By now, most folks have heard of Mel Gibson’s arrest this past weekend for drunken driving. The mainstream media and the blogosphere have posted most of the details of his arrest and its aftermath, including reports of his vicious, misogynistic, anti-Semitic tirade directed at sheriff’s deputies. It’s an ugly episode, clearly, and one for which Gibson was right to apologize profusely.
This morning, while driving to work, I listened to the radio. The hosts of one program were positively gleeful about what might happen to Gibson, whom they called a "fake Christian" and a "hypocrite." "He’ll never work in this town again", they said, and there was a note of hope in that prediction. Some bloggers I know (no names to be mentioned) have seemed filled with schadenfreude at what took place. Gibson is not well-loved on the left, particularly in the aftermath of Passion of the Christ. It’s widely assumed that he is one of Hollywood’s most influential cultural conservatives, and to have him humiliate himself in the fashion he did this weekend seems, well, too delicious a topic to resist.
I am not a Gibson fan. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the Anglo-Scottish wars of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and I can’t ever remember being as offended by a movie as I was by "Braveheart", for which Gibson won an Oscar. The historical license he took was perhaps no worse than that taken by other directors who make epics, but it was about what was then my chosen field — and I was angered and dismayed. I liked the "Passion", I’ll admit, even as I struggled with the strong and unrelenting violence. I honored the craft behind the story-telling, even as I was troubled by many aspects of the film.
But this morning, I find myself in considerable sympathy with Mel Gibson. As someone who drank heavily and embarrassed himself many times as a result, I know this about alcohol: it lies. One of the great mistakes folks make about those of us who are addicts is that we are more honest when we’re loaded — that drugs or booze reveal our secret thoughts. Thinking back over my years of heavy drinking, I recall being told (after the fact) of dreadful things I had said while loaded. I said things I did not mean, and hadn’t even thought. Sometimes, when drunk, anger poured out in every imaginable direction. My drunken words did not always reflect my real convictions; they reflected an inchoate rage at the world.
I have no idea if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic or not. He may well be. But what he said when he was drunk doesn’t count as evidence that he is. When I was drunk, I regularly told strangers on the street how much I loved them, and how grateful I was that they understood me. I once told a paramedic that I was sure he was Jesus, and I wanted him to wash my feet! Did those words reflect my innermost sober beliefs? Of course not. And I have no reason to think that the ugly things Gibson said while loaded in Malibu this past week reflect how he really feels.
I’m reacting protectively to this story because, of course, I recognize parts of myself in Mel Gibson. I’m not as handsome or as successful or as conservative, but I know what it is to be an addict who undergoes a profound religious conversion. I also know what it is to struggle with relapse, with shame, and with anger. If I were to relapse as Mel did, and my words while drunk were to become public, I would be deeply and profoundly shamed. My relatively small number of readers include a contingent of critics (most of whom are men’s rights advocates), some of whom would no doubt be gleeful at what they would see as my comeuppance. In a very minor way, I know what it is like to suddenly be revealed as human and flawed!
Above all, I’m angered at those who question Gibson’s faith. Those of us who walk with Christ are not instantly given the power to turn from all forms of sin. Though grace comes into our lives, our struggles will often remain with us for as long as we live in human flesh. Conversion is not an instant process, but rather a gradual, painful one filed with stories of temptations resisted — and temptations not. Walter Wink was right:
Christians have never dealt well with the inner darkness of the redeemed.
When we come to Christ, we become a new creation. But that creation is still in an earthen vessel, in mortal flesh, still subject to sin and to darkness. One of the great realities of the Christian journey is that many of us stumble, post-conversion. It isn’t all sweetness and light on the other side of being born-again. The inner darkness doesn’t always vanish even after we embrace Christ as our Savior. For Mel Gibson, as for many of us, the struggle to live in to our redemption can be a day to day battle. By grace and will together, we win that daily struggle most of the time. But at one time or another, most of us, in one way or another, will fall. The measure of a person’s faith is not whether she falls, but whether she repents in the aftermath of the fall, and redoubles the effort to live a Christian life.
I’m praying for Mel Gibson this morning. I may not think much of his movies, but he is my brother and does not deserve the calumny, the schadenfreude, and the scorn he is enduring this week.
I have no idea if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic or not.
Yeah, it’s not like he has a history that would suggest it or anything. Like the way he called a cop “sugar tits,” it’s not like his sober statements about women back that up or anything.
When a person gets really drunk, they might vomit, piss themselves, tell strangers they love or hate them — oh, yeah, and hate the Jews.
Except not. Hugo, one of these things is not like the others.
For the average citizen, sure. For someone who (1) was raised by a raging anti-Semite, (2) belongs to a religion that doesn’t condone anti-Semitism, but which also requires you to honor your father and mother, whether they deserve it or not, and (3) has been repeatedly and unfairly accused of anti-Semitism in the past, spewing some incoherent crap about Jews fits right in with vomiting, pissing oneself, or generally lashing out at the world.
One side of me wants to say nothing, and quietly enjoy the irony of liberals finally calling on anyone in Hollywood to be held accountable for anything. The other side says that what’s bad for the goose isn’t any better for the gander.
Yeah, I’m not particularly interested in figuring out just exactly how Mel Gibson feels about the Jews, but if I were this incident would certainly come under consideration. A few reasons–first, the you’re quite right that the stupid things we say when drunk may not accurately reflect our true or deep feelings–but of course sometimes they do. There’s no hard or fast rule here. Furthermore, we’re operating with a preponderance of evidence here–his father is a holocaust denier, or at least minimizer, and he’s said he agrees with his father about everything. And then, I’m sorry, there’s any number of classic anti-semetic tropes and images in that one movie.
If I’m guilty of any schadenfraude, it’s not directed at Gibson, obviously a troubled and confused man. It’s directed at the people who insisted I was crazy, conspiratorial, and anti-Christian to see even a hint of anti-semetism in his most recent work.
