Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Marj Ann's Avatar
    Marj Ann Posts: 17, Reputation: 7
    New Member
     
    #1

    Aug 5, 2006, 12:21 PM
    Mel Gibson's NIGHT OUT
    :o You've no doubt REPEATEDLY seen and heard many of the same clips & 'disparaging comments' as I have; including an excerpt from an interview he'd had with Barbara Walters; during which they discussed his problem with drugs an alcohol. That came as a surprise to me & what a shame! But back to the events of the evening in question. Oh, how I wish he'd stayed home & played Scrabble instead of going 'out on-the-town'! As I'm SURE he does, too!
    As embarrassing & regrettable as the 'incident' is, in my opinion, it does not WARRANT the degree of Hollywood UPROAR-outrage-condemnation or is an excuse to TAR & FEATHER the man! Obviosuly, he did STUPID! He admitted it and made a public apology. Beyond that... WHAT? He should be run out of town on a rail? Never be allowed to make another movie? :confused: :mad: Evidently none of those now attacking him so viciously & verbally have ever done something STUPID or embarrassing? :rolleyes: The quote... "Me thinks thou dost protest TOO MUCH"... comes to mind. It would be SUCH a refreshing change AND encouraging if some loyal 'friends' would speak up! ~ HEAVEN knows this is a time that some kind words, a showing of 'support' & a bit of compassion [not vindication.. just letting a friend know 'I'll stand by you' ] would be in order & would certainly provide a degree of 'comfort'!
    RickJ's Avatar
    RickJ Posts: 7,762, Reputation: 864
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Aug 5, 2006, 12:23 PM
    You're so right. I'd hate to be judged solely by the stupid things I've said or done.
    valinors_sorrow's Avatar
    valinors_sorrow Posts: 2,927, Reputation: 653
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Aug 5, 2006, 12:45 PM
    Openly admits to a long "stupid" list but fortunately many lessons learned too; one of the more profound ones being that I was hurt more by my own judging of others than any judging from others since it left me bereft of my own humanity.
    orange's Avatar
    orange Posts: 1,364, Reputation: 197
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Aug 5, 2006, 02:03 PM
    Unfortunately that's what seems to happen to celebrities and politicians. One mistake and they are dragged through the mud. It's one of the main reasons I would never want to be famous. The public / press expect you to be perfect.
    GaryArt's Avatar
    GaryArt Posts: 43, Reputation: 12
    Junior Member
     
    #5

    Sep 2, 2006, 10:41 AM
    Mel Gibson's conviction that "the Jews" are secretly controlling everything, most especially Hollywood, is is boneheaded and bigoted... But, there are some powerful Jewish people in the entertainment industry, as well as in the news media (and, as I HOPE he learned, a lot of other places as well)... And Mel made some of those people very angry. This is not about a frustrated drunk mouthing off to a cop, or an over-indulged celebrity showing his butt. In fact, given his likeable public persona, and his good guy on-screen portrayals, the contrast of Mel Gibson getting stupid with a cop, so opposite of how most people think of him, would, by itself, probably just amuse, like seeing a rabbi do the limbo dance, or a nun playing paintball, something way out of place. Things like that are usually so profiundly funny that any mistake or wrongdoing is substantially mitigated. Gibson is far from the first actor to mess up after a couple of cold ones. If that's all there was to iot, what happened that night on the side of that highway wouldn't have rated even a second days coverage... You can trust me on this, the decision to reformat Entertainment Nightly and most of E Television's programming to be "all Mel bashing, all the time", came from somewhere other than Mary Hart taking offense at Gibson's dirty mouth, or Joan Rivers' piqué at his anti-semitic slurs.

    What it's really about - why it has led news and entertainment shows for a week, is payback. The real reason for perpetuating the "Ditch Mel" drumbeat, is that "The Passion of Christ" so thoroughly offended so many people - on a personal level, as they experienced his treatment of the events leading to the Cruxifiction as a deliberate and slanderous attempt to vilify Jews as a people, maybe to sell tickets, maybe for more sinister reasons.

    You didn't have to be a film student (or Jewish) to notice that the film drags a little in parts (nothing major), and is (for some people) a little gory. Probably 90% of the pictures released last year could have used a little more trimming. And lots of movies are bloody.
    A movie star making as *** of himself after he's had a few drinks is nothing new either. Hell, sometimes it's funny, especially if it involves someone whose reputation is quite the opposite of a drunken blowhard. Can you imagine Oprah, hopelessly drunk, telling someone "No one cares about your issues! Just keep it to yourself, sister". No one would be able to stop laughing long enough to try to make any real problems for her. No, it wasn't drunk driving, bad language, or anything similar that started this feeding frenzy.

