Posted on 03/20/2006 10:12:58 AM PST by Coastal
"Why on earth is he slamming the people who supported him?"
Publicity and $$$???
Because the diocese of Los Angeles has said he is not.
I hear that some people make a lot of money from attempting to throw a ball into a hoop. There's some connection to overpriced sneakers that people, even children, will steal and kill for. Has Mr. Barkley heard about any of that?
If he's some sort of a Republican, he must be of the McCain sort.
Quoted for truth.
"Why on earth is he slamming the people who supported him?"
I have seen a whole lot of President 'slamming' on FR as of late.
It was interesting that they released the interview on DVD: people forget just how gargantuan a cultural phenomenon TPOTC was. I wish PAX TV would release their "making of The Passion" special on DVD too.
Mel has always been against the Iraq War.
I'm not sure why anyone would assume that because Gibson is a staunch Catholic he would be supportive of everything George W. Bush does. It's kind of weird how all Christians get lumped into one big belief system-hey, Mel likes Jesus, he must like George Bush too, right?
The Catholic church is pacifist and opposed to the war in Iraq. Not surprised to hear that Gibson may be as well.
"And some of us are able to separate entertainment from politics. "
And some of us are even able to separate religion from politics. Why do some people think that being Christian must equal being a Bush supporter? (Though personally I am both).
Why feel used? He's a devout, if schismatic Catholic. There is no reason to feel used because he doesn't agree with the FReepers who march in lockstep with EVERYTHING Bush does. I voted for Bush, I'd do it again if I could but I still have serious misgivings about some of his policies and actions. On FR apparently, that makes me a Left-Wing Moonbat. Sad really.
It really boggles my mind that people are getting so bent about this. It IS possible that Mel just disagrees with the President on this. Why is it such a big deal?
One comment makes you think he's a liberal? Come on...
Correction, the Catholic Church is not pacifist, it does recognize "just wars" and the ability to defend oneself from harm.
"Correction, the Catholic Church is not pacifist, it does recognize "just wars" and the ability to defend oneself from harm."
Yes, you are correct of course, I should have said more specifically "tends toward pacifist in many situations" or something similar-but that doesn't negate the original point that the Church opposes the Iraq invasion and it is therefore not surprising that Gibson, a devout Catholic, would oppose it to.
As with any monarchy,the first born male, fathered by the King would inherit the rights of royalty. The Mayan civilization, however, became doomed to destruction with the practice of polygamy. Polygamy was widely practiced, as the kings and their successors had many children with multiple wives, fostering competition within families. Each of the princes wanted to gain more power than his brothers, and turned to fighting against one another to gain more territory. While there was little problem with overpopulation among the lower casts, the elite class grew rapidly. They all desired palaces and riches, and this put huge pressures on the lower casts to support them. The wars kept them isolated to small tracts of land where they had to build strong walls for protection. Isolation and pressure on the small tracts of land they could use for agriculture led them slowly to starvation. Agriculture was practiced only within those walls and the land was rapidly overused. Wars wiped out entire royal families and caused mass starvation. Refugees from such wars also caused overpopulation and social stress in other areas. This caused the rain forest to begin to disappear, and the civilization began to collapse when the lower casts could not support the royal class.
I know it may seem simplistic, but I see a similar elite royal class of bureaucrats sustained by productive workers as a goal that the socialist Democrats want for the United States. They are the ones who are using fear mongering tactics to enlist social compliance with their goals.
Mel Gibson is one more dupe in the left's effort to create an alternative reality that justifies their march on human freedom.
That does sound like yet another history lesson on what happens when a government (in this case, a monarchy) exercises complete control over the people.
Years and years ago, I visited Chichen Itza which is an ancient Mayan city in the Yucatan. Back then, there were theories that since then have been changed, as your post shows. For example, when our guide showed us the above-ground well, he said it was believed that young virgins (girls) were sacrificed to the god(s) there, but that they found only (or mostly) the remains of young boys there. So, their new theory was that the "kings" were keeping the young girls hidden for themselves, and then dressing up boys as girls and sacrificing them in front of the crowd.
Well, recently, I read a newer theory that young men were sacrificed willingly and considered it an honor.
But I think what you described makes more sense: Maintaining a reign of terror is how dictators keep the masses under their control.
Okay, then you will be able to provide a citation from the diocese of Los Angeles that says Mel Gibson, "is not in union with Rome." They wouldn't keep such information a secret, would they?
As an Evangelical Christian who was "supposed to" like the Passion, I did not like the movie very much. I thought it was at points silly (e.g. the scene where Jesus the carpenter was shown to have invented the table/chair combination), and was melodramatic at the expense of being thought-provoking.
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.