(And Braveheart would still be a terrible film, even it if were straight from the historical record)
I agree with you Hugo, what someone says in a drunken stupor isn’t usually reflective of their true personality. From what I’ve read, I’ve not seen any “misogynist” statements (even “sugar tits” isn’t misogynist) and the criticism that “jews start all the wars” is something that is heard quite often from left-wingers, especially on college campuses that pride themselves on being ‘progressive.’ Thus, once again, it seems that left-wingers are exploiting this incident to score political points, when in fact much worse anti-semitic and sexist comments come from lefties themselves, who by the way are quite sober when making them and thus don’t have any excuses the way Mel does.
Hugo,
I don’t think it reflects his beliefs but rather his struggle with his upbringing. He was raised by a father who is viciously anti-semitic, yet he himself recognizes that hatred of the Jews is against his religion.
But to break his training, he requires the use of his higher functions of his brain, especially those that inhibit actions — the same ones that are knocked out by intoxication. I think this incident gives insight into two of his struggles — against alcohol and racism. That he’s struggling against both is, I believe, a point in his favor. Still, it’s done enormous damage, to him, his career, and to how many will view Christianity.
His movie causes me far more problems. Nancy was the one who pointed out the comparison I used in my blog article between the feminist concept of “consciousness raising” (she said I could use it without attribution). Gibson does not wish to be anti-semetic, and yet he used the transcribed visions of a famous anti-semite, Anne Catherine Emmerich, on which to base the movie. I think the anti-semitic things that made it into the movie were there because he does not understand that they are anti-semitic. It’s like someone who refuses to give the female engineer the difficult, math-laden assignments because he wants to see her succeed as a woman engineer. The intent is benign, but it winds up being horribly sexist.
As someone who, as a child, went to synagogue on Friday, the Catholic church on Saturday, and the Presby church on Sunday, I have a bit more understanding of how Jewish people percieve Christianity. Going to a university that was 70% Jewish that put me in a distinct minority, and then being part of a IVCF, a group that puts a heavy emphasis on evangelization, taught me that there are things we as Christians do not see as they are seen by our Jewish sisters and brothers.
I join you in praying for Mr. Gibson, but I fear this is something that will take him a long time to recover from, and it will require him to confront the questions of racism that now surround him.
Simply saying “He was drunk” won’t cut it, any more than a man raping a woman “because he was drunk” wouldn’t cut it.
Rob, I’m not excusing Mel’s words. I am objecting to two things:
1. The notion of “in vino veritas”, that what we say when drunk generally reflects our true feelings.
2. The notion that good Christians don’t struggle against darkness, including addiction, bigotry, and other sins.
Why is what Mel Gibson did so important? I dont think anyone has the right to be throwing stones. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives who have gotten drunk and mouthed off. Why take the things he said or did so personally? His feelings and beliefs belong to him. I seriously dont agree with driving drunk, he was absolutely wrong for that. But, for those of you who take his drunken criticizms to heart, why? Its impossible to decide feelings and opinions for others, you can only decide your own. Its a perfect time, for several reasons, to either stop letting hatred speak to us so easily or to ask why it does.
I think we could make judgments from things he said while he was sober. I got this from comments on Echidne’s site (the playboy interview gives some idea about how he feels about women):
Mel Gibson’s comments while sober
It’s true that people are never all good good or all bad, and part of me feels a little sorry for him too. (I also liked his performance in “Hamlet”, and I think he’s generally a good actor.)
But based on many things I’ve heard, I don’t have much respect for him personally, and I don’t apologize for that!
People’s “true feelings” may not come out when they are drunk.
But it sure hurts like hell to hear it anyway. Mr. Gibson may or may not be anti-semitic (I’m leaning towards “may”) but even if he isn’t, if you’re Jewish and you hear this, it’ll hurt.
Barbara P. said: “I think we could make judgments from things he said while he was sober. I got this from comments on Echidne’s site (the playboy interview gives some idea about how he feels about women):”
From the Playboy interview cited at Echidne’s site:
PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests?
GIBSON: No.
PLAYBOY: Why not?
GIBSON: I’ll get kicked around for saying it, but men and women are just different. They’re not equal. The same way that you and I are not equal.
PLAYBOY: That’s true. You have more money.
GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might have a bigger dick. Whatever it is, nobody’s equal. And men and women are not equal. I have tremendous respect for women. I love them. I don’t know why they want to step down. Women in my family are the center of things. An good things emanate from them. The guys usually mess up.
PLAYBOY: That’s quite a generalization.
GIBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different.
I see no misogyny in this whatsoever; in fact, rather than hating women he comes across as truly loving and admiring them. True, he doesn’t like some women that he’s had to work with (a statement about this was not included because it contained the “c-word” and Hugo doesn’t allow that here), especially feminists, but I see nothing wrong with that. Disliking some people because of who they are as a person is different than disliking people because of their group-identity.
As I said, I see much more intolerance and hatred based on group identity coming from garden-variety feminists and other so-called “progressives” than I do coming from Gibson.
Mr. Bad, watch the thread drift. This is not a post about feminism.
I’ve been drunk before. I wouldn’t say that I was more honest then. But I also wouldn’t say that demon rum put any thoughts into my head that weren’t there before.
Sometimes we all say things we don’t mean because we’re frustrated, and because our perspective is clouded. But the things we choose to say in those moments, though we may not truly believe them, are not random. Compare this, for example, with the discussion of “trash talking” in the aftermath of the Zidane incident - if we don’t excuse a player who uses hateful slurs without “really meaning them” in the course of a sport, why should we excuse it for someone who’s mad about getting pulled over?
I think the best that could be said of someone that makes anti-Semitic statements while drunk is that they’re struggling to overcome their own anti-Semitism. Is there evidence of this in Mr. Gibson’s case?
Ok, sorry Hugo. I thought that Gibson’s attitudes re. women and jews were fair game, and I compared his views to those that I thought people here (i.e., feminists and “progressives”) would be familiar with.
I feel that Gibson is getting hammered by the media and blogosphere in a manner that doesn’t reflect the same level of charity that Christians, ‘progressives,’ and other left-leaning types reserve for non-conservatives. I think this is more about intolerance of conservatives and fundie Christians than it is about Mel’s problems with alcohol. Lots of celebrities have had problems with drink and drugs (Carol Burnett, Mary Tyler Moore, McKenzie Philips, Courtney Love, et al.) and plenty of notable politicos have made serious anti-semitic statements (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al.) but you don’t see the media hammering them like they are Mel Gibson.
