Posted on 08/18/2006 9:59:50 AM PDT by Hal1950
I'm don't think reproving a parent for something that calls for it, means breaking the Fifth Commandment. In fact, I think that commandment means we shouldn't support our parents in immoral things. I wouldn't have a problem doing so if it was my Father, however, I know many people that can't do this with their parents. They will not criticize them, even for behavior they normally would be critical of, so I don't expect everyone to do that.
Many people, and I think many people in the media and on this board, will not be satisfied until Mr. Gibson PUBLICLY denounces his almost 90 year old father. Personally, I think that is wrong and can't believe anyone else what feel otherwise. We have no idea what Mr. Gibson has said to his father in private.
I also have criticized my parents in private, but publicly I would NEVER do so.
From a Jewish perspective, clearly one shouldn't cause a parent undue public embarrassment, even at a cost to oneself (not necessarily others), that would transgress revering one’s parent. However as you note, a child would not only be allowed, but required to oppose a parent committing a serious transgression.
In Judaism, slander is equated the taking of life in terms of the seriousness of the harm caused. A child should no more permit a parent to publicly slander than they would permit a parent to steal or kill.
In my view from a moral perspective, Mel had an obligation to renounce his father’s views, particularly since his father claimed to be involved in the marketing of the film. From a practical standpoint I understand why he didn’t publicly, I’d like to think he did in private conversation, though I’m a bit skeptical of that now.
I’d be surprised if Christianity differed much on the issue.
I don't know where you got your information that the senior Gibson was involved in the marketing of the film. He is almost 90 years old, and lives in West Virgina. Whatever your source, I am sure it is bogus, like so many things that have been posted here on this subject.
From Hutton himself. He claims to be involved in the idea of a "Vatican endorsement". He may well have been lieing. Unfortunately Nierob responded with a no comment to Hutton's interview, so we'll never know.
Why did the ADL oppose the film?
Gibson
This is part of their deal they don't want this movie shown they don't care if the movie is anti-Semitic or not, or if it is straight history. Mel says he absolutely couldn't buy PR like this. And (thanks to the ADL) everybody knows the line now: Let the blood be upon us and our children.
IX. The Pope & The Vatican
Steve Feuerstein
What do you aim to achieve by screening the film before the vatican Ð Why did you need the Pope's Approval?
Gibson
And anyway somebody said why do you suppose he (the Pope) approved the movie? I said what do you think he would say when it comes out and he disapproved it.
The ones that we have there (in the Vatican) are all involved in the (Jewish) plot. The need of the Vatican endorsement wasn't, it just wasn't needed at all. The only reason they went over is that the ADL had threatened to take the film over and show it to them.
They would have to steal it to do so they did already. One of the guys in the office said why don't we take it over to the Vatican and show it to them anyway cause they wanted to see it and they did want to see it. And Mel said "OK lets take it over and show it to them." They were not after any accolade. They just wanted to take it away from the ADL who was going to go in there and put some pressure on like they can and get a condem-nation of it.
No, no we had no idea of helping out the Vatican in any way. You see here we have what we call a hostile witness. As Mel said while they were on the way over, "What is he going to say is he going to condemn it because when it comes out he'll show what a big ass he is." What the heck could he say? The Jews were going to take it to the Vatican this was the argument from one his producers there, Steve McEveety. Mel said "Go ahead. Let us do it." The ADL might have even taken a few shots themselves and shown the Pope something that was not in the film. There is nothing these guys would not do
Now I know that his a bogus report. Hutton Gibson would NEVER be involved in a "Vatican endorsement". Hutton Gibson despises the Vatican has it is right now. He operates outside of the Vatican, and the Holy See. Haven't you read anything about Hutton?
Steve Feurestein is the radio broadcaster who called Hutton days before The Passion came out and ambushed him into talking to him. He didn't even know he was on the radio.
Steve McEveety, one of Gibson's producers is who Hutton was tallking about with the "Vatican endorsement".
That's strange. I had never heard that the Hitton Gibson was involved in the marketing. It would be especially stange if he was involved in getting Vatican approval, since he's a vehement critic of the Vatican and may not believe they are legitmate.
Nonsense, he wasn't ambushed, he knew precisely what he was saying. His commentary was widely reported. And I made a point of listening to the interview live, in anticipation of the "he didn't say it" nonsense. What Hutton said in the interview is consistant with previous statements. And you'll note his contempt for the Vatican and the Pope in the interview. It's an accurate condensation of Hutton's worldview.
