Mel Gibson's Apology Not Enough for ADL

NewsMax ^ | 31 July 2006 | James Hirsen

[Aquamarine]

Correction: penalized by not not as harsh - should be - penalized but not as harsh

I just think the whole DUI system is too rigid and doesn't take the drivers particulars into account (Eg tolerance level).

Most DUI cases are not prosecuted the way they should be. The one that upended our lives got off and he was 4.0 (I know that's brain dead).

[ConservativeMind]

A few references for both of you to ponder, but they are in the NT:

Romans 2:29:

No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (NIV)

Romans 9:

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."

Israel's Unbelief

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." As it is written:
"See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[NIV]

Galatians 4:21-31:

Hagar and Sarah

Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.[NIV]

Galatians 6:12-15

Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.[NIV]

Now for a little reminder from the OT:

Jeremiah 31:31:

"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.[NIV]

Now for more from the NT:

Hebrews 8:6-13:

But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. [NIV]

Hebrews 9:16-28:

In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. [NIV]

[epow]

If an anti Semite, he was one before the apology and after. What did the apology change?

The ADL believes him to be an anti Semite, as do I. He can apologize for a thousand years, so what? He remains what he is proved to be.

To some it matters, positively or negatively. To some it doesn't.

That sums it up better than anything I've read on this thread, or on last night's long thread about the same subject. If Gibson didn't have an anti-Semitic bias that bias wouldn't have come spilling out when his inhibitions got lost in the booze bottle.

Just an afterthought concerning the ADL's position. I wonder how much forgiveness Gibson would receive from black activists such as Jesse Jackson if his drunken rant had revealed a bias against black people instead of Jews? Actually I don't wonder, I already know the answer.

[PackerBronco]

What makes a "perfect" apology? I believe it needs to have the following:

1. A clear, precise, and unequivocal statement about the offense. No mealy-mouthing about it. No omitting key facts. No sugar-coating the facts. And no blaming other people for your actions.
2. A statement indicating full knowledge of why the act was offensive.
3. A listing of those to whom the apology is given.
4. A pledge to never again commit the act again.
5. An offer to make restitution, if possible.

I would say that Mel get's a 70% on his apology. He was a little vague on what he was apologizing for. Did he utter anti-semetic remarks? He doesn't specify. And since he doesn't specify, he doesn't give a full accounting of whom the apology is intended for. And since he doesn't specify, he can't offer full restitution either.

Now, on the other hand, 70% is probably one of the highest scores I've ever given a public figure. So I give Mel props for that and I hope that he goes up to 100% the next time he's in the confessional.

Politicians usually rate at 5 to 10% on my apology meter. Oh, and any statement that includes the phrase:

"I want to apologize to anyone who may have been offended" or " who may have misunderstood my remarks"

get's an automatic 0% in my book. You can't deliver a sincere apology in one breath and blaming people for taking offense/misunderstanding in the next. To Mel's credit he never does that.

FWIW my opinions about apologies derive almost solely from my understanding of the confessional. Anyone who's been taught how to offer a good confession to his or her priest already has the seeds to understand what makes a good apology (which is, afterall, what confession is).

[trumandogz]

Blaming Gibson's daddy is pathetic.

[It's me]

Roman Polanski drugged and abused a 13 year old girl in 1977, then fled the country. He was recently given an Oscar for a Holocaust film.

Ah, but was that 13 year old girl Jewish?

[familyop]

[Cecily]

Who indoctrinated Mel with his hatred of the Jews? Mel's dad. He deserves some of the blame for Mel's nutty beliefs.

[It's me]

His own words left no doubt that the main thing on his mind the whole time he was being booked was trying to save his image.

Really? I thought that the whole time he was being booked, he was saying these things...

[KellyAdmirer]

I agree, let the single-issue zealots wallow in this one. The guy was drunk, he apologized, let's go from there. Case closed.

[It's me]

Israel and Jews are not held immune from criticism on penalty of being antisemitic.

Best line of the last few days.

[KellyAdmirer]

That's a good line. Some fanatics on these threads use the term "anti-Semitic" as a sword to intimidate people from expressing contrary views. I find that despicable.

[dk/coro]

There is a good debate:

What is more of a cretin -- a Congressman or a Hollywood Actor?

I give up. Looks like a bloody draw to me.

[trumandogz]

So Mel Gibson is a victim of his daddy's hatred of Jews?

Last time I checked, Mel was a Big Boy and should be able to understand which views of his daddy are wacky.

[EternalHope]

Yes, Mel Gibson really goofed.

But criticism by Abe Foxman is meaningless. Foxman HATES Christians, and can be counted to rant and rave at the smallest excuse.

He is so utterly bigoted than he has no credibility except among those who share his hatred, or know nothing about him and his organization and simply swallow media spin.

[stands2reason]

He could at least say who he is apologizing to.

Part of an apology is owning up to your mistake.

[stands2reason]

So?

[stephenjohnbanker]

Go pound sand!

[nopardons]

And Fatty was INNOCENT, but Mel isn't.

[nopardons]

A drunken whore, whose death was stuck on Fatty, by an opportune MADAME.