Yes folks, like is partisan politics more than anything else.
I cannot for the life of me understand why a man with Mel Gibson’s financial resources wouldn’t just call a cab rather than trying to drive himself home. I have no where near his financial resources but more than once I’ve taken a cab home had to find a friend to give me a ride to retrieve my car the next day (or pay for a 2nd cab ride).
As far as his words: I was raised in a house where raging tirades were later ignored when the perpetrator expressed remose. Having been on the receiving end of more than a few raging tirades that the person later regreted I believe it doesn’t matter what his intent was when he was spewing venom. He said it and he can feel bad all he wants - it means nothing. He said the words - and being drunk is not excuse. The words have had their effect - damaging and demeaning persons. He can feel bad all he wants, it means exactly nothing until he atones for his words.
Simply saying “He was drunk” won’t cut it, any more than a man raping a woman “because he was drunk” wouldn’t cut it.
Tell that to the Kennedys.
Oh yeah. They have the “Correct” politics. That gives them a pass. Even when they kill someMARY JO KOPECHNEone.
Silly me, I forgot that rule.
You’re entitled to your theology, Hugo, but your psychology needs work: the definition of “true self” that deliberately excludes drunken statements directly contradicts your argument that Christians need to come to terms with not just their conscious desire for grace but their demons, base impulses, bad upbringing, etc.
And he can apologize all he wants for his drunkenness; until he apologizes for the antisemitism of Passion, I’m done with Gibson and all his work.
And he can apologize all he wants for his drunkenness; until he apologizes for the antisemitism of Passion, I’m done with Gibson and all his work.
Yeah.
I think there’s something to be said for the argument that a man raised by a raving holocaust denier would have to be extraordinarily virtuous and strong-minded to escape every trace of antisemitism, and strong and virtuous Gibson certainly is not. But if we accept that it isn’t entirely his fault alone - leaving aside that the man is what, fifty years old - it’s all the more ridiculous and embarassing for him or his supporters to deny that his bigotry exists. His antisemitism was probably instilled in him at a young enough age to make it difficult to root out completely. That’s what happens when you’re raised by bigots. But the fact that it’s a conditioned reflex does not mean it doesn’t exist. When he’s pissing himself in a drunk tank, you can’t claim he’s not a drunk. When he’s bellowing about the evil Jews, you can’t claim he’s not an anti-semite.
If he had the spine to come out and admit that his upbringing made him a bigot, and he’s trying to get better, just as he’s come out and admitted he’s an alcoholic trying to get better, then and only then might sympathy be warranted. But I don’t believe he’s honest enough to do that.
Jonathan, I agree that we are called to come to terms with our demons, be they bigotry or addiction to substances. I’m not saying that Gibson didn’t fall short of an ideal; I’m saying that “falling short”, even woefully, is something Christians do all the time. I’m objecting to the notion that drunken statements are revelatory of inner feelings (they may be, but aren’t automatically) and to the notion that to be a good Christian is to live a sinless life. That’s it. As for Gibson’s anti-Semitism, I don’t know enough to know — I do know how I feel about him as a filmmaker. If he is a bigot, I hope he seeks recovery from that as well.
Some commetary on Mel Gibson: Anti-Semite? here.
Frankly, my own criticisms of Gibson have nothing to do with whether or not he’s a model Christian. I think he’s a lousy filmmaker whose taste for sadism freaks me out. I also think that if you get pulled over for drunk driving and call a cop “sugar tits” [which is *definitely* misogynistic, btw], and start ranting about Jews otherwise, I think it’s a perfectly valid criticism to say both of those things are offensive and absurd.
I think you can try to defend Mel from the “in vino veritas” claim, but honestly, I don’t see it going anywhere. The man got drunk and spewed hateful bile at a traffic stop. Even if that’s not his core conviction, it’s still an appalling thing to say, and the fact of the matter remains that he said it.
What someone says while drunk is possibly the worst tangential way we can analyze someone’s beliefs and the meaning of their previous work. But pretty much all of Gibson’s critics know this, and would be more than happy to point you to much more in depth analyses of his work, his cult-like part of the Catholic Church, and his crazy interviews.
But no one seems to care about that. Saying that Gibson’s sect is known for its reactionary views simply doesn’t get play on on morning news shows. And then a propoganda gift from the Heavens is delivered to them. It is not very Christian or enlightened of them to use this, but these liberals are getting desperate.
I have no idea if Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic or not.–Hugo
I thought you said you saw The Passion of Christ.
His feelings and beliefs belong to him.–Elizabeth
Except, that, he’s an artist who makes movies that are decidedly about his beliefs; he is very public about his beliefs (see the Playboy interview excerpt, above). He doesn’t get to be vocal about his beliefs about Jews while drunk and excuse it by saying “I was drunk.” And you ought not try to excuse him with ideas that now his views are somehow sacrosant–the ones about Jews causing all the wars in the world and such.
And I might mention–while Hugo may be right that being drunk doesn’t always bring out ‘truths’ that you feel deep down, it sometimes idoes. That fact, combined with all of the other reasons why Gibson might be anti-Semitic to whatever degree, combined with the fact that he likes to, when being arrested, say terrible things about Jews, counts as anti-Semitic to me.
And by the way, Hugo, we can feel both sorry for the guy for being a drunk and full of hate, and happy that his hipocrisy is showing. They’re not mutually exclusive, I think.
Mr. Bad,
It comes across pretty clearly in that interview that Mel Gibson doesn’t like women who “don’t know their place”. Whenever someone tells me they don’t think that women should be religious leaders, I interpret that as a hatred or fear of real women, sometimes replaced by a love of an unrealistic ideal (and one that places women in a powerless role).
And I for one never give a pass to people who say misogynistic or antisemitic things, regardless of political persuasion. Frankly, I couldn’t care less about the “hypocrisy on the left” that you seem to want to talk about. There’s hypocrisy on the right, too. There’s hypocrisy everywhere! Lots and lots. What’s your point?
Xrql: I guess my catechism teachers in the 60s were just kidding with that stuff about Jews being collectively responsible for the Crucifixion. Silly me and my 9-year-old mind; I should have known that phrases like “killers of our Redeemer” were meant to be tonuge in cheek. And I guess Pius XII really just wanted normalized relations with the Third Reich.
