Drudge: MEL SAYS SORRY TO THE JEWS

The Drudge Report ^ | August 1, 2006 | Mel Gibson

[seanmerc]

COUNT,

I think you missed an earlier post that might've helped you to understand what I was trying to say. Actually, it was on a different thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1675540/posts?q=1&&page=51

See post #82 on that thread. Someone (post #51 on that thread) quoted Jesus by saying, "I seem to remember a guy who was semi-famous who said "A man is not condemned by what goes into his mouth, but by every word that comes out." I forget who it was..."

I responded by saying (post #82), "The same guy Who said, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." See John chapter 8.

I don't condone or excuse DUIs or hateful remarks, but I am amazed by the complete lack of compassion shown by most of the people commenting here. I've heard it said that our sin looks worst when somebody else is wearing it.

Mel obviously needs help. Instead of piling on, reveling in his problems, or taking pleasure out of this man getting crushed, I will be praying that he gets the help he needs, from the One whose words you quoted."

I will repeat what I said then--I don't condone or excuse DUIs or hateful remarks; I'm just suggesting a little compassion for a man who is obviously in desperate need of help. Through His Son, the Lord has extended His grace and mercy to me. He has shown me much forgiveness and compassion. How can I do any less for another?

Besides that, it is an unreasonable assumption to say that he is teaching his children to be bigoted anti-Semites. Nobody other than he and his family know that for certain.

Mel has asked for forgiveness more than once, in a heartfelt, repentant way. Being the flawed people that we all are, we should extend him the forgiveness he is seeking.

Unforgiveness is a debilitating, crippling problem. Mel asked for forgiveness and restoration--not an unreasonable request. Considering our own flaws, shouldn't we be willing to grant his request?

Thanks for listening!

[beyond the sea]

You have been given enough rope and posted and posted and posted and posted your pound of flesh should first be carved from the one that you see in a mirror. The First Amendment does not only apply to Liberals and Gitmo Detainees, even Mel is covered. Freedom of speech steps on many toes, and yet you immediately wanted reparations. Shame on you----

****

Bless you

The extremely sensitive, thin skin I observe on this Mel issue is even thinner than the skin on my knees from kneeling and scraping around in my nursery daily.

[mad puppy]

"But how does one earn a clean bill of health from the thought police?"

I have no idea. Why do you ask?

All I'm saying is that, IMO, in order to at least try to make amends for running his drunken mouth, he will need to follow through with exactly what he said he was going to do. I certainly can't judge his thoughts, but I can be influenced by his actions.

[muawiyah]

Naw, Mel and the others need to come out into the open, declare themselves some sort of modern Protestants, and beg someone who graduated from a major Protestant seminary to minister to them and set them on the correct path, or at least a "different path", and even Barry Lynne, who needs a real job, could do that.

They have to get off this "papal legitimacy" kick first ~ and unless you think Mel and company should take holy orders (God forbid! Who'd want people like that clogging up RC administrative processes), I'm not sure you'll find much support for the "obedience" part.

[soccermom]

"But how does one earn a clean bill of health from the thought police?" I have no idea. Why do you ask? All I'm saying is that, IMO, in order to at least try to make amends for running his drunken mouth, he will need to follow through with exactly what he said he was going to do. I certainly can't judge his thoughts, but I can be influenced by his actions.

I ask because, for many here, his words of apology aren't good enough on their own when it was merely words that got him in trouble (for the charge of anti-Semetism anyway. Driving drunk is another matter entirely.) I find the whole notion that someone should have to jump through hoops to atone for stupid words to be a little meaningless. To me, it is similar to "some of my best friends are Jewish, black, etc..." You should live your life the way you live it and not have to "prove" you're a tolerant person. Again, if Gibson had been accused of treating Jewish people badly on sets, refusing to socialize with Jewish people, or some other action that could be deemed as discriminatory against Jews, I could see how he would need to change his behavior. But, since his crime is uttering anti-Semetic words while drunk (and I think manic), I don't see what he can do to convince people he has purged his mind of anti-Semetic thoughts, or if anyone is even capable of purging their mind of subconscious notions.

[MissCalico]

"...pound of flesh, should first be carved from the one that you see in a mirror."

What a charmingly Shakespearean reference...

/sarc

shame on you.

[mad puppy]

"I find the whole notion that someone should have to jump through hoops to atone for stupid words to be a little meaningless."

I do not share that opinion. Words have power and consequences just as surely as actions do. When those words go wild, due to drunkenness, anger or just stupidity, causing insult and damage, the speaker of those words should either

1) stand up and say "YEP, that is exactly what I meant, deal with it" OR

2) stand up and say "I'm an idiot/drunk/angry-drunken-idiot, I'm sorry and I want to help heal what I've damaged."

Everyone screws up. Not everyone has the strength of character to apologize and try to make things right. That doesn't mean spending the rest of your life groveling but it may mean some pretty serious humbling in the short term.

[ariamne]

It is most generally a mistake to speak for an entire group of people; I'd be most grateful if you didn't try and speak for me: I am a Jew and I do NOT accept any apologies from the likes of Jesse Jackson. Nor will I ever. Mel's apology sounds a lot more sincere.

[ariamne]

All Jews do not forgive Jesse Jackson, or even like Jesse Jackson. The truth is often hurtful, but you spoke no truth.

[AppyPappy]

So what you seem to be saying is that when Mel Gibson mentions "Jews", he doesn't mean all Jews. Just some Jews.

