Gibson's Family: Father Tricked Into Interview

newsmax.com ^ | Feb. 20, 2004 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[westerfield]

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."

Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview.

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.

Feuerstein did not return calls for comment.

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.

[Poison Pill]

Optimist, what leads you to the conclusion that the events did happen or that they happened as reported in the New Testament?

[Texas2step]

*ping*

Thought you'd want to see this. I remember from another thread that was some discussion about how the interview came about. Here's some info.

It doesn't change Hutton's status in my book, but according to this article he was duped into this interview.

[Optimist]

Optimist, what leads you to the conclusion that the events did happen or that they happened as reported in the New Testament?

First, is there another record of that period of time we can turn to?

Second, does it matter?

Fact is, millions of Christians accept it as truth as the dogma of there faith. We can not disarm criticism against us as Jews if we can not at least accept their perspective (if not their conclusion).

When conclusions of deicide are based on ignorance of their own religion (and there are many "Christian biblical" cites absolving the perpetrators of the crucifixion- the least of which was my own analysis) we must have a dialogue based on somebody's reality - saying it never happened will hardly resolve any abrasiveness.

[Just mythoughts]

You have asked an excellent question.

"As to the Jewish involvement, the discussion is fair I guess but what evidence do you have in the account's historically accuracy other than your own faith?"

Probably Mel should have included Psalms 22, written hundreds of years prior, penned by King David and taught by Christ while hanging on the cross.

As it is written Mary the mother of Christ came from the tribe of Judah and Levi. The King line and the Priest line.

The historical record will only be as accurate as the ones penning it.

[westerfield]

Jews have been persecuted over many centuries on continued accusations of Deicide.

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.

[Optimist]

I agree with you 100%

For perspective, though, European Passion Plays were often precursors of attacks against Jews (and are a concern even today with the release of this film). Frankly that is a European anti-semitism problem that has never been resolved, and to associate it with anything other than a minority in the US is wrong and self-defeating (well-intentioned or not).

Read this article for a RIGHT WING Jewish perspective: JPFO ALERT: JEWS SHOULD DEVELOP A "PASSION" FOR SELF-DEFENSE

[Poison Pill]

I believe it does matter. Blood libel deserves a response. I do not question anothers faith but when the accusation is made at me and my people I think I have the right to call the story into question by way of defence.

As to the historical record there is some. 1)The events are said to have taken place during Passover. The high Jewish court would never have met on a sacred day. 2)If they had met, they had the power to declare the sentence on their own. The did not need Pilate. 3) Josephus records that Pilate presided. 4)Pilate in the New Testament account does not want to go against the Jews assembled who are calling for death. Why would a powerful Governor with seasoned troops at his disposal care what some street rabble thought? History records him as being a brutal ruler who did not hestitate to use troops to put down Jewish trouble makers. Why would he give in to them on this account? 5) the fact that Pilate presides suggests that the matter was political and not primarily spiritual.

As far as the matter of Christian faith, I leave them to believe what they want. They can believe we did it, as Gibson seems to. But if they make a public spectacle of it at my expense, I will have something to say.

[Optimist]

They can believe we did it, as Gibson seems to

and as their scriptures state. To call into question the very basis of their religion is akin to slapping them up the side of the head.

IMHO It is more appropriate to verify their faith, and show that (a) any duplicity was G-ds plan, (b)who was considered duplicitous sheds light upon antisemitism (and here your points are well-taken) (c) by definition a part does not define the whole (ie the actions of a few do not indict an entire people)

[Poison Pill]

True, history is written by the winners and Christianity has prevailed on this score. However, it should be noted that in the case of Kingly lines, the birth right is passed through the father (or adopted father if you believe in the divine theory)not the mother. Also, Jesus if I recall correctly comes from the line of Nathan, David's 2nd son. Kinship would pass through the first born; Solomon. Thus Jesus could claim no legal right to kingship.

[Poison Pill]

I take you point. I don't want to come down hard on this point but I also know that this story has been mis-used by Christians over the years. I thought Christians got a rotten deal with the Last Temptation of Christ and I said so at the time. I have no ill will here as long as lines are respected. I will tread lightly but I would ask the same of Christians.

[mercy]

Lock that old nazi fool up in a closet where he belongs.

[Just mythoughts]

King Saul was the first king and he was from the tribe of Benjamin. King David was the second king and he was the youngest of many sons.