Bad/Gonz: Some leftists are bigots. And your point is?
Hugo: Sorry, Padre, a man with a heart full of hate like Mel Gibson is worthy of condemnation, without qualification, in my opinion. I well remember that talk-show incident in the 80s where, out of clear blue sky, he went on a rant about gays, ending with him showing his duff to the camera and saying, “See this? It’s for taking a dump—and nothing else!!” Your equanimity is, of course, your prerogative and demostrates one key difference between us: I’m content to do a good thing and leave it to others to do the better. You strive to do the better. Vive la difference on that score, I say, but in Gibson’s case, to hell, or better yet, to perpetuity in a bar full of tranny gay-male Jews for him.
Oops, sorry Xrql, I just realized you were referring to Gibson’s anti-Semitism, not specifically the Catholic Church’s. Mea maxima culpa.
Barbara and evil, calling a woman “sugar tits” does not fit the definition of misogyny in that it does not demonstrate hatred of or strong predjudice (or even fear for that matter) against women in general. Contempt for some individual women, sure, but contempt is not something found solely in conservative Christian males. Spin it all you like, but you’re not proving misogyny to any of us thinking, reasonable people.
Osho, my point is that IMO this is more about Hollywood politics than it is about principles. Truly principled people apply standards evenly to everyone regardless of political considerations, while partisans hacks hammer political opponents and give political allies a pass (e.g., see the NOWs reaction to Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults vs. their reaction to the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas disagreement). What we’re seeing here is an example of the latter.
Mr. Bad, what exactly puts you in the ranks of the thinking, reasonable people and excludes me? Especially when you completely fail to engage my actual point. I made no mention whatsoever regarding his comments to the police officer. And I certainly never claimed that contempt for women only comes from Christian males.
But if you’d like to know what I think about his drunken comments - I’ll agree that simply insulting a woman is not by definition misogynist. But if someone uses a contemptful comment that specifically targets another person’s sex/race/ethnicity, especially if they don’t know the person personally, then yes, one can assume the insulter has contempt for the whole group.
Would you say that when Mel Gibson made anti-semitic remarks, he didn’t mean all Jews, just the ones who were trying to make his life miserable? Or if someone calls a police officer “darkie” or something like that, that isn’t blatantly racist? Of course it is - it’s just common sense!
BarabaraP, how do get an insult from “sugar tits?” To me that’s simply a boorish drunken statement, similar to when woman have called me “sweet cheeks.” Then again, if one is overly-sensitive and looking to be offended, such things might qualify as insults. YMMV.
Bad/Gonz: Some leftists are bigots. And your point is?
The mote in your own eye, Douglas, the mote in your own eye. I find it very difficult to take pious pronouncements from the left seriously at all when they not only over look, but make rationalizations and excuses for the behavior of their own. It brings into question the sincerity of their beliefs.
Someone could call me “sweet-cheeks” and I would think it was a bit stupid maybe, but not insulting. Unless it’s supposed to be your butt? I guess I was taking it literally.
If someone called me “sugar tits”, I would definitely take that as an insult because it references a sexual body part, and would make me feel self-consciously aware of my body. (I guess the exception might be if my husband called me that or something.)
On top of that, context matters a lot. If someone called me that at work, or while I was acting in a position of authority, I would view that as a direct challenge - that the person is questioning my right to have that job or act with that authority. A sexual comment to a man would not work as easily in reverse, because that is generally not a source of a man’s disempowerment. No one questions men’s place as police officers.
Barbara P–
Let me first say that you are making your points clearly and concisely, and certainly keeping on point a lot better than Mr. Non sequitur (or, Mr. Bad). You’re a better foil than he deserves, for sure.
Bad’s assertion that a woman on the recieving end of ’sugar tits’ ought not think that the interlocutor was being a misogynist is, in my opinion, a case of bad faith. And his ‘analogous’ situation, that of him being called ’sweet cheeks’ is a poor analogy which shows this bad faith. A better analogy would be if somebody called him ‘Dickhead’, or ‘little man’ or some such, because ’sugar tits’ is a gendered insult, while ’sweet cheeks,’ even if it could be an insult, isn’t particularly gendered. We all have cheeks. And, while Bad may have sugar tits (who knows?), men aren’t generally tought of as having tits at all. And ’sugar tits’ being gendered is what makes it misogynist–its connotation is that it isn’t simply referring to the particular woman upon which this insult is being levelled–but also against women in general. Which you put a lot more concisely, actually, Barbara, but I just had to get my 2 cents in.
It brings into question the sincerity of their beliefs.–The Gonzman
Which is, y’know, exactly the thing that people are calling Gibson to task on. Even assuming that all of the left were hypocrites (which is silly), that doesn’t mean that Gibson isn’t as well, or that they can’t call him out on his hipocrisy.
Which is, y’know, exactly the thing that people are calling Gibson to task on. Even assuming that all of the left were hypocrites (which is silly), that doesn’t mean that Gibson isn’t as well, or that they can’t call him out on his hipocrisy.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of the other without taking your own to task is in and of itself an act of hypocrisy.
And in any event, I’m amused to find so many do subscribe to “In Vino Veritas.” I suppose it’s too much to ask that they apply the same standard when some woman wakes up after a drunken binge and feels taken advantage of…
Gonz, Gonz, Gonz: what makes you think I gave Ted Kennedy a pass over Chappaquidick, which happened when I was, what, ten years old? What should I do, go to Hyannisport and blow his liberal grey matter out? And for that matter, I’ve snapped off more women who’ve cried to me over dumb behavior enacted while drunk than have probably ever passed through whatever backwater you call home. I’m sorry if you can’t stomach the thought that Mel Gibson’s a rank Jew-hater; maybe you fancy yourself best boy on the next in Lethal Weapon series, for all I know. But rank and Jew-hating he is and from the sound of it, always was and will be. He should retire to an Opus Dei farm before he wastes another producer’s money and you should stick to regaling folks with your ideas for “My Name Is Earl” scripts.
Who knows if Gibson is a anti-Semite. We can only judge him on his actions. So, if he said what he said. Well, that should mean something to us, shouldn’t it? Then, we’ve got his father’s comments, which would only imply that Mel’s early socialization was filled with anti-Semitic values from daddy-o, right?
