Gibson's Family: Father Tricked Into Interview

When Mel Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton, told a New York radio interviewer Wednesday that the Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Jews were trying to rule the world, he had no idea he was speaking on the record, let alone being recorded for broadcast, Gibson family sources tell NewsMax.

When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Hutton Gibson says the caller claimed his mother maintained a Web site devoted to "The Passion of the Christ."

With no idea that his comments were being taped, Gibson's father made no attempt to disguise his views. He told Feuerstein that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust had been fabricated.

"It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he told the radio interviewer.

According to the account obtained by NewsMax, the elderly Gibson talked to Feuerstein for almost an hour before asking for further identification. The talk host promised to call back with more details, but never did.

So far, Hutton Gibson has not publicly apologized for the explosive remarks. But in previous interviews, first with the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, Mel Gibson noted he didn't share his father's revisionist views on the Holocaust. The actor-director said he had friends who had survived the death camps.

"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely," Gibson told ABC's Diane sawyer. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."

Asked about an earlier interview where Gibson senior offered similarly offensive views, the Hollywood star complained: "Their whole agenda here, my detractors, is to drive a wedge between me and my father. And it's not going to happen. I love him. He's my father."

Gibson's father's comments were the topic Thursday night of Alan Colmes' national radio show.

James Hirsen, a NewsMax columnist, was interviewed and said that Hutton Gibson's "statement is indefensible, but it is also irrelevant. Mel's dad didn't make the movie; Mel Gibson did."

Rabbi James Rudin of American Jewish Committee, who also was on the show, agreed with Hirsen's point.

Where the two cases parallel is that in both (anti-Semitic pogroms and the anti-Mel "pogrom") the views/words/deeds of an ancestor are being used as an excuse or opportunity to abuse the descendant. I think we would agree that it is the view of the descendant that is of modern import.

I think they're both important. So does Mel. After all, he included the words of the ancestors in his film, didn't he?

Enough to say that if one simply tries to tell the story of what some Jews did to Jesus, the Foxmans of the world squawk "Anti-Semitism!"

Well, the Foxmans of the world earn their money by whining about anti-Semitism. It is a cross we Jews have to bear (pun intended).

I'd rather talk about whether or not the descendant (Foxman or Gibson) shares the views of the ancestor(s) ("Crucify Him!"/"Holocaust schmolocaust").

OK, let's chat about it. In another post on this thread I compared and contrasted the views. In the case of the father who disclosed his genuine feelings unaware that it was being broadcast, it's Holocaust revisionism/denial. In Mel's prepared interview, Jewish suffering is relegated to an afterthought and is considered part of all the suffering during the 20th century, i.e., not unique. If that's what he says in a prepared interview, one wonders what he would say if he were unaware his views were being broadcast. I'm not accusing Mel of anything and I'm not saying anything against his movie. Nor do I expect Mel to have the same views about the Holocaust that I have. After all, he is a Christian.

And it is of no relevance to this discussion, but no, I do not at all question the Holocaust.

Yes, your feelings about the Holocaust aren't relevant at all to the discussion, but it's nice to know anyway.

As to your feeling that you "must" reject the New Testament portion of our Bible, it's a feeling without rational basis.

"not rational"? How is it "not rational"? I am a practicing Jew. You think it's rational for me to accept something I don't believe in?

It was written almost entirely by Jews, about a Jew.

That's what you believe and I respect your beliefs. I just don't share them and hope you can respect that.

As a Christian, I find I believe more emphatically in the divine nature and authority of the Torah than virtually every Jew I've ever had the pleasure of talking with (except Jews who affirm the Messiahship of Jesus);

Perhaps you haven't talked with Jews who actually practice authentic Judaism.

there is nothing in affirming the one that requires a rejection of the other.

I beg to differ. The basic concepts of Christianity are diametrically opposed to Judaism.

I have little disagreement with most of what you said. (And dang and oops — 98 is of couse a typo on my part for 89; right numbers, wrong order!)