    What did Gibson in was that, at the moment when he stepped in it, some powerful people were already seething over what they see as his attempt to, literally, demonize them They believehis film reveals him as an anti-semite, and as he used a widely-hyped movie as an opportunity to spread a hateful and defamatory message about them, disguised as unchallengeable religious history. Many take it that the central premise of the film is not Christ's "passion", his making the ultimate sacrifice for the redemption of humanity, but rather a message that Jews are basically cloven-hooved servants of Satan, who deliberately and gleefully murdered the son of God, who eat children, copulate with animals, spread disease, bath infrequently, and are responsible for war, pestilence, cancer, and rising gas prices. Gibson's presentation of the Jews in "Passion" conveyed a message so offensive, so insulting, and - here's the most hateful part - so gratuitous to the film's nominal storyline (and, I have to say it, so historically inaccurate) - that it almost had to have been done maliciously. If an individual publicly articulated the sentiments behind Gibson's depiction of Jews in "Passion", he or she would be called down and denounced as a racist; Gibson smugly passed his vile anti-semitic pap off as an accurate represenatation of ancillary events, to be internalized without examination.

    So, no, "the Jews don't secretly run Hollywood and control the news media", but there's a couple of them out there with a little bit of clout... and Mel Gibson's "Passion of Christ" made their hair catch on fire. You'd think someone who believes Jews diabolically exercise absolute control over every aspect of the industry where he makes his living would have thought twice before deliberately offending them with a movie that would have had a beaming Josef Goebbels nodding in approval. Well, maybe he is stupid after all... Most racists are.
    NeedKarma's Avatar
    NeedKarma Posts: 10,635, Reputation: 1706
    Uber Member
     
    #6

    Sep 2, 2006, 11:27 AM
    There is no doubt that he did do a few bad things but the fact is that his chosen profession requires that he live his live quite publicly as to keep his 'star power' at a high enough rate to keep his earning potential high. These guys are lost without the paparazzi - so his recent incident reflects the downside of living your life publicly. If you want to minimize those moments then get hammered in private locations and take a limo home.
    Taukame's Avatar
    Taukame Posts: 92, Reputation: 26
    Junior Member
     
    #7

    Sep 2, 2006, 04:01 PM
    GaryArt, I know this is a bit, heck a lot, of topic, but what parts of the passion of the christ are inaccurate? I'm not being sarcastic, I just don't know.
    Marj Ann's Avatar
    Marj Ann Posts: 17, Reputation: 7
    New Member
     
    #8

    Sep 2, 2006, 04:29 PM
    GaryArt; I'd like to make Two points in response. First: there's no question a 'segment' of the Jewish Community chose to take serious 'issue' with The Passion. I SERIOUSLY doubt Mel intended, planned, speculated or gave much, if any, CONSCIOUS OR unconscious thought to How Jews or others might or might NOT react or perceive the film; good-bad-or indifferent. Whether a group might ultimately be individually or collectively PLEASED or DISPLEASED with the finished product; was probably the very LEAST of things he was concerned about while he [Mel] was knee-deep in the planning & executing of such a demanding multi-million dollar venure; especially one he waspersonally-financing. I'd be hard pressed to consider it logical that he [or any other reasonable man, for that matter] would go to such lenghs in order to basically make an 'anti-semetic' statement. ~ Assuming, of course, that I correctly grasped your implication.WHY WOULD a man already highly successful to the point he could invest MILLIONS, sacrifice significant personal & family-time, effort and energy, conduct research, direct the film & assume responsibility for the numerous film-making related tasks, put his reputation, ego, vast investment at risk & 'on the line' for such a dubious purpose? I MUST reject such a theory. I HAVE to believe Mr. Gibson is far too sensible, and has FAR more important matters to occupy his attention. If asked, I suspect he might say the issue of 'anti-semitism' per se is of relatively insignificant importance to him as an individual. So I totally agree that The Passion was done with ulterior motive. Frankly, I don't personally think 'Mel has it in him'; so to speak! Some may agree that an essential personal attribute that has led to and sustained Mel Gibson's popularity is a quality I'd define as his HONEST-eyed appeal. ~ His 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' persona. If I were to venture an educated guess, I'd say The Passion was a picture Mel 'needed' to make; primarily for reasons exclusively his own; Perhaps for his own sense of Spiritual growth, to fulfill a life-long 'dream'/ambition, an act of sacrfice, an act of penance, personal 'comfort'... or a more noble purpose; to publicly Honor Christ by using his gifts to create a vehicle which could cause others to focus on Christ's selfless sacrifice and the enormous gift to mankind.. . In witnessing the reenactment of such agony, betrayal, rejection and bloody Sacrifice, viewers would perhaps go away with a better understanding of Our Creator's unselfish Love and His ultimate 'Plan B' to restore the people He had Created. ~ Who knows. In any case, I HIGHLY suspect, whatever Mr. Gibson's personal motivation, the Lord is/was WELL pleased with his valient efforts as well as his attempts to accurately portray the events. 'Course that's my opinion, and based on zero concrete evidence.