Again, that doesn’t mean that he is an anti-Semite. But his words and actions would lead us in the direction of that conclusion.
I don’t have sympathy for him nor can I empathize with him, since I’m neither an anti-Semite nor an alcholic. Apparently, he might be both of these things.
I’d guess Mel’s like most Americans. He’s got “Yankee ingenuity” which he uses to make a buck (or lots of bucks as the case may be) on movies about Jesus or about Mayans or Scottish nationalists. He plays it up to the appropriate communities and gains their interest (and their ticket money). He gets too much booze in him and another human quality comes leaking out…subtle or not-so-subtle bigotry. The one thing that’s always interesting about Americans is that they somehow don’t believe that they are capable of bigotry, that are somehow “beyond” that. Nope, sorry folks…you’re not philosophical Supermen.
Instead of feeling sympathy, take a page from the Gospels…take a look into your own souls and ask where (not if) the bigot lives. Sympathy just reinforces your own feelings of moral superiority, as Americans, as humans. Better to save your sympathy and just let God have mercy.
Gonz, Gonz, Gonz: what makes you think I gave Ted Kennedy a pass over Chappaquidick, which happened when I was, what, ten years old? What should I do, go to Hyannisport and blow his liberal grey matter out?
Well, Doug, Doug, Doug. I’d suggest you start talking him - and his clan - down too, on occasion. That whole “philosophical consistancy” thing.
And for that matter, I’ve snapped off more women who’ve cried to me over dumb behavior enacted while drunk than have probably ever passed through whatever backwater you call home.
Ah, no liberal elitism there, eh? Golly, Doug, we even have in door terlits and wireless internet here where we’uns all live
So - which is it? Does wine show the truth of what someone is? Is the drunk chick who dances on the table and winds up sleeping with two or three different guys really that way, who should just shut her pie-hole because she really wanted it? Or is Mel Gibon possibly a drunk just talking out his tuchis through alcohol? You excuse one set of bad behavior as “Not what they really mean” you have to excuse the other; you put the responsibility for it on one, it goes for the other.
I’m just pointing out the double standard based on politics here; my position on Hugo’s last “Drunk Women” post made my position clear: As a recovering former addict, I place the responsibility for what is done under the influence square on the user’s shoulders, no excuses, even if they did black out.
Glad to know I can count on your support, and point to this and say “See? Doug agrees too!” if the topic ever comes up again.
I’m sorry if you can’t stomach the thought that Mel Gibson’s a rank Jew-hater; maybe you fancy yourself best boy on the next in Lethal Weapon series, for all I know. But rank and Jew-hating he is and from the sound of it, always was and will be. He should retire to an Opus Dei farm before he wastes another producer’s money and you should stick to regaling folks with your ideas for “My Name Is Earl” scripts.
Apparently for a hill-jack, I’m a bit more educated than yourself: See, Doug - Mel Gibson isn’t Catholic. Two words for you: “Sedevacatist” and “Heretic.” Look ‘em up, Doug. See, Opus Dei, or more correctly “The Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei” is a personal prelature which is answerable to the Pope. Mel’s church denies that Pope Benedict XVI is the pope, they claim the seat is vacant, and has been since before John XXIII.
Helps to have you facts in order before your start insinating other folks are backwards. Keeps you from looking backwards. ;)
In fact, one of the things that kept me away from such throwback rad-trads is the rampant anti-semitism, so I have no doubt Mel is too. I’d also imagine a holocaust denier as well.
But again, I’m just amused by the smug hypocrisy and double standards.
Doug and Gonz, play nice now.
Hugo–
Should ‘The Gonzman’ really be able to say things like this in your comments?:
“I suppose it’s too much to ask that they apply the same standard when some woman wakes up after a drunken binge and feels taken advantage of…”
I generally support your take on things to let people have their say and to not shut them down unless they get off-topic; but TG is suggesting here that a woman who is raped while drunk deserves it. I see no reason why such an opinion should be implicitly supported by you in allowing such comments to stand.
Sorry, I’ve lost track of the thread, haven’t read all the comments. Let’s stay on topic and not drag in a discussion of alcohol, rape, and consent. An interesting and vital topic, yes, but not in this thread.
“Pointing out the hypocrisy of the other without taking your own to task is in and of itself an act of hypocrisy.”–Gonzman
Sure. But even if the people calling bullshit on Mel are also hypocrites, pointing out that they are hypocrites is not a response to their condemnation; at least, it’s not a rational one, because either Mel is a hypocrite or he isn’t–whether anybody else is or not doesn’t have any bearing on the matter, aside from your need to distract from the points being made through your non-sequitur tactics.
Hugo,
A few points. Your willingness to treat this situation with a forgiving heart is admirable. I don’t think there is anyone who would want their most embarrassing misconduct held up to the world. One thing I will hand to Gibson is that he appologized - even before it was known that there was a video. Some may be dissatisfied with it, but at least he took that step immediately.
Regarding what he said, I think it worth considering (at least from what I have heard) that the deputy he made the remarks to either was Jewish or had a Jewish name. This is not an excuse, but something of an explanation, and that is when a person, even a sober one, wants to insult or attack someone else verbally, they usually pick something that will be the nastiest or most painful to say. This is true of the “sugar tits” comment as well. I have seen it myself on the sports field where a player who every day for years plays with and gets along with team mates of all races, but will hurl racial epithets in the course of a fight. When your overweight sister took your car without permission you didn’t call her a thief, you called her a fat cow. You always pick the sharpest instrument to wound. I agree with Hugo that this was a nsty thing to say and he should be taken to task for it, but I won’t make broad generalizations about his character based on a few drunken comments.
As for TPOTC - the movie should stand on its own merits, not this incident. I think those that see it as Anti-Semitic are wrong, but I don’t think this incident has any bearing on the issue.
Finally - and this is off thread I guess, but I always bristle at such remarks -
Barbara P - in responding to a post regarding MG’s stand on women priests says -
“Whenever someone tells me they don’t think that women should be religious leaders, I interpret that as a hatred or fear of real women, sometimes replaced by a love of an unrealistic ideal (and one that places women in a powerless role).”