King David's first born was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess; the secon Daniel, of Abigail the Carmelitess ..... King David had at least 6 children prior to Solomon...

Matthew 1:1 gives the lineage and it comes through Solomon for Joseph the adopted father of Christ.

Now Mary the mother of Christ was told Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the LORD God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: This would make Mary in part from the tribe of Judah and Mary's cousin Elizabeth mother of John the Baptist was from the tribe of Levi. By adoption and by blood line Christ was from the King line and the Priest line.

Before the 12 tribes back to Abraham we are told of a visit to Abraham by the King of Salem called Melchizedek the priest of MOST HIGH GOD. Hebrews 7 tell us much about Melchisedec and quotes Psalms 110:4 "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

Our Heavenly Father is in control and just as Psalms 22 foretold of the Christ and the cross. Zechariah 9: gives witness to Christ.

Now there are many places where the one who by tradition should have been given "Kingship" or "birthright/blessing"

Esau by tradition should have the birthright and the blessing, however, that is not what happened. As it is written even in the womb Jacob I loved and Esau I hated.

Traditions sure do keep tying to get in our Heavenly Father's way.

[AppyPappy]

...but it isn't fair even to discuss whether Jews were involved in the death of Christ, two thousand years ago?

The same way it isn't fair to discuss whether America was "asking for it" on 9/11.

[Paul Atreides]

I don't see the connection.

The connection is, that there are some, who are demanding that Mel remove the line in the movie in which one of the Jews egging on the Crucifixion says "let the sins be on our heads and on the heads of our children." From this, they are trying to say that this is stating that every single Jew from that point on is cursed. Now, here is the connection: Mel's father believes a certain way. So far, I have heard, or read, nothing to lead me to believe that Mel holds his father's views. However, the media is trying to take his father's statements and apply them to Mel. In other words, they are trying to say that something that a father believes is automatically believed by the son. Does that mean that, if one of Mel's kids tries to make a movie, they are going to say "are anti-semitic, like your grandfather?".

I didn't see that denial.

From the articles I have read, there seems to be an effort, on the parts of those protesting this film, to say that there should not be any part in it, showing any Jewish participation in the Crucifixion.

are you under the mistaken impression that Jews believe in any part of the so-called, "New Testament"?

Please clarify this question, as I have not stated anything about whether Jews believe in the New Testament.

[Dataman]

How does that work?

Good catch (more hypocrisy from the Pharisees). But why would we expect a bunch of liberal whiners who act like children to think like adults?

Here's something that will really make them throw their toys:

"We have not seen this level of activity for any movie, ever," said Dick Westerling, senior vice president of marketing for Regal Entertainment Group, which owns Regal Cinemas, United Artists Theatres and Edwards Theatres, the "Times" reported. About 420 of Regal's 550 theaters will show the film.

full article

I imagine that the whiners aren't really concerned about anti-semitism (after all, they have to go all the way back to the Middle Ages to scrape up an example) but it's the only charge they can fabricate that the media will pick up.

[BibChr]

It was a low move.

As to Jewish involmentment, the discussion is fair I guess but what evidence do you have in the account's historically accuracy other than your own faith?

Better evidence than I have for your existence.

Dan

[veronica]

So what's the deal?

Is Hutton Gibson so stupid that he did not know he was on a radio show, or so smart that he the knows the "real" story of the Holocaust. One cannot be both...

[BibChr]

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 don't know how you've missed the suppression of open discussion of this; I'm not going to search all newspapers to prove it to you. 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!" I'd rather talk about whether or not the descendant (Foxman or Gibson) shares the views of the ancestor(s) ("Crucify Him!"/"Holocaust schmolocaust").

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

As to your feeling that you "must" reject the New Testament portion of our Bible, it's a feeling without rational basis. It was written almost entirely by Jews, about a Jew. 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); there is nothing in affirming the one that requires a rejection of the other.

Dan

[BibChr]

How?

[Poison Pill]

As I said, I do not question any bait and switch tactics by the reporter. He may well have lied to get the quote. That is low. It is equally low of Gibson (the elder) to deney the holocaust as fiction. The manner in which the quote was obtained , if it was deceptive is wrong, but it does not negate what he said or lead me to believe that he did not mean it.

As far as your desire to have a discussion on the liability of the Jews in the matter, please make your point? What do you beleive? You raised the question, and asked for the discussion,not me.