Mel Gibson's "Passionate" Dad [Bad title-Something to offend everyone]

Arutz Sheva ^ | 2-25-04 | Irwin Graulich

[Petronski]

Since Mel Gibson permitted "evil daddy" to use his son's fame as a springboard for his vile lies and ideas...

"Permitted?" Just how was Gibson supposed to prevent his father from speaking? Ropes and chains? Sedatives?

[Cindy]

"A historical event interpreted by a filmmaker is causing fear, bickering and tension in an America where a beautiful partnership already exists between Jewish and Christian values, which are fundamental elements of the society."

There is only ONE PRIMARY CAUSE for any uproar/tension regarding the movie "The Passion of The Christ." The cause is the lame-stream media creatively writing their observations of the movie (some even sight unseen).

Sooooo, how is the lame-stream media doing?

[SJackson]

Sooooo, how is the lame-stream media doing?

When all is said and done, not near as well as they would have liked.

[LuigiBasco]

I get the feeling that Mr Irwin Graulich
does not like either Gibson. I could be wrong though.

[Bob J]

How about these two contradictory statements;

Since the apple usually does not fall too far from the tree, Mel junior has most likely inherited some paternal characteristics within his own DNA helix.

and;

Mel Gibson is by no stretch of the imagination an anti-Semite.

I appreciate the writers overall fairness but inconsistencies like this lend one to believe he is playing both sides of the aisle.

[SJackson]

Clearly the author expected a clear reputiation of Hutton's views from Mel. In his mind, there's some doubt.

[SJackson]

"Permitted?" Just how was Gibson supposed to prevent his father from speaking? Ropes and chains? Sedatives?

No ropes or chains. I think his point is that a comdemnation would have prevented Hutton from legitimizing his own views.

[Petronski]

Works for me. I can relate, though I won't say how.

[atomicpossum]

"Mel, to win our approval, you must condemn your father." Some people don't understand Mel's reluctance to play the Judas role for the thirty pieces of silver of their approval. Tell me, how far would these detractors endure transgressions from their own parents, those that they are charged to 'honor?'

Did any of these critics feel that the horrors of the Nazis were overdone? Do they not understand that the magnitude of the horror Jesus endured is what adds the meaning to his sacrifice?

Some of the criticism that this film receives is extremely hollow, and leaves a strong impression that some people are very uncomfortable with the idea of Christians strengthening their faith.

[Petronski]

It's certainly possible to condemn some of the father's words without condemning the father.

[AlbionGirl]

I don't understand why he doesn't understand that nobody is going to publicly denounce their father, unless, of course, you're a Reagan. Can the author be any more obtuse?

As I said on another thread, in an Italian family, if you publicly denounce an immediate family member you might as well bury yourself alive. The family's sacrosanct, you don't draw its blood unless you wish to be banished from it. That doesn't mean you don't admonish your parents ignorance if it's there, but you don't openly and publicly castigate your father. His understandable contempt for anti-semites is blinding him to the greater pull and force of Family.

And the more people like him keep bellyaching for this denouncement the worse it makes them look, because my take on family is nearly everyone else's take on family too. And his sins of the father theory may be a good enough rationale for him, but most people won't take that stand until they have concrete reason to believe that the son feels the same or thinks the same as the father.

[SJackson]

Hutton's views are repulsive. His views should be condemned. Clearly he's put Mel in a difficult position, and his silence is understandable. However I doubt Mel's religion allows him to commit a transgression in the course of honoring his father, but that line probably hasn't been crossed. Tough spot. For others associated or supporting the film who refuse to condemn Hutton's views, no excuse.

[Tempest]

I would respond to this, but I'm too busy having to respond to strangers about the actions of my own father, mother, brothers, sisteres, 3rd cousins, former roomates.

It seems that I should be weighed for the actions of others.

It also seems that I need to apologize for the actions of others??????

[demnomo]

I had a Bible study partner whose mother believed the "Jews controlled the banks, governments and were in league with the evil Vatican Catholics" garbage. My study partner said that she did not agree with her mother and told her. Once was enough. After that, she left the room or home whenever her mother broached the subject. She refused to enter into a debate or publically condemn her mother due to the "honor thy parents" Commandment.

Today, due to prayer and perseverence, her mother never brings up the subject in front of her daughter. (Not so with other family members.)

Don't know if Mel is doing this, too. However, I believe Mel when he says that he believes that the Holocaust happened and that he's not an anti-Semite. Hutton is Mel's cross to bear, IMHO.

[sobieski]

Not for an Irishman

[SJackson]

Unfortunately both Mel and Hutton are public figures in their own right. If, for example, Hutton should explicitly expound on his role in the film, or it's interpretation relative to his views, I don't see where Mel can avoid repudiating him. They're not quite there though. As to why his publicist, for example, won't comment, that's beyond me.

[Restorer]

I believe it would have been entirely possible for Mel to publicly state that he disagreed with his father's views on history and religion without "castigating" him. It could have been a short simple statement which he could simply have refused to elaborate on when the inevitable followup questions came.

That's what I would have done.

Not that anybody cares about my opinion.

And my dear departed Dad wasn't a fruitcake.

[freekitty]

I think this author is just trying to take everyone's mind off the movie, "The Passion".

It's just an incredible movie from what I hear and I'll bet Mel had God at his side the whole time.

[atomicpossum]

Hutton's views are repulsive. His views should be condemned.

Of course.

Clearly he's put Mel in a difficult position, and his silence is understandable. However I doubt Mel's religion allows him to commit a transgression in the course of honoring his father, but that line probably hasn't been crossed.

Mel has refused to directly condem his father. He has, however, insisted that HE be the subject, and he has rejected the charges of anti-semitism, even calling it anti-christian.

However, this does not seem to be enough for some--some seem to be determined to get that direct condemnation, apparently to cause a rift between father and son, to exact some revenge on Mel for making this film that, really, they just don't like.

>Tough spot. For others associated or supporting the film >who refuse to condemn Hutton's views, no excuse.

Agreed. But for anyone else, do they answer for Hutton Gibson?