First, orthodox Catholics don’t say women can’t be religious leaders, and since when is the Church about power anyway? If you were to ask 100 people in America, nay in the world, who the most important female religious figure of the 20th century was I would bet you hard cash money that a majority - probably an overwhelming majority - would say Mother Theresa. Would more have been saved by if she had been a priest? Would her works have been holier? In fact, if you ask most people to list important female religious figures in history, I would hazard a guess that a majority of them would be Catholic women - the ones that belong to that cult that hates and fears women.
“God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong”
“As for TPOTC - the movie should stand on its own merits, not this incident. I think those that see it as Anti-Semitic are wrong, but I don’t think this incident has any bearing on the issue.”–Sean H
Sean, this just seems like you want to ignore connections in the actual world. If anybody were to say: If Mel is an anti-Semite then all of the films he directed must be anti-Semitic, we’d of course both want to disagree. But nobody is saying that. They are pointing out the possible relationship between Mel’s anit-Semitic comments and the anti-Semitic components in the film. To put forth that it’s more likely that TPOTC is anti-Semitic given that it’s director likes to say that Jews are the cause of all war doesn’t seem unreasonable, does it? Art can ’stand on it’s own’ only so much–just ask Leni Riefenstahl.
“…and since when is the Church about power anyway?–Sean H.
Isn’t the Vatican it’s own country, for all intents and purposes? Doesn’t the pope rule over (sounds like power to me) all of the archbishops, who rule over the bishops, etc.? To claim the Catholic church isn’t about power is like claiming that it’s not about religion. It’s about lots of other things besides power, perhaps, but it’s certainly about power as well.
Your point about Mother Theresa is moot, and shows the depth of your sexism, as far as I’m concerned. When you ask: “Would more have been saved by if [mother Theresa] had been a priest? ” my immediate answer is: Well, we’ll never freaking know, will we? Because that wasn’t allowed to her. Perhaps if she had been given more power within the church as a priest early on, she could have made lots of changes that led to lots of lives being saved. But such speculation doesn’t amount to much–it’s the fact that she is not allowed to be a priest that is the problem, not whether or not the world would have been better of if she had been–the whole point of calling sexism on the Catholic church is that whether or not women can weild power within the church should’t just be up to the men who already hold power in the church,or you, Sean.
And your quote at the end: “God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong”…this is apropos of what? That women are weak and we should thank god for putting them here so that they could shame the pope? What a wacky religion.
Also, your take on the world’s view of catholicism is skewed by your western/christian/catholic perspective:”If you were to ask 100 people in America, nay in the world, who the most important female religious figure of the 20th century was I would bet you hard cash money that a majority - probably an overwhelming majority - would say Mother Theresa.” Really? The whole world? Howzabout the billions of people in China and India who could care less about catholic religious leaders, male or female? Sheesh.
I generally support your take on things to let people have their say and to not shut them down unless they get off-topic; but TG is suggesting here that a woman who is raped while drunk deserves it. I see no reason why such an opinion should be implicitly supported by you in allowing such comments to stand.
It’s very simple, Jeff - if overindulging in alcohol leads one to act out the truth that lies inside one’s inner self, what else can you conclude? I did not say “raped,” sir, you did. I said “Felt taken advantage of.” World of difference there.
The analogy stands - if Mel Gibson cannot take the “I was drunk” cop-out, it stands across the board. If you imply that somone cannot give reasonable consent, or be responsible for their actions while intoxicated, then Mel Gibson gets that same courtesy, regardless of whether you like him, his movies, his politics, or his religion.
As an addict, I hold to a different position than Hugo - I don’t believe people should be allowed to use “I was stoned” as an excuse; the answer is “Well, stop imbibing if you can’t control yourself.” Hugo is, however, being philosophically consistant.
India???? India???? Yeah, you are absolutely correct. No one in INDIA would care about Mother Theresa - Mother Theresa of CALCUTTA - no way. Mother Theresa who’s Missionaries of Charity are active in 133, primarily non-Christian, non-western countries - sure those people must be too ignorant to really be curious about things like this - yeah, those ladies in bath towels, who are they? I didn’t say they agreed with her, I said the knew about her. Right, I’m the one who’s Eurocentric?
As for the quote - read all of 1 Corinthians 1 - God confounds us by turning our notions about power and fairness and strength on their heads. Power doesn’t bring happiness, it doesn’t bring salvation.
The analogy stands - if Mel Gibson cannot take the “I was drunk” cop-out, it stands across the board. If you imply that somone cannot give reasonable consent, or be responsible for their actions while intoxicated, then Mel Gibson gets that same courtesy, regardless of whether you like him, his movies, his politics, or his religion.
I disagree. I think there is room for a fully reasoned and consistent position based on the idea of diminished capacity. I’d also point out that the law makes a distinction between being too drunk to sign a contract (to use a slightly less inflammatory example) and being too drunk to be responsible for a vehicular homicide you may have committed. It comes down to different elements of the situation. In the case of the contract, you need the person signing to be fully in command of their faculties and their mental state is clearly relevant to the validity of that contract. The same is not true of vehicular homicide: you’re talking about the conduct, not the mental state.
In this particular case, I don’t think Gibson gets a pass on shouting slurs just because he was drunk. I do think the fact that he was plastered should be considered when evaluating his culpability and underlying actions. (Of course, my judgments of Mel Gibson are ultimately going to have no effect, other than the $8 I will be saving every time one of his films comes out.)
“I didn’t say they agreed with her, I said the knew about her.”–Sean H
Actually, what you said was that you thought that people around the world would think that Mother Theresa was “the most important female religious figure of the 20th century“–is ‘most important’ now equated with ‘knowing about’? Make up yer mind. And, just because Catholics are out and about ‘helping people’ (and, of course, part of this helping includes taking away money from charities that might actually, y’know, hand out condoms in Africa instead of preaching abstinance) doesn’t mean they’re revered, or even known. And..y’know, you didn’t happen to mention what you thought about China. Billions of people who may not care how important Mother Theresa is or even know about her.
And as far as this goes:
“Power doesn’t bring happiness, it doesn’t bring salvation.”