I am totally against abuse of present-day Jews for what their ancestors did. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Equally I am totally against revising the past. You miss the point about Clinton (about whom, again, I agree with you: he should be breaking rocks). The point is, saying what should have and should not have happened is not the same as saying what did happen.

And I have eyewitness documents that say what happened. You seem to think thet lose their character as historical witnesses because they are the fulfillment of prophecies of Torah. I disagree — any more than the documents of Torah are not also historical witnesses. You seem to think they're matters of pure faith, whereas what you appeal to is something else. It is no such thing, any more than your assertion of your own existence.

I'm not blaming you for the mistakes, or sins, of your fathers. I do blame you for whitewashing them, if that is what you're doing. And I'm interested in whether or not you will repeat, or repent of, their profound sin in regard to Messiah Jesus. That brings the question into the modern day. But it never, NEVER calls for human retaliation.

Dan

Dan,

I think (hope) we have whittled this down to something a bit more manageable.

Yes, I view the Bible as more a matter of faith and less a matter of absolute divine revelation. I tend to see the text as divinely inspired but not always historically accurate down to the smallest detail. This does not lessen my belief in God or lessen my belief that events depicted in both texts don't contain ultimate truth. I believe they do. It also does not relieve me from my obligation to follow the moral code laid out for me in the text.

Again, I am not telling you what to beleive, nor am I interested in changing one word of the New Testament by way of revision. If I led you to believe I thought the New Testament was not worthy of adherance, that was not my intent and I certainly don't believe it. I just practice a different faith.

As I said before, I would be pleased as punch if The Passion led to millions of new observant Christians.

One final word on Foxman and the ADL (true story). I'm sitting in the synagogue one night after services when the president of the local ADL comes up to me.

ADL guy: PP, we would like you to come to our annual ADL lunch and join our organization.

ME: That's Foxman's outfit right?

ADL guy: Yes, that right.

ME: Well thank you but no thank you. I would'nt be interested.

ADL guy: (A bit take aback) Really, why not?

ME: You guys stand for gun control and I really could not see my way clear to joining an organization dedicated to destroying my Constitutional right to bear arms.

ADL guy (reeling) Uh well yeah. I guess I see that. (Recovers) You know I used to have some guns too until I got married and my wife made me get rid of them.

ME: Wow, she made you get rid of your guns? How did she do that?

ADL guy: (Matter of factly) She told me to!

Shalom
PP

"My point is you accept the role of the Jews in your Testment as a matter of faith. There is no proof or dis-proof of faith.

Your statement reveals an unwillingness to consider the evidence. What good is it for a blind man to argue with eyewitnesses? Fortunately truth does not depend on your opinion and facts remain facts regardless of whether you consider them or not. If you had bothered to check out the link I provided, you would have noticed these words:

If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures.

My primary concern is that Jews as a whole not get tarred with this accusation again. The Christian canon is of no concern to me.

Gad man! Why not accuse us of stoking the ovens? No sane person blames all of the Jews for the death of Christ! This unwarranted paranoia exists only in the minds of the delirious or in the black hearts of troublemakers. If you really believe your own words, I suggest you go to the grocery store, get a week's supply of food and proceed to hide under the bed so no moviegoer will find you and dip you in tar.

Good grief.
Good unbelievably ignorant grief.

LOL; that's a good story.

It gives me an opportunity to return to something I missed, and to which I meant to respond. This guy's presupposition was that, because you're Jewish, you naturally are ADL. You find no such necessity. I'd say the same as to affirming the Messiahship of Jesus. He was Jewish, every last one of the apostles was Jewish, the first Christian churches were Jewish; it simply does not follow that being one requires the other. Regardless of what you've been told.

Then this question, from what you said earlier: are you saying that you don't believe that 25/27ths of the NT was written by Jews? See, that would be a serious piece of revisionism.

Finally, you say this:

Yes, I view the Bible as more a matter of faith and less a matter of absolute divine revelation. I tend to see the text as divinely inspired but not always historically accurate down to the smallest detail.

