Conservatives' misplaced compassion for Mel Gibson

Townhall.com ^ | March 24, 2004 | Kathleen Parker

[DentsRun]

First let me say that Jesus is just all right with me. And Mel Gibson, whether playing a lethal weapon, a patriot Scot or a silver-tongued Hamlet, has only fans in my movie-obsessed household.

But Gibson as Jesus' savior through his movie, "The Passion of the Christ," poses a moral dilemma. To paraphrase the prince of Denmark: Is he an anti-Semite or isn't he? That is the question.

It's an especially important question for conservatives, who, apparently grateful for a Hollywood movie that feels familiar, if not precisely family-friendly, have embraced Gibson as one of their own. He is the far right's newly anointed one.

A few nights ago, I attended the conservative Media Research Center's Annual Dishonor Awards, an Academy Awards spoof that "honors" the most egregious perpetrators of liberal bias in the media. Featured were several media stars from conservative ranks, as well as "surprise" guests Sam Donaldson and Rush Limbaugh.

Throughout the evening, I was struck by speakers' repeated invocations of Gibson. They were trying to make the point that Gibson was a victim of liberal media bias. At long last, a native-born, movie-star poster boy of their very own.

What's wrong with that? Nothing except that Gibson steadfastly refuses to convincingly distance himself from Holocaust deniers and minimizers. Several times during the past several months, and most recently in an interview with Peggy Noonan for the March issue of Reader's Digest, Gibson has avoided giving a clear answer.

The question of anti-Semitism is not insignificant, and shouldn't need explaining given present circumstances. Things are a little edgy these days, you may have noticed.

When someone of Gibson's enormous popularity, high profile, huge bank account and access to the big screen decides to tackle the most controversial, emotionally divisive story in human history, his message matters.

The movie itself has been thoroughly dissected by now. Some think it's anti-Semitic, some don't. Yasser Arafat says it's not. Phew.

More to the point - at least as one selects bedfellows for the campaign season - is Gibson's intent. Unfortunately, Gibson doesn't make his own best case when asked to clarify his position on the Holocaust. The question is not misplaced given Gibson's family history.

His father is Hutton Gibson, activist, Holocaust denier and author who rejects the Second Vatican Council, when the church revolutionized itself to conform with modernity. In an interview with The New York Times, the senior Gibson said the Holocaust was a manufactured catastrophe arranged by Hitler and "financiers" to export Jews from Germany. Vatican II, he said, was "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews."

And, oh, yes, he says Sept. 11 wasn't executed by al-Qaida hijackers. The airplanes that flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were "crashed by remote control."

As a fan of Latin, incense and a certain amount of pomp with my circumstance, I'm sympathetic to people who prefer traditional ritual to vernacular accommodation. I figure if you're going to church, by all means make it High Church. Otherwise, you may as well sit cross-legged in the back yard and ululate in concert with nature.

I'm also sympathetic to the notion that you don't keep revising religious doctrine to ratify new inventions in human narcissism.

But one of Vatican II's accomplishments was to exonerate Jews in the death of Christ. When you reject the notion that Jews shouldn't be held exclusively accountable (we're all to blame, my Roman Catholic friends tell me), along with a denial that 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during World War II, then you begin to seem like an anti-Semite, sort of the way a squat, waddling, web-footed, quacking creature seems an awful lot like a duck.

Both Gibsons subscribe to a Pre-Vatican II Catholicism. And while the son can't be held accountable for the wacky views of his father, the younger Gibson refuses to come out and say what everyone wants to hear: "I love my father, but disagree with him about the Holocaust." Instead, he says, "My father has never told me a lie."

When Noonan pointedly asked Gibson to clarify his position - "The Holocaust happened, right?" - he kinda sorta acknowledged it (he has friends with numbers on their arms and, yes, "atrocities happened"), but otherwise described the extermination of Jews as just so many causalities among many.

Which is to say, Holocaust deniers justifiably might feel that they have their own movie star poster boy. And this may not be the group hug in which conservatives want to participate.

[DentsRun]

Parker apparently believes that Gibson is an anti-Semite because when asked to comment on the Holocaust he seemed to minimize it by saying only that he had friends or parents of friends who had concentration camp numbers on their arms and that he was taught Spanish by a Holocaust survivor. But when asked straight out of the Holocaust happened, he answered by saying only that atrocities happen and that "many" Jews died. So in Parker's opinion Gibson sort of admits the Holocaust happened but his response lacks the full-throated roar of deep conviction. I wonder what is that Gibson specifically failed to do? Mention that six million died? That it was was worst atrocity in all recorded history? That it was a unique genocide in that it attempted to wipe out an entire race, not for something they'd done, but just because of who they were?

If that's the standard catecism, if those are the words you have to say to avoid the label anti-Semite, I suspect Gibson does fall short. My guess is he thinks the number who died was somewhat less than 6 million, that the Holocaust wasn't an event unique in human history but merely one of many horrific incidents that have happened over the centuries. Are those reservations enough to justify calling someone an anti-Semite. Apparently in Parker's mind they are.