Then why, praytell, are you so concerned with keeping it? Why is the pope? Why not hand it out to women as well–or are you protecting them, making sure they have a better chance at salvation. Sheesh.
evil fizz said: “It comes down to different elements of the situation. In the case of the contract, you need the person signing to be fully in command of their faculties and their mental state is clearly relevant to the validity of that contract. The same is not true of vehicular homicide: you’re talking about the conduct, not the mental state.”
Rationalizations like this might work in legal circles, but in the real world most folks understand that behavior is based primarily on state of mind. If a person is crazy, most likely that person will act crazy. Similarly, if a person is drunk chances are they’re going to act drunk. The conduct in vehicular homicide is based on the mental condition, i.e., state of mind. Andrea Yates just got acquitted of the act of murdering her children based on her state of mind. Why is vehicular homicide different than Yates’ version of homicide? One could argue that a person chooses to get drunk while Yates didn’t choose to be ‘insane’ (btw, I’m not buying her insanity defense), but that argument breaks down for the alcoholic. Alcholism is a recognized medical condition (and in some cases a recognized disability), a condition that nobody to my knowledge has ever chosen to suffer from. Thus, in many cases a person who is an alchoholic cannot control themselves vis-a-vis consuming alcohol any better than can a person like Yates. Yet Yates gets a pass and Gibson doesn’t.
I smell a politically-based double standard here.
” I said “Felt taken advantage of.” World of difference there.”–Gonzman
Ok, what did you mean by ‘taken advantage of, then. Were you talking about a woman being drunk and having her purse stolen? If you weren’t talking about rape and sexual assault, what were you talking about. Please clarify.
“The analogy stands - if Mel Gibson cannot take the “I was drunk” cop-out, it stands across the board. If you imply that somone cannot give reasonable consent, or be responsible for their actions while intoxicated, then Mel Gibson gets that same courtesy, regardless of whether you like him, his movies, his politics, or his religion.”
The analogy doesn’t stand in my book, no matter how many times you repeat it. A woman who ‘gets taken advantage of’ when she’s drunk isn’t harming other people–she’s being harmed. Mel, spouting anti-Semitic crap, is doing harm to people, which is part of the reason he doesn’t get a pass (see fizz’s example regarding contracts, which is essentially the same distinction).
The reason your version of the analogy doesn’t hold is that in Mel’s case we’re talking about the person doing harm–in this case, Mel–for which he’s held accountable; in the case of a woman being ‘taken advantage of’ we’re talking about the people doing the harm–the men taking advantage of her–for which they ought to be also held accountable.
In all cases everybody who makes decisions are part of the causes–but not every cause equates with equal responsibility morally. My buddy Malachi put up a good post on this not too long ago.
Crap. Sorry about the italics. I think this is my fault.
Rationalizations like this might work in legal circles, but in the real world most folks understand that behavior is based primarily on state of mind.
In the real world, most folks understand that behavior and state of mind aren’t simply binary, and that there’s such a thing as states which may diminish/mitigate responsibility without removing it altogether. That’s why even people who are demonstrably mentally ill aren’t always acquitted for crimes (heck, it took Andrea Yates two trials to get acquitted, and she was pretty darn psychotic, and even now that she’s acquitted, that doesn’t mean she’ll walk free, but rather that she’ll be hospitalized for a good long time). Most attempts at an insanity defense actually fail.
One could argue that a person chooses to get drunk while Yates didn’t choose to be ‘insane’ (btw, I’m not buying her insanity defense), but that argument breaks down for the alcoholic.
Given that alcoholics do have some ability to choose to dry out, and given that nobody has more ability to get the alcoholic to dry out than the alcoholic, a moral standard that lets people off altogether for anything done while drunk (if that’s what you’re arguing for), isn’t particularly helpful when generalized.
I’m mystified as to why anyone would consider that “too impaired to sign a contract” ought to be the same standard as “too impaired to take any responsibility for doing something wrong. After all, even teenagers are given some responsibility for crimes (if often at lesser penalties than an adult would get), while no one expects them to be signing mortgages. evil_fizz’s standard of diminished capacity seems to me plain ordinary common sense, not some kind of weird legal rationalization.
Generally, what you say and do while drunk isn’t more a reflection of your real self than what you say and do while sober, but it’s also not totally disconnected from your real self. And we’re somewhat responsible for what we do while drunk, even while other people, if they have any decency, shouldn’t be deliberately taking advantage of our drunken state. I think that’s a standard that’s fair across the board, and makes much more sense than asking people to choose between binding people to legal contracts that they sign while plastered and striking DUI laws completely off the books.
Whether or not the woman on a drunk binge ‘wanted’ it doesn’t change whether or not she was taken advantage of! BTW, depending on what was meant by drunk binge, which can cover a range of drunkenness all the way to unconscious, rape is not a leap.
You can’t find cover for your own behavior in other people’s behavior!
Italics fixed. Folks, when ending italics, use . That seems to work.
And let’s stay off the rape tangent, please, please, please.
Sorry, I meant you should use a bracket .
Jeff,
One last post/response since this is way off topic now - To me your post clearly implied that people in the non-western non-Christian world not only didn’t care but didn’t even have a reason to. Your mention of India as an example, I thought, indicated how little you knew or considered in making your comment since Mother Theresa spent her entire life there and is famous there.
If you are actually interested in understanding the Catholic Church’s doctrine regarding a male priesthood rather than applying your own standards to the doctrine without understanding, try looking here - http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm.
Finally, please don’t continue this inane and logically indefensible criticism regarding Africa, AIDS, the Catholic Church and condomns.
The Church teaches abstinence outside of marriage - a 100% effective protection against sexually transmitted disease. Obviously, a lot of people aren’t heeding. you argue, if only they would abandon their doctrine regarding artificial contraception then the problem would go away, or at least lessen. So, people who aren’t listening to the Church on abstinence are listening to her on contraception? What kind of sense does that make?
I don’t mind people disagreeing with Church doctrine on this (well, I do mind, but I can’t call such criticism illogical on its own terms), but this “The Church is killing Africans by its doctrine” argument is jsut plain ridiculous.
and I bet Mel Gibson would drink to that - an attempt to return to the topic.
The Church teaches abstinence outside of marriage - a 100% effective protection against sexually transmitted disease.