Two brief thoughts:

I have to say — not acidly, just honestly — I can make no sense of this.
When I said earlier that I have yet to meet a non-Messianic Jew whose view of the inspiration, authority and truthfulness of the Torah is as high as mine, you said maybe I hadn't met a real, observant Jew yet (or words to that effect). You must see that you, in your "inspired but errant" position, are providing another example of what I was observing. I believe the Torah is the very word of God, verbally inspired, truthful in everything it affirms in every regard.

W^egam shalom l^eka,

Dan

I don't accuse you of having any ill will and I agree that no sane person holds those views. I am concerned with the ones who are not sane. Now I don't think their number is large but I do think they exist and that they can cause trouble if the want to. Do I think they will cause alot of trouble? I don't know. Would I hold you responsible for any trouble? Absolutely not! On balance I expect the movie's impact to be overwelmingly positive and I welcome it. I expect that any trouble will be dealt as isolated occurances and dealt with on a case by case basis. To the extent that groups like the ADL try to link trouble to Gibson or the larger Christian community, this Jew would tell them to sit down and shut up.

As far as you thinking I am blind I will say this (yet again): I will not tell you what to believe or that what you think is wrong. It is not my place to tell you what your faith is and ought to constitute. I would only ask for the same courtesy in return. I think that's fair. To the extent that leads you to think it is no good to argue with me then don't because I'm not looking to press you on it at point in the thread.

Curious here, trying learn what exactly all this uprising is about.

Many things....there is justifiable concern on the part of some Christians that certain Jews see fit to comment on a film which accurately reflects part of their bible. There is also concern that Mr. Gibson Sr. was deceived into revealing the truth about himself. Also, there are concerns that Mel Gibson is being tarred with the "anti-Semite" brush.

What does it mean a "practicing Jew"? What do "practicing Jew" believe the future to be?

This is sort of like the man who came to Rabbi Akiva and asked to be taught the entire Torah while standing on one foot, but....

A practicing Jew, IMHO, is one who accepts upon him/herself the obligations of the Torah. For us, the future is that the Messiah will come speedily in our days.

Thank you for your response.

This is what I do not understand. The Ten Commandments are first written in the Torah. Why no outcry about rejecting them by modern day courts.

The gay lifestyle is called an abomination in the Torah yet society is getting it shoved in our face and against a state law passed by the people. The removal of "GOD" from the pledge get but a slight notice, etc......

I do not understand how all the things get hardly noticed. Yet a silly old man whose beliefs are not common gets run up the flag pole because his son makes a movie that all his peer's want nothing to do with. What is the sin of Mel making a movie? What do Mel's father silly words have to do with Mel's movie?

No one is being forced to go, to believe anything about it, yet I am being forced to explain to my children why the Torah says one thing and society is pushing the opposite.

Deuteronomy 31:16-21 Moses tell us what will happen "if" we turn our face away from our Heavenly Father.

Deuteronomy 32 the Song of Moses is quiet fitting for this day and age.

I do not understand how all the things get hardly noticed. Yet a silly old man whose beliefs are not common gets run up the flag pole because his son makes a movie that all his peer's want nothing to do with. What is the sin of Mel making a movie? What do Mel's father silly words have to do with Mel's movie?

The issue of Mel's father is that his ideas are unpopular and easy to deal with. The other issues are more complex and their popularity is questionable. I believe that explains why the important things do not get addressed while this does.

Also, there is a noisy contingent that doesn't appreciate certain things about Mel's movie and are concerned that the movie could incite violence or prejudice against Jews. While you may feel that Jews are being overly concerned, they have ample historical evidence on which to base their fears - especially in Europe.

Liberal non-Jews, on the other hand, have an opportunity to deal blow to those whom they consider enemies: religious Christians. And, by stroking the fires of hatred, intolerance, etc., they may cause Jews to suffer - another of their goals.

No one is being forced to go, to believe anything about it, yet I am being forced to explain to my children why the Torah says one thing and society is pushing the opposite.

It's a complicated world.

"While you may feel that Jews are being overly concerned, they have ample historical evidence on which to base their fears - especially in Europe."