If it makes you feel better to consider the interviow "bogus", you're welcome to call me a liar.
You can find his interview here. That may well have been hot air. I presented it as an example of why, in my opinion, Hutton's views should have been confronted at the time of the film. He was implying involvement, and frankly his newfound publicity was solely because of the controversy surrounding the film. I wouldn't attribute Hutton's views of the Vatican as Jewish occupied territory or the Pope as illegitimate to Mel, but one states that he learned his faith from his father, it becomes a rather obvious question.
"I love my father but he is dead wrong about the Holocaust."
That's all it takes.
When I say ambushed, I mean that he didn't know that he was on the air. He is an old man. If you feel that is all right, to be calling the elderly parents of celebrities, and putting them on the air, then perhaps that says more about you than it does about Hutton Gibson or Mel Gibson. The man is almost 90 years old. Why don't they just leave him alone? There is absolutley no reason to even be interviewing him. Does anybody ever ask that question? People in the media like the controversey. And especially in the media who didn't like The Passion of The Christ. Just as Bill O'Reilly said at the time-people have known for 20 years that Hutton Gibson had some strange ideas, and nobody gave a damn. It was only when The Passion came out, that people started calling Hutton Gibson.
To wit, a quote from Gibson re: The Holocaust - "The thing with him [my father] was that he was talking about numbers. I mean when the war was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it's four. I mean it's that kind of numbers game." Readers Digest 2004[2]
It is simply untrue that the numbers have changed. To say nothing of referring to the Holocaust as a game.
Arnold Schwarznegger's situation is very different. Mel is not a pol.
Mel's father is alive not dead.
Arnold despised his father, he has said so on numerous occassions. His father treated him terribly, even beating him, his brother and his mother.
If Mel did what you said, it still wouldn't be enough for those of you who want to beat every last pulp out of him. Mel is loyal to his father. As Mel has stated about his father in that same Reader's Digest interview to Peggy Noonan, "My father was orphaned when he was two years old, he grew up poor, he fought in World War II, he came back and married my mother and had 10 children. He was always a good and loyal father.
Personally, I respect Mel Gibson for not disrespecting his father publicly. You can say whatever you want, and what he COULD have said. I still don't think it would have been enough for you, or those like you.
He most certainly did know he was on the air. If you recall, he gave several print interviews at the time as well.
As to Bill O’Reilly, he’s wrong. People did give a damn. Not as big a damn, he was a minor figure, but he came in for a great deal of criticism. As has the Adelaide Institute with which he’s occasionally associated. But no, in the US he wasn’t known much, even after moving here, a quarterly newsletter, occasional shortwave interview, but not a lot of prominence.
Like it or not, the film brought him some prominence. A higher profile, keynote speeches at a couple Holocaust denial events, even mainstream print interviews at which he could express his despicable views.
And yes, his higher profile and access to the mainstream media brought more criticism. As it should.
You're probably right, though his father puts the number at zero.
Name one Holocaost denying event he appeared at??
You can say whatever you want, but all of Mel's people say that he did not know that he was on the air. And these media creeps have no reason to be calling him. Again, it says more about you that you think it is all right for these creeps to be callling a senile 90 year old parent of a celebrity than it does about Hutton Gibson.
Exactly. By the same token, I wouldn't want or expect Mel's own children to apologize for his behavior either..
sw
Cry me a river. That "good and loyal" man denies the deaths of millions of innocent Jews at the hands of the Nazis, which in my opinion is Nazi apologia.
And Mel may not be a pol, but he's a very public figure, and that's his choice. He sought the spotlight and therefore is publically accountable. Goes with the territory.
One?
Hutton was a featured speaker at the 2003 Barnes Review conference. That's Willis Carto's new group, the Liberty Lobby being defunct.
You can say whatever you want, but all of Mel's people say that he did not know that he was on the air. And these media creeps have no reason to be calling him. Again, it says more about you that you think it is all right for these creeps to be callling a senile 90 year old parent of a celebrity than it does about Hutton Gibson.
Whatever, he didn't know he was on the air.
He didn't know the New York Times was a newspaper either when he gave that interview.
After all, he's senile.
I believe Mel has stated his dad is in good health. Recently married at the time of the film if I recall. Are you sure he's senile?
And frankly, even if he is senile which I doubt, when he puts out this rubbish publicly, he's open for criticism.
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.