupied the country. The Romans executed any suspected revolutionary. Without any qualms.

The only thing that states that the blame should be placed anywhere else is the Gospels: propagandic documents written to sell a new cult version of Judaism.

I'm sorry, but Ocham's Razor here says I'm going with the Roman-execution explanation. If you have better proof that the blame belongs elsewhere, present it.

BTW - "liberal trend" - what the he11 is that all about? Since when do politics have anything to do with historical science?

[BillyTK]

Jews Slam Gibson Movie After First Screening (http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/)
(imdb.com)
[...]ADL official Rabbi Eugene Korn, who also saw the movie, adds, "This is not a disagreement between the Jews and Mr. Gibson. Many theologically-informed Catholics and Protestants have expressed the same concerns regarding anti-Semitism and that this film may undermine Christian-Jewish dialogue and could turn back the clock on decades of positive progress in interfaith relations."

[billiefan2000]

Gibson's Passion of Christ Debuts Ash Wednesday Feb. 25 2004 in theaters

[Nyarlathotep]

I hate to be the one defending religion but here is my problem with this "Mel Gibson is an anti-semite" thing. Whenever I hear the accusation the only evidence I ever hear in support of it (including in the original post on this thread) is that Mel's father is an anti-semite. I don't care if Hutton Gibson was such a rabid anti-semite that he made Hitler look like an orthodox rabbi, that does not equate to Mel Gibson being an anti-semite. My own father was a bigot, a criminal and an all-around scumbag, does that make me all of those things too? Mel Gibson may be an anti-semite or he may not be, but if we are to accuse him of such a thing, then it should be based on his own actions rather than those of his father.

As for his movie, that has to be taken on its own merits or lack thereof. Personally, I don't like biblical epics and I think I would rather sit home and watch paint dry than watch "The Passion". However if he has drawn faithfully from the original source material (The biblical account of the crucifixion) then I don't see how he can accused of anti-semitism any more than the Christian religion in general can be. Maybe it can be but that is a wholly separate debate.

In short I think Mel Gibson is guilty of foisting off a stupid, boring piece of religious propaganda but I don't think he is guilty of bigotry on a personal level.

[hgc]

Good point, Nyar...

Let me just add that I can't support these Jewish leaders in their criticism.

If the true believers want to believe that the Jewish powers-that-be in Jerusalem killed the purported founder the Jewish cult that became Christianity, then that's their business.

If any lunatic is going to act out his anger against Jews after being inflamed by this movie, that is not Mel Gibson's responsibility.

For all I know, this might be a good movie. I may see it and find out. It also may be amusingly bad.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by hgc
Good point, Nyar...

Let me just add that I can't support these Jewish leaders in their criticism.

If the true believers want to believe that the Jewish powers-that-be in Jerusalem killed the purported founder the Jewish cult that became Christianity, then that's their business.

If any lunatic is going to act out his anger against Jews after being inflamed by this movie, that is not Mel Gibson's responsibility.

For all I know, this might be a good movie. I may see it and find out. It also may be amusingly bad.

Of course I agree with you but without having the least intention to defend the jewish leaders I believe that they have good reasons to be over-sensitive in this case. The alleged crucifixion of the Christ by the Jews was the point on the spear of anti-judaism for centuries, in fact until the middle of 18th ce.

[Skeptic]

Well, perhaps we should wait until we actually WATCH THE MOVIE. At least one (jewish) movie critic, Mike Medved, who watched the movie claimed that it isn't antisemitic.

So far all we have is innuendo: that his father is a religious nut (true, but so what?); that he is a devout christian--again, this is a). rumour, b). could meen just about anything about his actual beliefs; that the movies portrays jews unsympathetically--which, considering that it's the story of the crucifixion, is a bit like complaining that "The Ten Commandments" was unfair in its portrayal of Egyptians.

I don't find this strong evidence--certainly not enough to convict the man of encouraging genocidal antisemitism (as if Arafat needs his help), like some jewish organizations did.

Shouldn't we--literally--wait and see on this one?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Kinda like everyone here did Battlefield Earth I imagine.

In any event I've heard stories from religioustolerance and the ADL about Mel Gibson's movie having some anti-semetic overtones, though to my knowledge nobody has called him "genocidal" (a source for that would be apreciated less it be a straw man).

Skeptic, also the point is not that the Jews are merely participating in the crucifixion, but that they are doing "evil" thing that go against biblical and historical records. For example, I have heard that in the movie the Jews construct the cross to torture Jesus with.

As for the Ten Commandments, imo it was a terrible flick.

Also the ADL's views are based on a review of Mel Gibson's screen play.

http://www.adl.org/interfaith/gibson_qa.asp?&&MSHiC=1252&L=10&W=the+PASSING+passion+PASSIONS+PASSIVE+PASSIVELY+&Pre=%3CFONT+STYLE%3D%22color%3A+%23000000%3B+backg round%2Dcolor%3A+%23FFFF00%22%3E&Post=%3C%2FFONT%3E

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, perhaps we should wait until we actually WATCH THE MOVIE. At least one (jewish) movie critic, Mike Medved, who watched the movie claimed that it isn't antisemitic.