But as Cathy Young, a Moscow born Jew who emigrated to this country at age 15 (she writes for Reason and the Boston Globe), has observed, historical revisionisn is an honored practice in the profession in all areas except one. You can revise Freud, you can revise Stalism, you can revise "The Black Book of Communism" as new scholarship, the passage of time brings and critical mass of other points of view makes it clear the original paradigm wasn't quite right. The only subject which is cast in stone for all time is the Holocaust.

[lelio]

The only subject which is cast in stone for all time is the Holocaust.

You can revisit Freud as there's always a different way of looking at his writings. With the holocaust, what the "revisionists" want to do is deny that it ever happened. That's not critical thinking, that's avoiding reality.

[Anij]

Morning!

I saw the movie "The Passion of Christ" with my family, and feel it is likely the most powerful portrayal of what the price of my prospect of eternal life COST, ever documented outside of the Bible.

I am not a member of the RCC, nor do I plan on becoming one. I am not an anti-Semite, and I don't plan on becoming one of those either. I believe the Holocaust did indeed happen, and I doubt that I could be convinced otherwise for a long list of reasons.

However, Mel Gibson made a movie and I bought a ticket to see that, several actually, and feel it was money well spent. I am grateful to him for making the movie.

Unless I have missed something though, my opinion should end there. We will ALL be judged by Jesus for ALL the things we did in this life, and what Mel believes or does not believe about *anything,* is between him and GOD. It's really nobody else's business.

In the love and peace of Christ, - Anij.

[DoughtyOne]

I happen to think "The Passion of The Christ" is an excellent movie. With regard to that movie, I appreciate Gibson's work and salute him. On other subjects he may be open to criticism, but as far as the movie goes, the only hate that I've seen manufactured is by lunatics like the bit_h that wrote this article.

God forbid I should have my rectum inspected to the degree that Gibson's has.

This movie was not any more anti-semetic than it was anti-Roman. Let's hear it from the Italians who are afraid of fomented hate against them. What? Nobdy wishes to chime in with regard to that? Perhaps there's a lesson in there somewhere.

Enough of the nose up Gibson's a__ type of articles. I'm sick of them. I don't give an "f" if the guy is anti-Semetic or not, this movie wasn't. End of friggen story.

It's amazing the idiots who still line up to trash Gibson after the movie was seen and aclaimed as one of the best in history, certainly money-wise.

If Gibson is an anti-Semite for making this movie, then the person who inspired the Bible must be one as well. I am told that He inspired man to write what they did, including the four gospels.

Mel, you're in good company as far as this movie goes. Matthew Mark Luke and John back you to the hilt. Perhaps the trasher of characters that wrote this article should pound out another aricle right away condemning them and the Great Inspirer.

Frankly I'd be ashamed to show my head in public after writing the above filth. It far excedes anything Gibson has done, as far as letchery goes.

I wonder if she hates rabbits. She didn't say otherwise. I'm starting a letter writing campaign to PETA in the morning. She should lose her livelyhood for not specificly stating she loved rabbits. I've seen her kind before...

[DoughtyOne]

Has anyone noticed that Mel was a well accepted highly talented actor of the hightest rank, until he made this movie? Where was this character assasination movement before? The movie wasn't anti-Semetic in the least, yet now he's pounded daily, hourly, minute by minute.

It didn't matter about his personal life before this, when he made many other non-anti-Semetic movies. He was a swell guy.

All I can say is the Devil is working overtime these days. Every AH on the planet that doesn't want the story of Christ told, is simply melting down. Good! Let's see what the characters of these letches is truly like.

Gibson has them beat hands down on character and good will. May God damn them to the extent that they are willing to damn Gibson for absolutely no reason.

[scan58]

Every AH on the planet that doesn't want the story of Christ told...

And that's the kicker right there. The movie isn't "anti-Semitic", but the critics sure wish it was so as to justify their own anti-Christianity.

[swilhelm73]

The NAZI Holocaust is generally accepting as having killed 11 million people - about 6 million of them Jews. Some estimates go as high as 20 million in toto, but the 11 million is the orthodox estimate. People seem rather quick to forget that in addition to Jews, Hitler murdered millions of Slavs.

One can glance at a breakdown given by Rummel, who goes by a higher estimate here;

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.TAB1.1.GIF

Further, while I in no way want to minimize the horror of the Holocaust it was most definitely not a singular event, nor was it unique.

Specifically, the previous attempted genocide of the Armenians by the Turks led Hitler to believe that genocide was possible. In Mein Kampf, for example, Hitler says, "Who remembers the Armenians?"

Within the 20th century alone genocide wasn't particularly unusual. While largely ignored for the obvious reasons Communist governments often sought to exterminate ethnic and religious minorities they felt they could not, or did not want to, assimilate. And this is apart from the truly massive numbers of people killed by Communist governments for other reasons. To stick with Rummel's numbers, he claims the Soviet Union alone murdered 62 million people.

Personally, I read Gibson's response as a pointed barb at his critics that have ignored democide in places from the USSR to Communist Cuba because it is and was politically convient in leftwing circles to do so.

