The fact is that Gibson's father is out there saying things David Duke and Streicher might say, and there is no reason to ignore his rantings, just because he is Mel Gibson's father. The old man is in fact injecting himself into the debate.
I have not seen the movie and I have not opined about it, neither calling it awesome or not. I have reacted to various articles on, and what I KNOW, from my years working in Hollywood is, a very well-orchestrated and in fact brilliant PR campaign to generate interest in the film.
And the Christians you mention that are most often quoted are the 'Jesus Seminar' types, who all but deny who the Christ was, despite written scripture ( in case you've missed the irony, one of the tenets of Christianity is to believe in the Resurrection, and the unique nature of Jesus as God and man ). The media, at least in the articles posted here, always seems to omit this important fact.
"The fact is that Gibson's father is out there saying things David Duke and Streicher might say, and there is no reason to ignore his rantings, just because he is Mel Gibson's father. The old man is in fact injecting himself into the debate."
Just as Christians are not to hold Jews responsible for the actions committed by their forebears ( and, I would point out, both Jesus' followers and detractors were Jews. The point of the Gospels is that it is the sins of mankind that was responsible for the events of the Passion--the Pharisees were bit players in the larger scheme of things ) in the Gospels, one cannot hold the son guilty for the words and actions of the father.
"I have not seen the movie and I have not opined about it, neither calling it awesome or not. I have reacted to various articles on, and what I KNOW, from my years working in Hollywood is, a very well-orchestrated and in fact brilliant PR campaign to generate interest in the film."
I haven't seen the movie, but allow me to play Devil's Advocate to your comment here.
If you produced a movie that challenges a lot of cherished sacred cows in an industry that has the ability to prevent distribution, would you not also approach the audience for which it is intended directly, rather than attempt to pass through a brick wall?
If indeed, there is truth to your assumption, that does not necessarily detract from the merits or lack of merits of the work itself.
Also, do you know for a fact that the controversy is an intentional PR campaign? Have you been told by those working closest to the film that this is what was intended from the beginning? If not, then you are engaging in speculation ( no law against it, just an observation).
Foxman has injected himself into the scene. Unless there is proof that he is on Gibson's payroll, he has inadvertently provided more publicity for a movie whose theme he obviously loathes.