    Point TWO: I believe it's accurate to say that while WE'RE ALL permitted to state an 'opinion', an allegation as to whether something is TRUE or FALSE, remains an assumption or opinion unless and until the [TRUE or FALSE] assertion is or can be supported with documentable evidence. Fair? I'm sure we all attempt to KNOW enough about the topic in question and be as knowledgeable, unbiased, well informed and accurate as is possible. That said, GaryArt, with all due respect, our 'conclusions' seem to differ RADICALLY; on the subject of 'jewish control and media influence' [or lack of]. I'd be interested in knowing the basis of your conclusions. You might want to 'inquire' a bit more in depth into the subject; which, of course, would call for some serious research. I certainly don't wish to give the impression or imply that 'I know it all'; by ANY means! No doubt you are fully convinced that there IS NO significant degree of jewish influence that dectates and controls our media. I wish that were the case, but according to the books I've read; authored by highly respected and credible authors, that's totally contrary to the facts. Similar research into the subject would likely lead you to a totally different conclusion than you presently hold. I may have to do some 'digging', but I can probably lay my hands on a detailed list I have that discloses exactly 'WHO OWNS WHICH' of the various televison networks, movie studios, news magazines, newspapers and such. I believe the evidence is very persuasive that our media is in fact owned and controlled and our our views' largely shaped by individuals and/or groups commonly known as jews. In the meantime, if you or others ARE interested, it shouldn't it too time consuming or difficult to document that information first hand. I DO believe the very fact that a select group DOES exert such influence and has the means to impact and shape 'thinking' and entire culture in general is of significant importantance. In addition to TV networks, the motion picture industry, major news magazines, major + most other newspapers, any can also verify 'who's' in charge of editing and deciding public school text book content & book publishing. That came as quite a surprise & SHOCK to me that there IS a definite 'controlling influence' that exerts rigid control over basically all facets; and determines WHAT books and subject matter may and may NOT be published in the United States; at least through major publishing houses. Thanks to the internet, a few days of diligent research may be sufficient to research the topic to the point of satisfying the 'question' with unbiased facts. ~ At least for those TRULY interested in documented, established facts. On the other hand, should concrete verifiable evidence to the contrary BE AVAILABLE THAT I'm NOT aware of, I'd be most interested and anxious to have references. At some point some may wish to explore the topic more fully. ~ Or not...
    magprob's Avatar
    magprob Posts: 1,877, Reputation: 300
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Sep 2, 2006, 04:44 PM
    GaryArt, you are right on the money with this one. I couldn't have said it better! Mel was not "politically correct" in his portrayal of the Jews in Passion of the Christ. Let's face it, they own Hollywood and so much more. Hitler made the statement that good German folks would no longer be polishing the jews shoes any longer. Well, Mel will never be able to "polish" this one over and maybe he really does not care. He told it like it is and that is a crime in this country! But, I see him as a bigger man for it and I know what he is made of now. I like Mel and I will pay to see anything he does in the future. Maybe from a small production company in Australia. He is extremely talented and I expect much more from him. To bad he had to learn the hard way that we can't always be honest and nice at the same time.
    magprob's Avatar
    magprob Posts: 1,877, Reputation: 300
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Sep 2, 2006, 04:48 PM
    Hollywood is putting out nothing but CRAP! Small minded CRAP for small minded people!
    GaryArt's Avatar
    GaryArt Posts: 43, Reputation: 12
    Junior Member
     
    #11

    Sep 3, 2006, 02:53 AM
    Well, I seemed to have opened up an industrial-sized can of worms with my post. Hopefully, everyone will believe me when I say that was not my intention at all.

    My actual intent was to voice my opinion that a great deal of the flak Mel Gibson is catching was due to hostility engendered by reaction to his film "The Passion of Christ", and not by genuine dismay at a DUI arrest.

    First of all, I do not know Gibson, and I would never presume to speculate on his reasons for producing that film. I do know that he has publicly stated that he did it partly out of a personal desire to honor Christ, and partly to spread the Gospel. He may have had other reasons as well. I do not know.

    Personally, I found the film to be a little bit better than average as entertainment; as biography, and as a religious statement, while some of his dialogue and dramatization was original, it ddn't really tell me anything I didn't already know. But these are merely my personal opinions. I am neither a film scholar, nor a critic.

