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.

[BibChr]

Actually, the same question could (should) be asked of everything. See Why I Am (Still) a Christian.

Dan

[BibChr]

No, it isn't "equally low." It's a despicable and thorougly discredited view, but is he deceptive about holding it? Sure doesn't seem so.

My point? Read the post. Maybe you didn't read all the way to the bottom.

Dan

[kcvl]

"I still haven't figured out why Abe Foxman is making such a fuss over this movie".

FUNDRAISING = MONEY.

[Poison Pill]

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. You believe it. I don't. Once you state your faith in the text, what is left to discuss?

[BibChr]

I could say the same of your unproven assumption that you exist.

Did you have a point? I have facts to discuss; you seem to have no more than a cliche.

Dan

[Poison Pill]

I made my point and presented my facts in #67. The Gospel account of Jewish action and the behavior of Pilate does not square with Jewish tradition or the historical record.

You have facts to the contrary beside you own faith? OK. Present them!

[BibChr]

I'm trying, and failing so far, to find any logic in anything you're saying.

You say I must provide only evidence in which I do not believe ("beside you own faith").

So that means... you don't believe any of the assertions you made?

You really seem to be trying to construct a silly discussion.

Dan

[Poison Pill]

Let me try this one more time. The New Testament account of Jewish actions as pertains to the death of Jesus is in error. To keep this simple I'll limit myself to my first point in post #67.

Jewish holidays run from sundown to sundown. Passover was at the time the holiest festival of the year. Jewish law and tradition FORBIDS work on a festival. According to the New Testament, the events leading to the capture of Jesus transpire on the night of Passover. Matthew 26 verse 18 "I will keep the passover at your house". Later that night, according to the text, Jesus is captured and taken before the priest and scribes where they attempt a trial(Matthew 26 verse 57).

This scenario is completely contradictory to Jewish law and tradition. The High priest and the temple elders would NEVER have convened a trial to decide a death sentence on the holiest day of the year. In an Orthodox Jewish home you are forbidden to even turn on a light switch on the Sabbath because it constitutes work! The idea that that all the top members of the Temple would stop all celebration and preparation on the holiest festival day they had to try to put a man to death defies belief.

[BibChr]

You keep imposing your faith on the facts, and I keep trying to point you both to reflection on your assumptions, and facing facts.

Let's try this.

Two thousand years from now, if Messiah Jesus still tarries at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110:1), historians are going over the records written during the late nineties.

And the Poison Pills conclude that the accounts of the Clinton impeachment are all wrong, totally unreliable.

Why? Because these future "historians" practice the same blind, historically revisionistic arrogance you are hiding behind.

They say,

"No, no, it never could have gone this way. The Consitution requires removal of a President for high crimes and misdemeanors. The records show that this president committed perjury, he abused the powers of his office to suborn perjury and cover up his crimes, he disgraced his office in an atrocious manner. Good heavens, he even bombed foreign countries just to manipulate the headlines! It is simply impossible that he would have been allowed to remain in office!

"Further, the Senate is required to try such cases. The documents allege that the Senate did no such thing, but that it held a mock trial consisting of some abbreviated thoughts, with, no evidence, no cross-examination, no serious chance to consider the weight of the matter. They are depicted as shirking their office, their Constitutional responsibility — and we are supposed to believe that it was the opposing political party that agreed to this! Incredible! It could not have happened thiw way!

"Hence, the records are all wrong! We're sure of it!"

And of course it is these come-lately Poison Pillian revisionists who would be wrong.

So you take your blind-faith revisionism, and I'll stick with the facts and the eyewitness testimony.

In your quiet moments, though, do you ever wonder why you find the facts so threatening, why denial over this massive crime is so comforting to you?

You really should.

Dan
How to Make Your Very Own Jesus

[Just mythoughts]

You left out Matthew 26:53

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?

54: But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

[The_Media_never_lie]

Pat Buchanan's dad listened to Father Caughlin, Arnold Schawartzeneger's dad was a Nazi, etc. The character assassin's never sleep.

[Dataman]

I heard somebody invoke the "Jewish position." I found the Jewish position:

In terms of historic fact, [Orthodox Jew] Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts.

"I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said.

"To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?"

"But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides."

The rest of the article

In your quiet moments, though, do you ever wonder why you find the facts so threatening, why denial over this massive crime is so comforting to you?

That is the question for all who are threatened by the Gospel account to ask themselves. It's a bit spooky, isn't it? A myth shouldn't be threatening. That so many go out of their way to avoid the person of Jesus Christ testifies to His claims.

[BibChr]

Really interesting article. Fresh breath of candor. Thanks.

Dan

[Poison Pill]

I'm not trying to tell you what to you are supposed to believe. I said as much in post #84 (to BibChr) when I told you

"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. You believe it. I don't. Once you state your faith in the text, what is left to discuss?"

So, I offered to go my way and let you go yours with no more said on the matter. You were having none of it(BibChr). You gave me the arrogant brush off and said that was a "cliche" (a "cliche" you now employ Klinghoffer to make for you) and asked me to get to the point which I did. Why is it "refreshing" from him and a "cliche" from me? Why when I offered to let your text be did you not let it go?

