Mel Gibson's Apology Not Enough for ADL

Unlike some who have made untoward statements without regret, the day after his arrest in Malibu on suspicion of DUI Mel Gibson issued what amounted to a comprehensive and humble apology.

Predictably the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) deemed insufficient Gibson's sorrowful and blanket apology.

With the apparent ability to peer into the human soul, National Director of the (ADL) Abraham Foxman proclaimed the following: "His [Gibson's] tirade finally reveals his true self and shows that his protestations during the debate over his film "The Passion of the Christ," that he is such a tolerant, loving person, were a sham."

The ADL is apparently trying to use the incident to alter the results of its past failed effort to characterize Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" as bigoted.

It appears as though some apologies are more equal than others. Demands for another, and another, and another more remorseful apology invariably keep on coming when it comes to those whom the Left disdains.

Remember when on the occasion of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday Republican Sen. Trent Lott made some regrettable remarks? Lott's words were construed as meaning that the nation would have been better off if a segregationist's presidential campaign had been successful.

Eight days after making the remarks Lott apologized, saying, "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. ... Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

Lott's critics on the Left claimed the apology was inadequate. Lott proceeded to issue apology after apology, each time expressing more and more contrition. But no matter how sorrowful Lott's expressions were, they were never good enough for his critics. Ultimately, he stepped down from his position as Senate majority Leader.

At the time one of Lott's most outspoken critics was Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd. Dodd said, "If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever."

Fast forward to April 2004. Dodd took to the senate floor to praise the work of Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, saying, "I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time.... I cannot think of a single moment in this nation's 220-plus year history where [Robert Byrd] would not have been a valuable asset to this country."

This is the same Byrd who once donned the white sheets and hood of the KKK, voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and as recently as March 2001 used the "N" word on national television. Absent were myriad calls for a more contrite version after Dodd issued a generic apology.

When he ran for president as a Democrat in 1984, the Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown." One apology for the foul verbiage sufficed.

In June 2005 Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin intentionally placed the following into the Congressional Record: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

After initially refusing to do so, Durbin offered an apology of sorts for his Nazi, Soviet and Pol Pot comparisons. However, his office did not classify his expression as an apology but rather referred to it as a "Statement of Regret." The senator was not required to show further regret.

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden recently said, "You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." Biden did not apologize for his remarks but instead claimed that he was misconstrued. Calls for clarification were scant as were cries for an apology. A statement issued by the ADL's Foxman labeled Gibson's recent apology as "unremorseful and insufficient."

What did Gibson say in his public apology that was lacking in contrition or fullness?

Saying that one is ashamed is a clear expression of remorse but Gibson did not stop there. He stated that when arrested he "acted like a person completely out of control."

Regarding his statements, Gibson acknowledged, "I said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable."

Referring to one's statements as despicable is strong, unequivocal language. Still, Gibson went even further.

Adding to his expression of sorrow over his outbursts, he said that he was "deeply ashamed of everything" he had said and categorically apologized to anyone who was offended.

He summed things up by saying, "I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry."

According to the Left's parameters, Gibson has exceeded that which is expected. According to human standards, he has exceeded that which is sufferable.

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]

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

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.
A statement indicating full knowledge of why the act was offensive.
A listing of those to whom the apology is given.
A pledge to never again commit the act again.
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).

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.