Posted on 07/31/2006 4:43:47 PM PDT by Hildy
On Saturday, Gibson released a statement apologizing:
"After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I drove a car when I should not have, and was stopped by the L.A. County Sheriffs. The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person. I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended. Also, I take this opportunity to apologize to the deputies involved for my belligerent behavior. They have always been there for me in my community and indeed probably saved me from myself. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry." <> He went on in the statement to say that he has had substance abuse problems in the past. "I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state and have already taken necessary steps to ensure my return to health," Gibson said.
The ADL's Foxman, however, was unmoved by the apology. In his own statement, released Sunday, he said, "Mel Gibson's apology is unremorseful and insufficient. It's not a proper apology because it does not go to the essence of his bigotry and his anti-Semitism. His tirade finally reveals his true self and shows that his protestations during the debate over his film 'The Passion of the Christ,' that he is such a tolerant, loving person, were a sham. ... It is unfortunate that it took an excess of booze and an encounter with a traffic cop to reveal what was really in his heart and mind. We would hope that Hollywood now would realize the bigot in their midst and that they will distance themselves from this anti-Semite."
And there were signs that even Gibson's conservative Christian fans were not moved by the response. Reaction in the popular conservative online forum FreeRepublic.com, was also largely negative. In response to the statement, one commenter posted, "Gibson showed his true colors last night during his arrest. I argued with you about 'The Passion of the Christ' and his portrayal of Jews. I stood up for Gibson to you and a number of my Jewish friends. Now, I'm sorry I did."
Another, responding to hopeful comments that Gibson can still change his views, wrote, "Lots of denial going on here. It's difficult when your hero falls so far."
HUH? Army Archerd is NOT a Rabbi, he's a Hollywood Gossip Reporter who I can't stand. I don't read his weblog...I just posted the information for someone who asked.
STOP referring to CP....as far as I'm concerned...they don't exist. CP is like four people banished from America, sitting in Siberia making fun of the people they can no longer be. ENOUGH!
She seems to be a real defender of scum-sucking dirthbags like Michael Schiavo. I guess she finds an off-handed comment by someone who is exercising a temporary lapse in judgement to be much more despicable than one who murders his wife.
First, there are the "Jews" one encounters in the Bible. Second, there are the "Jews" who seem for all the world like Roman Catholic priests, bishops, cardinals and popes (into such things as baptism, communion, confession).
Early Protestant reformers, to keep in the good graces of their political sponsors who were not as religiously sophisticated as they were, usually spoke of "Jews" when they meant members of the "Roman Catholic" hierarchy.
They weren't fooling anybody, but it did keep their necks out of the Prinz' noose.
There's much less of this sort of thing at the conclusion of the Thirty-Years War with the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia; October 24, 1648. In pertinent part this treaty states: "That there shall be on the one side and the other a perpetual Oblivion, Amnesty, or Pardon of all that has been committed since the beginning of these Troubles......."
Subsequently Louis XIV was free, within his primary domaine of France, to initiate the most brutal persecution ever seen of the Protestant Huguenots ~ without interference of any other party. America became, at this time, a place of refuge and sanctuary for Europeans dispossessed at Munster.
Things ran downhill from there and culminated in WWII.
I certainly do hope he's not a rabbi.
BTW, do you recall what happened to Jimmy Swaggart? He was filmed by a religious competitor going to visit a hooker at a motel. Now ol' Jimmuh' said he "only watched", and he was concerned for the woman's soul, but he spent hours and hours and made many visits.
Ruint' him Fur Shur.
He "checked into" prayer and contemplation ~ (what these guys do instead of a detox unit), but it didn't work.
His relious competitor did not improve his position in the trade though.
Oh, yes, Time magazine has announced it's getting rid of "Teen People" ~ and just in time eh?! They'll miss this whole story which will leave us with little future material unless Mel shoots somebody or his wife is found floating in the pool down at the mansion.
Come on, they are legends...in their own minds. :)
The Jews and Their Lies, Martin Luther
It pains me to think of it. The man who wrote such stirring words of grace and hope also penned such poison. He also wrote, I more fear what is within me than what comes from without. It's a good philosopy, as sadly, his is not the only sin committed in the name of Christ. It seems we often sin out of frustration with the Lord's plan and timing. Only disaster comes from trying to force God's Hand.
Nobody should "enjoy" this. However, I do believe in Karma. The guy could have killed somebody. My cousin's brother in law was killed by a drunk driver on Christms eve.
with hooked noses who fought over money? Lovely portrayal! Thanks for nothing. How about the Inquisition with priests whipping the people who are about to burned at the stake?