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.

So, I'll re-state what I said in #84 and maybe it will suffice this time. I can not dis-prove your faith and I don't wish to change what you believe. That is between you and your God. I ask the same courtesy from you (and no BibChr in my quiet moments I am not troubled by your text).

We can continue at daggers drawn if you want or I can leave you to your Sabbath.

[af_vet_1981]

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.

Thank you. I agree. No one should be enticing and entrapping Hutton Gibson into more sin, escpecially if the Gibson family is already trying to treat him. I want his views to be publicly repudiated and his mind and soul to be healed. No one should contact him outside the family and parish unless he initiates it.

[Hacksaw]

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

Except the Jews were involved in the death of Jesus.

[BibChr]

No daggers, just facts and a touch of philosophical awareness. You keep appealing to religion.

You've not responded to (nor indicated any grasp of) ##87, 98, or 92. And look; we didn't make Klinghofer up.

Nasty habit you have of shutting your eyes to inconvenient facts.

So, I'll stick with facts; you cling to religious prejudice, denial, and latter-day revisionism if you must.

(I guess to you, Clinton really was removed from office, eh? By law and rights, he *should* have been — so, to you, he was? Sad.)

Dan

[AppyPappy]

I rather doubt that Steven Levin, who was in my elementary school, was involved in the death of Jesus and he is a Jew.

[Poison Pill]

My concern is with (and only with) the Christian doctrine as it has been used to historically abuse Jews. It is not revisionist say this has happened. To the extent that no further abuse happens, I have no quarrel with Christianity or the text. Saying that I don't beleive in Christianity is not revision or denial. I'ts disagreement.

Posts you say I have not dealt with:

#87: The Clinton parallel does not work because for me because the out come is verifiable beyond doubt including taped testimony, video etc. Assuming all the evidence we have now would be available 1000 years hence, the out come would remain as it is today. However, if I did have the ability to change history Slick would be eating off an aluminum tray in Leavanworth.

Religous texts on the other hand (yours and mine) are not verifiable. You have to take them on faith and you either beleive or you don't.

#92: Again, I am not telling you what to believe nor am I saying you should change your text. I never accused you of making the Klighoffer quote up. I trust you are reporting it truthfully.

I have not said one thing about Mel Gibson or his movie. For the record, I don't consider him an anti-semite or a holocaust denier. I don't see how anyone has made the leap from a movie on Jesus to the holocaust. To the extent that his movie makes Christians more observant of their religion I'm all for it. Also, I would be well pleased if non-believers saw this movie and converted to Christianity in droves. I would much rather have 5 or 10 million more observant Christians in the country and 5-10 million fewer athiests. Furthermore, I hope he makes a pile of cash doing something he loves. All I ask is that Jews be left alone in the process and the aftermath. As far as Hutton Gibson goes, I think he's a flipping loon.

#98: I could not comment on a post that occured later than my original post. However, upon looking at it; I don't think Steven did it.

Also, as a matter of full disclosure on the Gibson movie situation: I think Abe Foxman is professional blowhard and the boycott and protest of the movie a useless waste of time. I think it will backfire and cause more people to see the movie which I think will be a good thing. I consider the ADL a left wing operation first and foremost.

[h.a. cherev]

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.

Well, according to the history I've studied, this was one the excuses given by Christians throughout history for their persecution of the Jews. Do you disagree?

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.

Hmmmm....
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.

Mel Gibson to Peggy Noonan in Reader's Digest,
"Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million people starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people dies in the Soviet Union."

I can well understand how you "have heard, or read, nothing to lead me to believe that Mel holds his father's views." If the views are not exactly the same, they hold no relevance for you. I can certainly understand that. For me Mel's description of Jewish suffering as "some of them were Jews in concentration camps" seems like an afterthought. It's not the Holocaust revisionism that the father espouses, but it doesn't leave me with the certainty that you seem to have.

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.

Perhaps. I prefer to believe that the media is so against Judeo-Christian culture and values that they are trying to divide people by formenting hatred and divisiveness. Still, I do not forget that the father was "trapped" and made no attempt to disguise his views. Mel gave a prepared interview. I do not accuse Mel of anything since there is nothing I can prove. And I can certainly understand why he feels the way he does about Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. I just feel differently.

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 think that's a stretch. Let's see what the grandkids come up with on their own. On the other hand, how far did Ford's progeny fall from that tree? Ford was a notorious anti-Semite. And the Ford Foundation, until recently, sponsored Arab anti-Semitism, e.g., the Durbin conference in Africa a couple of years ago.

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.

We must be reading different articles.

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.

It is even more ironic that they are up in the air about Mel's father denying the Holocaust when they are trying to deny that some, not all, Jews played a part in the Crucifixion.

When you say that "they are trying to deny that some, not all, Jews played a part in the Crucifixion.", you're implying that Jews believe that Jesus was an actual person who lived and was crucified with the Jews playing a part. Is that wrong?