    For the record, I like Mel Gibon's movies: The "Lethal Weapon" series was great fun, "Mad Max" was a lot more profound than many people realized at the time. "The Patriot" was wonderful - including his acting. I could feel his character's torment - absolutely committed to doing the right thing... and utterly confused at to what the right thing was. His pair of Oscars for "Braveheart" was
    Well-deserved. I loved "The Bounty". "Ransom" vicariously satisfying - I loved it when Gibson's character went on TV and showed the ransom money stacked up, and then told the kidnappers they would never see the money, becaue he wasn't paying the ransom with it, he was offerring it as a bounty on them. The kind of thing no responsible person would ever do, but ever living person would love to do in a situation like that.

    And I don't have a problem with his faith, or his apparent desire to propagate his beliefs. Personally, I believe that any human who follows any spiritual path sincerely, can really only be doing so out of a desire to become a better person, and the realization that it will take more than a human effort to do so. How could I possibly criticize those motives, which I choose to ascribe to all sincere men and women of faith, no matter how profoundly I may personally disagree with the faith group they attach to? It would never occur to me to question or belittle anyone's theology. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said in cases deciding when the government may interfere with religious observence, the only relevant question is a person's sincerity. It doesn't matter if something is true or right; it only matters whether a person believes it's true or right. For myself, if someone sincerely believes something of a spiritual nature, then I must respect that, not matter who repugnant I might find what it is that they believe.

    (continued)
    GaryArt's Avatar
    GaryArt Posts: 43, Reputation: 12
    Junior Member
     
    #12

    Sep 3, 2006, 02:54 AM
    Now, having said all that, my problem with the movie is the blatant suggestion that Jews were responsible for the Crucifixion.

    To begin with, the general Jewish population could not have had a problem with Christ, since he was able, by every contemporaneous account, and notably, according to the four gospels, to move about all of Israel without any hostility from the general population. Any conflict that existed involved only ultra-religious sects (Phariseees, Sadducees), whose hegemony he threatened. In fact, in many places he drew noticeably large crowds So, based solely on the Biblical record, we know that he had no problem with Jewish people of that period, but rather with the leadership of certain relatively small social and political groups, whose membership coincidentally consisted of Hebrews, and whose preferential social and political positions were endangered by his "reforms".

    Second, while I am the first to acknowledge that I am not trained or qualified as a textual critic, or as a theologian, my readings on the topic, and the general consensus among scholars and theolgians I have been fortunate enough meet, is that it is not possible to determine, at this point in time, with the materials we have, how the relationship between the Roman colonial system and Jewish politicoreligious leaders played out. It is virtually certain, however, that this interaction, about which we know so little anyway, was quite dynamic, in a constant flux as particular colonial officials arrived and departed Jerusalem. Like anything else involving more than one human, personalities probably counted for a lot.

    So things could change overnight, as the new consul arrived, and either liked, or didn't like, the rabbi who was bosum buddies with the previous consul. With all that, how could anyone, without a clear, contemporaneous record recounting a particular event, offer as established fact, a somewhat problematic supposition as to what happened? Artistic license is one thing, and church tradition is another, but the former can't justify furtherance of a racist view of a historical event, and what we do know to be fact, based on still-existing records, is that a significant amount of early Christian church attributions to Jews was inaccurate and misleading, and largely the result of First Century bigotry and anti-semitism.

    Now there may be, generally speaking, nothing wrong with taking artistic license, or in accepting a legendary version of an ancillary event where it is peripheral to the main story, especially where the situation is already volatile, and disputing the accepted lore would become, at the very least, a serious distraction from your main story. Marj Ann may be entirely correct, and Gibson never gave it a thought, simply accepting the two thousand year old depiction of Jews as the culprits, and treating it as established fact for the purposes of his film.

    My problem with that, however, is that Gibson didn't treat the "fact" of the Jews being reposnsible for the crucifixion as tangential. He hammered at it from beginning to end. This is a film with heroes and villains, and the Jews are clearly wearing the black hats (er, black yarmulkes - sorry, couldn't resist). A loving God, in His infinite wisdom, and indescribable love for his creation, mankind, which he desires to redeem from the consequences of their own wickidness - of which He is the primary victim (!), sends His cherished son, His only son, to their aid, and those Jews.. why, they kill him! Definitely the bad guys in this story.

    And, there is a larger implication as well. If all of the last paragraph is true - i.e. if God sent His own son to be a redeemer of the lost, and the Jews' response to that bit of undeserved but incredibly good fortune is to murder the redeemer, not only an innocent, but an incarnation of God Himself, who came with only the purest motive of saving them from their own failings, then we who have done so have been wrong all along to condemn anti-semitism. For any people who could do a thing like that would, by definition, truly be, depraved... Spiritually, emotionally, genetically, debased. If they did that, then the Nazi's "final solution" would have been sound public policy, and not the atrocity that it was.

    So Gibson has decided to depict the Jews as instigators of a horrific act - deicide - an act which, all by itself, would conclusively establish Jews as something so terrible I don't even know a word for it. The whole movie is as much about the "fact" that Jews did this horrible thing as it is about Jesus' perfection, and the gift of immortality God sought to bestow on all humanity.