So far all we have is innuendo: that his father is a religious nut (true, but so what?); that he is a devout christian--again, this is a). rumour, b). could meen just about anything about his actual beliefs; that the movies portrays jews unsympathetically--which, considering that it's the story of the crucifixion, is a bit like complaining that "The Ten Commandments" was unfair in its portrayal of Egyptians.

I don't find this strong evidence--certainly not enough to convict the man of encouraging genocidal antisemitism (as if Arafat needs his help), like some jewish organizations did.

Shouldn't we--literally--wait and see on this one?

I find it strange that Skeptic, so often being concerned with things like rampant anti-semitism, at least when the talks concern Israel, is not the least concerned here with negative stereotypes being applied to Jews.

I mean if its so rampant (as evident by all those who dislike Israel) then shouldn't we be wary?


And BTW I do know you don't believe all those who dislike Israel are anti-semitic, but you do imply it is a lot of those. And many in America and Europe have beef with Israel.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Also I personally think the movie sounds rather silly. Typical superstition on parade, and its amazing how many otherwise skeptics are just ok with it. Had this movie been "The passion of John Edwards" or "L. Ron Hubbard" people wouldn't take it nearly as seriously. But if the superstition is a popular superstition....that's different, of course.

[Tony]

I intend to see it, not because I have an affinity for the story or jesus or whatever. But because it sounds like it could be an interesting and unique film. Not to mention the fact that it is suppose to be really bloody and gory, which is a plus in my book. :) As for the charge of "anti-semitism", I'll wait and see.

Why should a skeptic have a problem with this movie? Are skeptics not allowed to enjoy religious based films?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
I intend to see it, not because I have an affinity for the story or jesus or whatever. But because it sounds like it could be an interesting and unique film. Not to mention the fact that it is suppose to be really bloody and gory, which is a plus in my book. :) As for the charge of "anti-semitism", I'll wait and see.

Why should a skeptic have a problem with this movie? Are skeptics not allowed to enjoy religious based films?

Of course skeptics are allowed to enjoy any film they wish, whether it be religious films or the latest installment of the ongoing Pokemon saga. I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. It is probably true that we are much less likely to be interested in the film than the average moviegoing public but I think that has more to do with the kind of personality that tends to become an atheist/skeptic than any sort of atheist/skeptic dogma.

[a_unique_person]

Speaking as an ex-Catholic, and Mel is one of those Catholics who longs for the good old days of the Latin Mass and other archaic rituals, I can confirm that anti-semitism is a part of the baggage. They were the guys who killed jesus. It was only later in my life that people seemed to realise that jesus himself was a jew. Note the persistent portrayal of jesus as a gentile in just about all the films on him.

Although I did wonder later, if they hadn't killed jesus, then he couldn't have died for our sins, as was reuired for all this rigmarole to even happen.

I have already told how my son was surprised, when talking to a xian fundy at school, to find that this boy believed that jews were just one step up from athiests. I have always tried to teach my children that all races/creeds are to be treated equally and on their merits, he was surprised to hear that this boy, who supposedly tries to be good, moral and holy, would condemm a race/religion outright.

[Cleopatra]

One way or another Unique all Religions are like that. The Orthodox Greeks consider that the Pope is the personification of the Devil, I think that Greeks despise the Catholics more than they despise the Jews.

In my family in every generation there were at least two mixed marriages between Jews and Orthodox Greeks mostly so,we are not afraid of "the others".But still. I remember that before leaving for England an aunt of mine asked me in all seriousness not to fall in love and get married to a Catholic!! As she has said it's better to get married to a muslim than to a Catholic and to support her view she started narrating a series of tragic events that suppose to have occured to Orthodox Christians that have been married to Catholics!!!

Organized Religions would do anything to keep their clientele.

[a_unique_person]

My grand mother in law, bless her hypocritcal soul, hates the catholics, and was always wary of me. She liked to have literature around about just how bad the catholics were. As you say, we were even worse than the jews. Now, how bad is that?

It never bothered me, as I had long ago given up believing in the catholic faith. She was more happy to have me as an atheist.

However, I can't shake the feeling that there is something wrong with a faith that can't even get it's calendar right. The catholic church might have fought against galileo, but it implicitly acknowledged basic fact when it adopted the western calendar.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Tom Head
I have to believe that if he had strong antisemitic feelings, we would have heard about them a long time ago (but then, life and movie stars are full of surprises).
Cheers,

How often (outside of web sites like this) do we hear of
Jodie Foster's atheism?

[ceo_esq]

"Maligning Mel Gibson" (http://www.catholicleague.org/maligning.htm)

More fuel for the fire...