Not overly concerned, they accuse things that Christians do not think. The real sins in this nation are ignored.

My uncle landed on a bloody beach in that WWII battlefield on D-Day to stop the insanity, his head was blown open via a piece of shrapnel, maintained the presence of mind to keep his thumb moving so he might be found. He was found had a piece of metal put in to keep his brain in and was sent back into battle.

I take great offense to suggest believers in Christ would resort to such insanity, because of a movie. Christians are sinners and no different than any other people, flesh is sin.

I do find it odd that our foundation of a Christian nation is being ripped apart gets hardly a notice. You see there is no nation in all of recorded history like this nation and some Christians know whence our blessings come from. It is not because of us it is in spite of us, because too many Christians have forgotten Whom it is that blesses us and what it required to maintain those blessings.

Christians are not second class citizens which is exactly how the liberal left in this nation treats us.

This question of could one be Christian and Jewish sort of drifts into an area I'm trying not to go because the internal logic leads to the questioning of another faith which I intent to avoid. I would just say that I find areas of mutual exclusivity between my practice as a Jew and the tenets of the Christian faith and leave it at that.

I think a couple of these pull quotes you have were from other posters. Not that it matters, I'm happy to give you my take but I just did not recognize recognize the 25/27th ratio as somthing I had raised. Anyway, yeah I think the writers were Jews. I'm not sure what else they would be.

As far as my belief in divine inspiration I would say that I find some parts of the Bible (and again I'll limit this to the Hebrew Text) where I don't see the whole truth as revealed in the passage itself. For instance, "an eye for an eye" the Bible says. Well, what do you do if your eye gets poked out by a blind man? You can't get an eye from him! Can you cut off his hand or his tongue instead? Can you kill him? Can you repo his house? Bind his family into slavery for six years and a day? The text does not tell you. Therein lies a problem. The Jewish solution is a set of commentary that allows for later revelation.

I have never been exposed to this concept that Jews as a people are guilty of Deicide, and the catechism I studied in grammer school was of the pre-Vatican II variety. Nor am I aware of any other Christian denomination that adheres to such a view. They used to burn witches in the Middle Ages too, but I would like to think that we are well beyond that point, so I don't understand the perspective of an Abe Foxman who seems to be insinuating that if we goyim watch a movie about Christ's crucifixion we are liable to revert to some kind of bloodthirsty barbarians and attack Jews. To even think such a thing is not only ridiculous, but downright insulting to me as a Christian.

I was told twice in elementary school by classmates that I was responsible for Jesus death because the Jews killed Jesus. I don't know their denomination. My father, a pretty big Jew who was a drill instructor in the US Army, intervened and chased off an Irish Catholic neighborhood bully who was being egged on by his mother to attack a Rabbi who lived on the block. I was abour 7 or 8. His mother told him not to be scared of my dad, because "he's only a Jew!" Her kid replied, "Yeah, mom, but he's a BIG Jew!" and took off. This was all on suburban Long Island, NY. I also remember my dad telling me that when he was in basic training in late 1950s, there was a guy from the south there training also who had never met a Jew before. He learned as a kid (no kidding) that Jews had horns, and was surprised to find out that my father was Jewish because he didn't have horns and "looked normal." He had a number of encounters in his career as an Electrical Engineer that centered on his religion... and the funny thing is, my father doesn't wear a yarmulke, dress distinctively, or anything like that.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I saw the movie Sunday night, I thought it was a wonderful film, and I think that Abe Foxman is a loser. If anyone decides they don't like Jews because of the movie, it will be because Foxman reminds them of the Sanhedrin priests.

That said, don't fool yourself that while you and yours may be enlightened, a number of your co-religionists hold onto these ideas. Where else could the kids have learned it from but their parents? Where did the guys my dad encountered learn it from? Not from this movie, if anything I think it will better inform Christians of the Jewish roots of their religion and it's connection to the land of Israel. But don't doubt that not all Christians are a s pure hearted as you on this matter!

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.