    And he decided on that approach, despite the fact that there is virtually no competent evidence to support the proposition that the Jews (specifically, Jewish religious and civic leaders) had the power or influence to get someone executed, or exercised any sort of secular authority at the time.

    In point of fact, while there is really no actual evidence either way, certain circumstances do lend support to the opposite inference. The Jewish "leadership" detested the Roman authority, to the point that Roman officialdom was forced to be ever vigilant against revolt. How then, could the Jews, who had tried and failed more than once to eject or outwit the Romans, have sufficient power to compel the highest ranking Roman there to execute an innocent man, a clear violation of Roman law?

    Remember, those were Roman centurians how dragged and kicked Jesus to Golgotha. If Pilate truly "washed his hands of the matter", then who ordered the centurians to bring him to Golgotha? And why would the Roman soldiers have divvied up his personal property as if it were pirates' booty... and they were the pirates?

    Remember Pilate, when he "agreed" to the execution, made a show of washing his hands and speaking favorably about Jesus, first going "before the multidude" to do so - exactly what you would expect a colonial governor to do if he had a potential revolutionary leader in the house, who was drawing larger and larger crowds every day, who clearly had to go before it got out of control, but whoe departure might just set off a riot or worse, so that he couldn't subsequently be blamed for whatever disaster might follow.

    But all that is rank speculation, and we don't even need to go there. The bottom line is, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred in a Roman colony, carried out by Roman guards, under the supervision of a Roman governor. It could not have happened unless the Roman governor wanted it to happen.

    The bottom line is, my problem with the depiction of Jews in "The Passion of Christ" is that it focuses heavily on painting them as uniquely culpable in Jesus' crucifixion - when there really is not substantial evidence of that being the case, and that from such a conlusion it necessarily follows that Jews are inherently evil; as well as that the movie, in singling out Jews, suggests that identification of the party responsible for instigating Jesus' death is essential to comprehending the Gospel - something I've never heard before, and which I have a hard time processing logically.

    I think it is unlikely that the Pharisees forced Pilate to execute Jesus over his objection. I don't think it matters to God's plan for me who the "real killer" was. I think focusing on it reveals anti-semitic hostility, whether Mel Gibson is conscious of it or not.

    Of course, these are merely my opinions, based on things I've read, or heard other people explain. If anyone took exception or offense to my post, please accept my sincere apology. If I appeared to present my opinion as fact, again mea culpa.

    And truly, when I started, all I wanted to say was that, while I don't believe "Jews secretly run everything", I'm sure there are some Jewish people in positions of authority in the news media. And I think they deliberately made the most of the DUI situation as retaliation for the parts of "Passion" that offended them.

    'Night all..
    Taukame's Avatar
    Taukame Posts: 92, Reputation: 26
    Junior Member
     
    #13

    Sep 3, 2006, 07:19 AM
    GaryArt, sorry, I put my comment on the wrong post.
    Anyway, the only problem I have with your logic and I guess most of the Jewish community's logic is that is assumes that just because one Jewish person did something they all agreed with it.
    We as a whole have gotten into the habit of blaming whole races, groups of people, sexes, etc, for the deeds of one or a small group. I cannot believe that every Jewish person alive at that time or any other time would approve of the cruxifiction of Christ, or anybody else for that matter.
    Just as not all Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, or whites for slavery in American.
    We are using justice/blame like an uzi as apposed to an arrow. Our outrage is so emotional that it fails to be specific to the few people who are to blame, but shoots down anybody who even looks like the responsible person.
    GaryArt, from your post you seem to be very well versed on the whole thing. I am not. I greatly appreciate you taking the time and effort to make it make sense to me. And I am not disagreeing with you.
    When putting what you said into my own frame of reference, I see your point about some very influential people in Hollywood making an issue of Mel acting like an idiot. I can also believe that we are fed the news, movies, music, books etc that the powers that be want us to have. The rich get richer and so forth.
    I just wish that people would be able to pass judgement on one person and that person's acts instead of condeming everyone around them.
    I have to agree with you on another point, I really like Mel's movies. I think that he is a great actor, but I also understand that he is but on man. Flawed and imperfect like all of us. We all have done or said something so off the hook, possibly racist, definitely wrong, that we are ashamed of it, but nobody attempts to astrosize(sp?) us.
    Jesus said forgive them for they know not what they do. He forgave everybody responsible for his death, brutal and horrible as it was, and we can't forgive Mel for being a drunken A-hole? Says a whole lot about the our ability to listen and learn don't you think?
    I can even understand the Jewish community's outrage a little better. They now have to apologize, and feel guilt for what a small group of Jews did. And in the process they have to defend the very core of their belief system.
    Well, that's my rant for the day. Thanks for listening(reading). Have a good one!!
    K_3's Avatar
    K_3 Posts: 304, Reputation: 74
    Full Member
     
    #14

    Sep 3, 2006, 07:52 AM
    It is unfortunate that Mel Gibson is being persecuted by the press and Hollywood. I do believe there are a lot of Jewish people controlling Hollywood these days. Just look at the credits and the academy awards. I am not saying this is good or bad, just a fact. I have always enjoyed Mel Gibson and he comes across as a very sincere person. I do believe the Jews have made it difficult for him since the movie. I believe he knew that would happen when he did the movie. I admire him for putting something out there that he truly believed in.

