Posted on 02/20/2004 7:04:44 PM PST by westerfield
When Mel Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton, told a New York radio interviewer Wednesday that the Holocaust had been exaggerated and that Jews were trying to rule the world, he had no idea he was speaking on the record, let alone being recorded for broadcast, Gibson family sources tell NewsMax.
When WSNR's Steve Feuerstein called Gibson's father in Texas, the family believes he misrepresented himself as a fan of Gibson's, saying he wanted to "congratulate Mel's father" on his son's work. Hutton Gibson says the caller claimed his mother maintained a Web site devoted to "The Passion of the Christ."
Feuerstein allegedly said nothing to Mr. Gibson about a radio interview.
With no idea that his comments were being taped, Gibson's father made no attempt to disguise his views. He told Feuerstein that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust had been fabricated.
"It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he told the radio interviewer.
According to the account obtained by NewsMax, the elderly Gibson talked to Feuerstein for almost an hour before asking for further identification. The talk host promised to call back with more details, but never did.
Feuerstein did not return calls for comment.
So far, Hutton Gibson has not publicly apologized for the explosive remarks. But in previous interviews, first with the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, Mel Gibson noted he didn't share his father's revisionist views on the Holocaust. The actor-director said he had friends who had survived the death camps.
"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely," Gibson told ABC's Diane sawyer. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."
Asked about an earlier interview where Gibson senior offered similarly offensive views, the Hollywood star complained: "Their whole agenda here, my detractors, is to drive a wedge between me and my father. And it's not going to happen. I love him. He's my father."
Gibson's father's comments were the topic Thursday night of Alan Colmes' national radio show.
James Hirsen, a NewsMax columnist, was interviewed and said that Hutton Gibson's "statement is indefensible, but it is also irrelevant. Mel's dad didn't make the movie; Mel Gibson did."
Rabbi James Rudin of American Jewish Committee, who also was on the show, agreed with Hirsen's point.
That's precisely why he should be ignored. "Left alone" would be a better way to put it. I'm not taking away at all from the nuttiness of what he said, but it doesn't excuse the deceitful way in which the man got the old guy to talk.
I am working under the assumption that, whatever you think of the method of obtaining Gibson Sr.'s views, you do not agree with them.
The question becomes, does the end justify the means? I think the answer depends on the situation. There was an episode of M*A*S*H where a racist Major was tricked into revealing his racist views while a Black man, posing as an Major (he was really a Captain), was waiting nearby and overheard. The racist was then tricked into resigning his commission.
I know there are big differences between the two situations, but I feel better knowing that the elder Gibson's views are public. I now know him for what he is. And while other's on this thread are content to dismiss him as a "crazy loon" or make other excuses for him or focus on how his views were obtained, I think it's important to know who these people are in our society. Get them out from under their rocks, so to speak.
...but it isn't fair even to discuss whether Jews were involved in the death of Christ, two thousand years ago?
I am at a bit of a loss as to where you saw this. Can you provide some sort of evidence that "it's not fair to discuss it."
In one case, there is guilt by association with an ancestor; in the other, it is not even allowed to discuss the actions of ancestors.
How does that work?
Well, in the first case the relationship is not strictly "ancestral", but that of a father and son. The assumption, right or wrong, is that a father's beliefs and behaviors influences the son. Since we all learn from our parents to some extent I don't think this is a stretch. The influence is somewhat greater than one's ancestors who passed away over 2000 years ago, wouldn't you agree?
Be that as it may, there is little to discuss regarding the Jewish "ancestors" because there is no single point of reference. I assume you believe in the truth of your Bible, correct? But I, as a Jew, must reject the entire document. Simply put, my belief system doesn't believe the events portrayed in your bible ever occurred. Hence, what is there to discuss? Your beliefs? How can I possibly comment intelligently on that?
Bear in mind that I haven't said one word about Mel Gibson or his film. Does Mel share his father's views? On the contrary, he has repudiated the views while still embracing the man. It is difficult for some to understand this. I, on the other hand, can understand it. Also, having no evidence that he has lied, I have to take Mel at his word, that he does not share the father's views about the Holocaust.
As to his movie, I am tickled pink that Mel made the movie and it is receiving all this attention. Putting aside my loathing of Foxman and his liberal "Jewish" cohorts, I enjoy seeing Christians celebrate their faith. Christianity is under attack and has had some rather nasty affronts in the last few years...."The Last Temptation of Christ" and the exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum a few years ago...it's good to see a movie which is positive about Christianity for a change.
The same question could be asked of many other events in the Bible that both Christians and Jews believe. And the answer would be the same for both Christians and Jews. We don't believe in our faith because of what archaeologists say, or what scholars say, even when they happen to support the Scriptures (as they often do), because that isn't the nature of faith.
Be that as it may, are you under the mistaken impression that Jews believe in any part of the so-called, "New Testament"?
My response to your post addresses whether "blame" is appropriate; It MUST be addressed from the Christian perspective rather than the Jewish, since it is Christian action based on Christian dogma that is the concern of Jews...regardless of the source of that action.
I believe this is a major no-no with the FCC.
I believe this is a major no-no with the FCC. (The taping for on-air play of someone who has not first been asked for permission.)
Why would you think this is a dark and difficult time in Jewish history with respect to your relationship with Christians?
not today...the time of the crucifixion
Jews have been persecuted over many centuries on continued accusations of Deicide. You cant resolve that by (a)pretending that the original events never happened, (b)one person apologizing and saying the resulting persecutions were wrong, (c) accusing one side or the other of actions that neither has taken in the past, present, or future.
My wife (Jewish) had always been "offended" by the presence of creches in "public" areas. She has since accepted the only real problem was that it was HER problem and accepts that it is not an afront to her (except when she let it be) as much as it is a Christian method of avowing their faith. In and of itself, it places no burden or demands upon her or me.
I perceive "The Passion.." in the same way and would urge thsoe with "problems" to do likewise so we can move forward.
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.