Also, I would still like to know why Hutton Gibson's views are brought up continually by the press in regards to Mel Gibson, but the same press was never concerned about, Al Gore Sr's vile racism - even when accusations of racism came up against Al Gore Jr.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Mel Gibson's sin is apparently having a father who is somewhat delusional on a variety of subjects. I have a little bit of a feel for what it is like to feel scorn from someone for something my father did before I was born and for which I was not responsible. That's completely fair in the sick world of liberals.

[Bellflower]

I have both read about and heard Mel Gibson say that he is strongly thinking about doing his next movie about the Maccabbee's. This is the story of Haunaka or the Jewish Festival of Lights. It is about how a man named Judah and his brothers fought the Syrans who had conquered Israel. They were trying to force the Jews to worship Greek gods and forbid them to worship the true and living God. After some years Judah and his brothers who called themselves Maccabbees won against great numbers and the Temple was cleaned of the idols and the oil lamp was relit. The lamp once lit was not to go out but they only had enough oil for one day. By an act of God the lamp did not go out for eight days until new oil could once again fill the lamp. This is the story Jews celebrate on Haunaka (at least my Christian version of it). It is a beautiful story about God and the Jews and I am sure someone who was an anti-Semite would never consider strongly doing this topic for their next movie. It would be a movie that would highlight the history of the faith and courage of highly esteemed Jews. It would show forth God confirming the Jew and the Jewish faith.

[Bellflower]

Syrans is Syrians.

[ThirstyMan]

I figure if you're going to church, by all means make it High Church.

Maybe I'm reading into her comments too much, but she seems to be missing the real focus of our worship -- the Person of Jesus Christ. It's as if she's saying the smells and bells stave off boredom and are a means of added entertainment, "if you're going to church."
Maybe that's not fair, but her comments came across that way.
As for the film being anti-Semitic? Nonsense!!! Jesus nailed the sinful human condition by going to that cross, not the Jews.

[Cronos]

What happened in WWII was horrible -- a Holocaust of the Jews and of Gypsies (percentage wise I suppose a large chunk of both communities were slaughtered by theNazis) and millions of Slavs were killed by them.

[Cronos]

It is about how a man named Judah and his brothers fought the Syrans who had conquered Israel.

Not exactly, it's about the Greek rulers of Antioch who conquered Israel. Later they were challeneged by descendents of Selucis (another of Alexander's generals who had taken Persia for himself after A's death) who were kicked out of Persia by the Parthians. Not syrian occupation or Greek occupation, but occupation by Hellenic rulers. Strangely enough, the descnedents of the Maccabbess -- like John Hyracanus became heavily Hellenized and this party became the Sadduccees, Hellenised Jews while the orthodox became the Pharisees and through them the modern day Jewish community.

[Caipirabob]

The NAZI Holocaust is generally accepting as having killed 11 million people - about 6 million of them Jews. Some estimates go as high as 20 million in toto, but the 11 million is the orthodox estimate. People seem rather quick to forget that in addition to Jews, Hitler murdered millions of Slavs.

11 Million was the number I was educated to believe. Cumulative totals for innocent Jews in excess of 6 million, with other "undesirables"(read: other innocents) making up the difference.

I also learned about the 20 Million plus that Stalin murdered of his own people. I can't understand why this holocaust isn't being widely taught today, but I guess the Communists in our educational system might get "offended" if it was.

[garylmoore]

Further, while I in no way want to minimize the horror of the Holocaust it was most definitely not a singular event, nor was it unique.

---

You said it, Hitler only killed around 11 million, we have killed millions more of innocent babies and this murder is looked upon as legal and goes on day after day, the numbers adding up, we make Hitlers ruthless days look minor compared to the babies we kill.

[rcocean]

I'm going to think twice about reading anymore articles by this writer.

Strange how a movie on Jesus is constantly being turned into discussion on the Holocaust or whether a relative of the producer is a bigot.

There is no logical conncection between an American movie about the Crucifixion of Jesus years ago, and the German murder of Jews in WWII.

BTW, what does Bill Murray's cousin Fred think about the Holocaust or the Treaty of Versailles? I need to know before I go to see Lost in Translation.

[sittnick]

But one of Vatican II's accomplishments was to exonerate Jews in the death of Christ.

The unspoken implication here is that the Catholic Church specifically blamed the Jews as a people for the death of Christ before Vatican II. She never did. Heck, even as far back as the 13th Century the Roman Catholic Church promulgated official (and binding) Bulls that attacked lies and misconceptions about the Jews. (For instance, it refuted charges against Jewish cannibalism by soberly pointing out the human flesh is not "kosher.")

In any event, the Catholic Church as an institution has never blamed the Jews as a people as being specifically responsible for the death of Christ. That is why no one ever trots out cites where the Church says otherwise.

[trebb]

I normally enjoy Kathleen's articles, but I feel she missed the Ark on this one.

[Marauder]

The figures I've read are Hitler 12 million and Stalin 22 million, whereas we Americans average 1.3 million per year since Roe v. Wade (1973).

The math reveals a sobering figure: 46.5 million deaths by aborted chldren, surpassing both Hitler and Stalin by 12.5 million.

You can even throw in Pol Pot's "score" and still not match it.