    I do not feel his movie was about putting Jews down. How could he have made the movie without the Jews involved? That would have been an untruth. He told the story as it was in the Bible. Movies written about Hitler show the Germans killing the Jews. Not all Germans wanted to. How could you tell the story without mentioning Germans.

    The news media can make or break a person, whether it is deserved or not. It is how it is and will not change.
    GaryArt's Avatar
    GaryArt Posts: 43, Reputation: 12
    Junior Member
     
    #15

    Sep 3, 2006, 11:57 PM
    Appreciate the last two posts.

    Taukame, I agree with you completely - As a culture, we have become heavily invested in the blame game. People go around all the time, not trying to figure how to improve a situation, but calculating who is to blame and what can be extracted from them as recompense.

    Another (really bad) aspect of that is the personalization of debate. A lot of people have gotten into the idea that if you disagree with them on an issue, you are a bad person. As if the fact that I think constructing a new school on the west side of town, while you favor the south side, for example, means that one of us is somehow morally inferior. But it doesn't! It just means we disagree about where to build the new school. That's all it means. I can understand how, on some issues, it could seem like someone's position was morally wrong, but it is also quite possible that their reasoning overlooks something your didn't, or, perhaps, includes something yours didn't, or that one of the people just made a mistake. But that isn't the same thing as their being "bad". Two good people can have different opinions about the same thing; it doesn't necessarily make one them evil, it just makes one of them mistaken.

    And, sadly, I think most of these attitudes "come from the top down". I think the examples of trying to blame someone for eveything, and attaching moral judgments to every single issue come from our political leaders, who too often try to demonize their opponents, and from the media, which gets big ratings boosts from playing "gotcha" and running so-called exposes on everyone they can.

    As I said yesterday, my original point was that I felt that a lot of the fuss being made over Mel Gibson's arrest was some peoples' desire to "pay him back" for what they didn't like about his film. (Note to K_3: It is hard to imagine that he didn't contemplate catching flak for a movie like "Passion"... but a sincere person of faith would have disregarded any concern like that and moved ahead... which is just what he did).

    But, none of the hoopla that followed could have resulted at all if we had not all been led into the current situation where the media spoon-feeds us pablum about celebrities, to the point where people are so fascinated with the private lives of movie stars and athletes they don't know and never will know, that we overlook serious things that we should be paying attention to. I would be willing to bet that if a national poll was taken, more people know that Mel Gibson was arrested for DUI, that who know the name of our Secretary of Defense.

    There is something wrong with that. I don't know Mel Gibson. I've never met Jennifer Lopez. I don't expect any member of the Miami Dolphins to attend my next dinner party, and I have never received a Christmas card from Roseanne Barr. Those people do not affect me, or my life, or my family, in any significant way, and they never will. I could be wrong, but I think that is true of almost everyone else in our country, except, of course, for those celebrities' own families, employers, etc.

    So, how is it that the mass media covers stories about celebrity comings and goings so much more heavily and completely than real news about real events? How come celebrity storeies are always upbeat, exciting, colorful, and attractive, while coverage of the war, the economy, etc. is always drab, serious, and made to seems ascomplicated, frustrating, and difficult as possible?

    My own view is that there's folks who like it that way. I don't know if they're Jewish or Muslim or moon-worshippers.. I don't know who they are, or even if they are organized, or if there is simply a group of them with compatible goals who happen to benefit from the same things. I know that many of them are in government, or control someone who is. I know they have connections and influence in the media.. And I know they prefer that rest of us pay attention to possible sightings of Elvis, what Christina Aguilera wore to the Grammys, and whether Tigar Woods prefers briefs or boxers, and let them do whatever they want to do regarding "other things".

    And, by "other things" they don't want our interference in, I mean the war (which may end up claiming the lives of our children, and in which we may be doing the right thing and helping make the world safer, or we may be doing the wrong thing and killing a lot of people for oil profits), the economy (which may end up making the future better or worse for our children), health care, immigration... You know, the stuff that might actually be important and effect our actual lives.