[soccermom]

I agree that he should apologize profusely and he did. However, I disagree with the notion that he should have to grovel or pander. People can either accept his apology or not. It reminds me of Jesse Jackson coming in a demanding monetary compensation from coporations who gladly pay to make the embarrassment go away. Gibson was not spouting these sentiments on a college campus or in a column or on The Tonight Show. He said them as a drunk/manic person in a relatively private setting that was made public. I wonder how many of us could stand the scrutiny of things that may pour out of our mouths in an impaired state.

[Stone Mountain]

Let's see if his actions match his words. That will be the real litmus test.

Bingo. Talk is cheap. Clinton apologized for his actions but I don't see anyone here saying hey, he apologized - let's forgive him and move on. Anyone can issue an apology - let's see what Gibson does from here on out.

[ariamne]

Jews only accept apologies from liberals like Jesse Jackson.

Wrong again. I referred to your above statement, where you impugn all Jews by stating that we only accept apologies from liberals like Jesse Jackson. First of all, I never heard Jesse Jackson apologize, and secondly, it would mean nothing to me if he did. Same goes for Spike Lee or Al Sharpton. I have nothing but contempt for these Jew-haters, and the fact that they are liberals just makes them more contemptible. So have a care, sir, when tempted to make sweeping generalizations about what we supposedly "think".

As for Mel, I believe he said, and meant, all Jews. I also think he is sincere in his apology.

[soccermom]

Clinton never apologized for perjury, obstruction, or the way Tripp was treated -- only for lying to the public. That is where I took issue with Clinton. If he were sincere, he would have owned up to the crime.

[mad puppy]

"He said them as a drunk/manic person in a relatively private setting that was made public. I wonder how many of us could stand the scrutiny of things that may pour out of our mouths in an impaired state."

Mel himself, in his apology, acknowledges that he is a very public person and as such when he makes extreme statements like this to a public official, guess what, that isn't "relatively private". Its public. If he doesn't like what comes out of his mouth when he's drunk, he shouldn't drink. (which I really hope he does)

I specifically said he should not have to grovel for the rest of his life and any comparison of this situation to Jesse Jackson black mailing corporations is radically stretched.

He says he is getting help and he needs help. I believe him when he claims (essentially) that he doesn't want to be the type of person that says stuff like that. In order for him to get better he has to accept what he said, without defending it in any way. All the people that want to coddle him now do him no favors in the long run. He must feel the pain. Based on the number of people/companies/deals running from him because of his acknowledged comments, I suspect he is feeling that pain.

[soccermom]

Mel himself, in his apology, acknowledges that he is a very public person and as such when he makes extreme statements like this to a public official, guess what, that isn't "relatively private". Its public. That is where I disagree. I've heard several police officers call into radio shows and say that it is not typical for a police officer to include what was said in the police report. Clearly, there was attempt by someone to publicly embarrass him. Of course, what he said was wrong and he should apologize for it (as he has.) But that should have been between he and the police officer. Once it was made public, he of course, had to apologize to the public, but it should never have gotten to that point. There needs to be a distinction between what is said as an individual in a private moment and what is said in one's capacity as a public figure. That doesn't mean their private life is off limits, but I do think there are varying degrees of importance and relevance. An anti-semtic remark uttered to an individual, while drunk, is a far cry from being the keynote speaker at at Neo-Nazi rally.

If he doesn't like what comes out of his mouth when he's drunk, he shouldn't drink. (which I really hope he does) Agreed. But, if he has bipolar disorder, as I suspect he does, it isn't as simple as that. Drinking is a symptom of mania -- as is "foot-in-mouth" disease. It isn't as simple as telling him, "don't drink and don't say stupid things." Telling a manic person to shut up is like telling a diabetic without insulin to stop shaking. He has to get treatment for the disorder. It usually takes a huge disaster like this before one realizes he has a problem. In that sense, it is a good thing because he will get the help he needs with relatively little damage done to his life or others' lives.

"I specifically said he should not have to grovel for the rest of his life and any comparison of this situation to Jesse Jackson black mailing corporations is radically stretched." Maybe you don't think that is a valid comparison, but have you taken a look at some of the Christmas wish lists in the threads around here? People want him to donate to Holocaust museums, donate to the ADL, apologize to Bush and support the war --- I didn't even know Bush was Jewish! --- before they will deem his apology sincere. Sorry -- that isn't the way it is supposed to be. Jesus didn't say forgiveness was contingent upon one having to prove he was sorry. He said, "Go and sin no more." I expect Gibson to "sin no more". I expect him to change his ways. I'm sure Gibson will want to make gestures of atonement. If that helps him get inner peace, I'm all for it But forgiveness is supposed to come without strings attached. I am not going to withhold my acceptance of his apology until he "proves" how sorry he is.

"He says he is getting help and he needs help. I believe him when he claims (essentially) that he doesn't want to be the type of person that says stuff like that. In order for him to get better he has to accept what he said, without defending it in any way. All the people that want to coddle him now do him no favors in the long run." I don't see anyone "coddling" him. "He must feel the pain. Based on the number of people/companies/deals running from him because of his acknowledged comments, I suspect he is feeling that pain." If you think his "pain" has one iota to do with lost deals, you don't know much about the man. If making "deals" and winning the approval on Hollywood were what drove the man, he would have never made The Passion of the Christ. He could never work another day in his life and live very well, I'm sure. His "pain", I'm certain, is derived from the realization of the hurt and humiliation he has caused inflicted upon his family and the damage to his reputation.