This is correct: Hollywood makes anti-Israel films now because it is a way of attacking the USA also. They are decadent whims and weaklings. I hope Sarah Jessica Parker can fit into her burka if they ever win. They would let her wear her Jimmy Choos, you know. Unfortunately, she and the rest of them - George Clooney being another - DON'T GET IT!!!!!!
There is something just nasty about mel gibson being in the same league as hillary.
Yes, but Jesus was not a wuss and I suspect he would not approved of a self-pitying drunk driver who could have run over a bunch of people. There are photos of Gibson that evening with his arms all over two blondes. Close to adultery - too close.
Gibson showed Pontius Pilate - who was eventually removed as Governor because of his cruelty - as being "conflicted". this goes against what we know about the historical Pilate. He contrasts this with the "Jooooos" who want to crucify Jesus. The majority of Jews were not involved in the Crucifixion. Also, the High Priest et al. were appointed by the Romans. They did not take one step without Roman approval. The Romans won the war, they got to write the history.
Most of the folks who seemed to be the most critical of Jews probably had never met a Jew, nor even knew someone who did.
The greater part of the Jewish population in Europe during the period leading up to the Religious Wars (in the 1500s) and the Thirty-Years War (in the 1600s) were expelees from Catholic Spain.
We are not, at that period in history, speaking of millions of people ~ just a few tens of thousands spread over half a dozen countries. More ancient Jewish communities (dating from Roman times) had been destroyed in earlier upheavals.
An interesting film to watch concerning the risks taken by Protestants in this period is "Retour de Martin Guerre" ~ in this movie they hanged a fellow for "violating the marital bed". It's noted at the end, that the priest who sponsored/officiated/blessed that particular hanging was, himself, later on hanged for espousing Protestantism.
It was quite common in the late middle ages to execute people for what we take to be common civil offenses, or for any belief the local nobles might think offensive.
This sort of thing continued in France up to the French Revolution. One of the "causes" in that event were the plethora of "courts" ~ in some jurisdictions a non-noble might well face over 100 different "courts" with authority to put him to trial ~ rather like Iran under the Mullahs!
This is why it's very, very important to find out what context any of these old rants against Jews occurred. Was it really about Jews, or was it about the safety and security of the writer's neck with the word "Jew" serving as a codeword for "RC Priest"?
Would that be an inaccurate portrayal?
After all, do you read the trades enough to know the columnists of Variety, present and past, by name? I can't even stand to read People magazine in the dentist's office.
Of course, if you notice such crudely obvious hints and boasts of interest and history in show business, from here and from years ago-- that'll get you the antisemite accusation...you musn't notice or comment. We know who's Boss around here.
Some confirmations, some sad surprises.
Or this?
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuternomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Thoses villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
He compares the teachings of the rabbis to the "lies and deceptions that issued from a devilish mind", referring to the pope. If he were using the Jews as a kind of code for the Roman Catholic hierarchy, why would he call the pope a liar? These are not the writings of a man in fear of the established church.
I'm sorry. Your theory doesn't wash. Martin Luther was many things, but he wasn't one to mince words. He made public his feelings about the Roman Catholic church and faced death because of it. Here I stand. The majority of the princes around Luther actually approved of the Reformation -- most likely because it promised more local power and authority rather than from religious conviction.
Although most German kings attained imperial coronation, there were often several candidates for the throne. A body of princes, called electors, selected by majority vote both the German king and emperor; the crown, however, was only officially conferred by the pope, who occasionally claimed ultimate authority in the election. Over time, tensions mounted between the emperors and electors who, as one of the three representative groups in the imperial diet (or parliamentary body), kept the power of the monarch in check. The culmination of these tensions came with the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century: while the emperors adhered to Roman Catholicism, the electors generally supported the Reformation. It was, in fact, an elector—Frederick III (the Wise) of Saxony—who gave refuge to Martin Luther upon his excommunication. The Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburgs
Indeed. Maybe Christians are also learning who is--and who isn't--virulently anti-Chrisitan.
Although he was showing more concern for himself than compassion for Jesus, Pilate does show some conflicted feelings here.
Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?" But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.
Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.
While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."
But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
"Which of the two do you want me to release to you?" asked the governor. "Barabbas," they answered.
"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked. They all answered, "Crucify him!"
"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. Matthew 27:11-26
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.