    One thing I'm sure all politicians, of every party, and persuasion agree on: They don't want a lot of us to be aware or get involved.
    I think a lot of them are corrupt, and a lot of them just think we're all yahoos, and that the best thing is to let them handle it all for us, in whatever way they think is best.

    Well, I disagree. I have a problem with that. I believe in democracy. Perhaps we should call it pan-democracy. I want as many people as possible to voice their opinions. Sure, some of them will be idiots. Some will be annoying. Some will be just flat out wrong on things. But, at then end of the day, I would rather have our nation guided by the opinions of ALL the people, and not just a few self-appointed "experts". For one thing, if they're all so smart, and they're doing all the right things, why don't they want us to participate? Surely they can't think that, if they're doing right, a large majority of us would disagree? No, I think, for the most part, they are effecting policies they want, they prefer, they think are best for them and their friends, and that it's best if we're kept in the dark - Like a parent telling a child the bird "flew away", the dog "went to live on a farm", etc. (I found out years later, my mom paid the housekeeper $20 to take my parakeet home with her after work, because she didn't want the cage in the kitchen anymore!).

    Point being, I wish more of us were aware of public issues, and were able to effectively voice our opinions and influence the course we take as a nation. But that can't happen while they've got us all glued to our seats watching Oprah interview Tom Cruise about what he thought of the People magazine coverage of his fight Matt Lauer about Brooke Shields on the Today Show. Or while they have all of us worried about whether Mel Gibson needs to go to A.A. meetings...

    You guys are the best for letting me have me say.
    Zipper's Avatar
    Zipper Posts: 116, Reputation: 8
    Junior Member
     
    #16

    Nov 20, 2006, 04:02 PM
    I'm a late starter on this one but feel it required to comment. Gibson has already shown that he is happy to slant a picture that he produces and/or directs, note the ridiculous anti-British sentiment in both "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" and without doubt "The Passion" was made to vilify Jews.

    What nobody mentions is that Gibson is a member of a tiny splinter group of extreme Catholics who do not recognise any edicts from Rome after Vatican II and consider the current Pope the antichrist.
    Furthermore his father is a leading figure in the Holocaust denial movement, publishing articles and books denying that the Death Camps existed and that the whole story was cooked up by Zionists.

    Somehow I don't equate a drunk calling a cop a Jew with "telling it like it is"- you think there is some conspiracy of Evil Jews controlling the World? You need to adjust your tinfoil hat.
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #17

    Dec 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
    First and most importantly, Jesus came to Earth to die the death he died exactly in the manner in which he did. It was his mission.

    Second, Jesus himself was a Jew, his Apostles were Jews, and most Christians of the early Chrstian churches were Jews as well. There were also vast crowds of Jews, especially in Gallilee who considered him the Messiah and had absolutely NOTHING to do with his death.

    Third, I don't see how anyone can blame every Jew for what a group of them did 1,900 years ago. Following the same logic would force us to blame all present-day Italians for the persecution and death of thousands of Christians? After all, it was Rome that had them thrown to the lions--right? We would also have to blame all present-day whites for what the blacks suffered under slavery. In turn Jews would have to blame all present day Germans for what the Germans did to them under Hitler. Which goes to show just how unjust this way of thinking is.

    As for Mel Gibson, people who are under public scrutiny have to constantly watch what they say. If indeed he had been criticized for his depiction of Jews in his film The Passion then he had to know that such a comment was going to cast further doubt on his motives. I personally saw the film and didn't come away blaming the Jews or considering them in any negative way. Actually, what most impressed me about the film was the Roman cruelty that was heaped upon Jesus. That came across an unnecessary repulsive gross exagerration of what really happened. But in all honesty, besides that, I can't recall any scene in reference to the Jews handing Jesus over to the Romans that contradicted what the Bible already tells us happened. If indeed there was, what was it?
    Marj Ann's Avatar
    Marj Ann Posts: 17, Reputation: 7
    New Member
     
    #18

    Dec 16, 2006, 04:02 AM
    [B]... Sorry to have to correct your history on a point, Starman; Jesus was a Hebrew, of the House [linage] of David. It is inaccurate to call Jesus a Jew. The term didn't exist at the time. The land known as Israel was divided into 12, and occupied by each of the 12 tribes; one being Judah [spelling not historically accurate as the languages used contained no letter J]. The terms 'land of Judah', 'Judean' adds too much of the confusion. It's said that historically the 'religion' of Judaism derived from the Pagan Babylonian Talmud [in Christ's time, called 'The Tradition of the Elders'] oral, and VERY 'open to interruption'. Only much later written. I believe it's accurate to say that [separate] sects adhere to EITHER The Torah [compiled from the 7 Books of Moses] , OR The Talmud;, which [to say the VERY least] is LESS than 'complimentary' in references to Jesus, His parentage OR Christians. I suspect it was Talmud -practicing Jews Mr. Gibson was referencing. While no one would condone Mr. Gibson's behavior; others throughout history voiced similar 'sentiments'. An English translation of a manuscript [found in Martin Luther's works housed in the Congressional Library] by Dr. Martin Luther, The Father of the Reformation; makes it clear he was blatantly anti-jewish, and he listed his reasons in his book.
    Obviously the subject can't be covered in ' 25-words-or-less'. As a beginning, one must realize there was NO LETTER J in the languages used when the Bible was written. Those the King James Bible calls Jews were in Christ's time more aptly called Pharisees. Rabbi Steven J. Wise is quoted as saying," The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism".
    Starman's Avatar
    Starman Posts: 1,308, Reputation: 135
    -
     
    #19

    Dec 16, 2006, 07:18 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Marj Ann
    [B]...Sorry to have to correct your history on a point, Starman; Jesus was a Hebrew, of the House [linage] of David. It is inaccurate to call Jesus a Jew. The term didn't exist at the time. The land known as Israel was divided into 12, and occupied by each of the 12 tribes; one being Judah [spelling not historically accurate as the languages used contained no letter J]. The terms 'land of Judah', 'Judean' adds to much of the confusion. It's said that historically the 'religion' of Judaism derived from the Pagan Babylonian Talmud [in Christ's time, called 'The Tradition of the Elders'] oral, and VERY 'open to interruption'. Only much later written. I believe it's accurate to say that [separate] sects adhere to EITHER The Torah [compiled from the 7 Books of Moses] , OR The Talmud;, which [to say the VERY least] is LESS than 'complimentary' in references to Jesus, His parentage OR Christians. I suspect it was Talmud -practicing Jews Mr. Gibson was referencing. While no one would condone Mr. Gibson's behavior; others throughout history voiced similar 'sentiments'. An English translation of a manuscript [found in Martin Luther's works housed in the Congressional Library] by Dr. Martin Luther, The Father of the Reformation; makes it clear he was blatantly anti-jewish, and he listed his reasons in his book.
    Obviously the subject can't be covered in ' 25-words-or-less'. As a beginning, one must realize there was NO LETTER J in the languages used when the Bible was written. Those the King James Bible calls Jews were in Christ's time more aptly called Pharisees. Rabbi Steven J. Wise is quoted as saying," The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism".
    I was using the term in accord with the following definition:


    Jews (Hebrew:?? Yehudim; Yiddish:?? Yidn) are followers of Judaism or, more generally, members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation, or the Children of Israel), an ethno-religious group descended from the ancient Israelites and from converts who joined their religion. The term also includes those who have undergone an officially recognized formal process of religious conversion to Judaism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew


    I am aware that Israelites were Hebrews and that the term Jew is derived from the tribe of Judah and came into usage only after the Assyrian conquest of the northern Kingdom and taking of its people into exile left the tribe of Benjamin and Judah behind.

    I also agree that the Israelites adopted some pagan customs during their exiles as well as from neighboring countries such as Greece. In fact, the history of Israel is rife with examples of their falling away by practicing the religious rites of their pagan neighbors
    And of God having to send his prophets to warn them about the consequences.

    However, I don't agree that Jesus was defending pagan Babylonian-derived teachings when he spoke of the Law. About the Pharisees, Jesus always made a distinction between the common people and the Pharisees who were propagating wrong worship.
    Marj Ann's Avatar
    Marj Ann Posts: 17, Reputation: 7
    New Member
     
    #20

    Dec 16, 2006, 08:18 PM
    Uh... Soooo I guess I'm confused. Where are you and I not in agreement... I'm not so certain I quite understood your point...

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

One Bad Night [ 9 Answers ]

:-[ Hello: I am in a dillemma. A few of my friends went out to celebrate a Birthday. We all went bar hopping & such. Everyone was quite intoxicated. However my dillemma is that I ended up taking a ride home (he was working at the bar & sober) from this cute guy I have been flirting with on & off...

She slept through most of the night [ 3 Answers ]

It was like she as reading my mind. I broke down into tears a couple of times yesterday to the thought of "I can't do this anymore" and I was preparing myself to find her a new home. But she slept in her crate for the majority of the night. She woke up at 12, took to potty and back to the crate,...

Day & night creams? [ 1 Answers ]

Have you found any that are really good? I recently tried Avon and it was very smelly once on. Any suggestions?

Night mares [ 3 Answers ]

What causes dreams or nightmares?

Dream last night [ 3 Answers ]

Hi! Can anybody help me understand a fairly vivid dream I had last night? I had been reading a book just before going to sleep that talked about leaving your problems to a Higher Power, and suggested doing affirmations to help change ingrained beliefs. So after I turned out the light, I said...


View more questions Search