Well, it’s actually only 100% effective if you and your spouse comply. I can follow the Church’s teachings to the letter and still get HIV. And so ends my contribution to the thread drift.
Andrea Yates just got acquitted of the act of murdering her children based on her state of mind. Why is vehicular homicide different than Yates’ version of homicide?
Because it’s not an either/or proposition. Mental state and conduct are both relevant in talking about responsibility/culpability.
Thus, in many cases a person who is an alchoholic cannot control themselves vis-a-vis consuming alcohol any better than can a person like Yates. Yet Yates gets a pass and Gibson doesn’t.
I smell a politically-based double standard here.
Huh? My argument here is for diminished capacity. In the case of both Gibson and Yates, I’d argue that their capacity is clearly diminished. The question then becomes to what extent. If you’re clinically psychotic, unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, and unable to appreciate the consequences of your actions, that’s entirely different than being drunk and shouting slurs at the police.
And incidentially, in the real world, people have been making the argument for diminshed capacity for millenia. Google On the Death of Erastosthenes, and you’ll see what I mean. Conduct matters and state of mind matters. It’s not some esoteric legal idea. It’s how people conduct themselves in the real world all the time.
The reason your version of the analogy doesn’t hold is that in Mel’s case…
..he has the “wrong” politics, so you hold to a double standard. Which is fine, and frankly, though I had hoped for better, I really didn’t expect it.
!PLONK!
BTW, depending on what was meant by drunk binge, which can cover a range of drunkenness all the way to unconscious, rape is not a leap.
It means what it means. Unable to give consent when incoherent or unconscious, or overcome via physical force over objections is no-brainer rape. Believe it or not, if I came across a man doing that to a woman, there would in short order be a man strapped to a gurney being wheeled into the emergency room to have bones set. I have a daughter.
The biggest wake up call to me was watching a video of myself behaving in an outrageous manner taken on a video camera. One in which I was so stoned I had and have no ecollection of it to this day- yet the evidence is there. And you cannot tell from the video that I am a hundred and three sheets to the wind. I hated what I was doing, and hated myself for it. It took me a while, though, to stop rationalizing away with the “I didn’t know what I was doing” excuse. After I took responsibility for my own drug problem, though, I became, with the help of God, able to master it.
And this is what I talk about - when you have someone doing such things, even if they are female and such things include having sex, the sole person responsible is them.
I hold Mel Gibson to the same standard I hold myself to - whether or not he is truly horrified at what he did is irrelevant, repentance and redemption are seperate issues. He is RESPONSIBLE for what he did, not the bartender who served him drinks, the maker of the booze, the people he carried on with or anything else. He did it, and he must suffer the consequences, and blaming someone else for it - which I don’t think he has done - is a weaselly cop-out.
Gonz, come on. At least quote the whole damn sentence, which goes to the issue of *harm*, not politics.
“One last post/response since this is way off topic now - To me your post clearly implied that people in the non-western non-Christian world not only didn’t care but didn’t even have a reason to. Your mention of India as an example, I thought, indicated how little you knew or considered in making your comment since Mother Theresa spent her entire life there and is famous there.–Sean H
Ok, let’s pretend for a moment that you really were just talking about who might know of M.T. and not just about who is an important female religious figure, and let’s pretend for a moment that everybody in India not only knows who M.T. is but also is eternally thankful for her work there. And while we’re at it, let’s assume that, even though most of india isn’t Catholic, they would go ahead and say that a Catholic woman is the most important female religious figure in the world (and you say I’m making inane arguments). We’ll just pretend. I’ll give you that.
Still:
China? (Part of the world as well.)
“So, people who aren’t listening to the Church on abstinence are listening to her on contraception?”
First off, using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS isn’t contraception. That’s where y’all Catholics get confused–and part of the reason why you don’t see why not handing out condoms in Africa is a moral problem; condoms can protect against AIDS transmission; they can also help to prevent unwanted pregnancy. And yet, protection from AIDS is not the same thing as contraception!
See how that works?
Secondly, regarding Church policy and being responsible for deaths: Hand out abstinence education and (obviously in the case of Africa but pretty much in the US, too) people don’t listen; hand out condoms and there is 100% more chance (than not handing out condoms) that people will use ‘em. I don’t see you showing me evidence that if the church handed out condoms that they wouldn’t save more lives than they do preaching abstinance. That is likely because you are more concerned about some interpretation of ‘morality’ that I don’t subscribe to. If you really think that preaching abstinance has saved more lives than handing out condoms (say) would, then I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that seems ridiculous to me.
I apologize for my part of the contribution to thread drift, all. This will be my last comment off-topic as well.
The reason your version of the analogy doesn’t hold is that in Mel’s case…
..he has the “wrong” politics, so you hold to a double standard. Which is fine, and frankly, though I had hoped for better, I really didn’t expect it.–The Gonzman
Wow. You really know how to argue a point, don’t you? I mean, you don’t even have to respond to any points people make, you can just keep repeating what you think is right without connecting it with anything at all! Why didn’t I think of that?! Were you like captain of the debate team, with your favorite line, “nuh-UH!”?
Sheesh.
and…Ploink? What the heck does that mean, anyway? Admit it, are you still in gradeschool? C’mon, truthfully now.
Oh, and exactly what ‘politics’ do you think I think Mel Gibson has, The Gonzman? Do drunken anti-Semitic remarks now constitude a politics? I don’t actually know Gibson’s politics–I do know some of his takes on religion, which almost certainly inform his politics, but whether he’s a lefty or a righty has very little bearing on whether he’s an anti-Semite or not.
evil fizz said: “Huh? My argument here is for diminished capacity. In the case of both Gibson and Yates, I’d argue that their capacity is clearly diminished. The question then becomes to what extent. If you’re clinically psychotic, unable to tell the difference between right and wrong, and unable to appreciate the consequences of your actions, that’s entirely different than being drunk and shouting slurs at the police.”
Except that by objective psychiatric standards Yates wasn’t “insane” - she definitely knew that what she was doing was wrong, she had her wits about her enough to plan out both the methodolgy and timing of the killings carefully so that she would be successful, etc. So yes, the extent of “diminished capacity” is relevant, which is why I think that Yates is getting a pass and Gibson is getting hammered based on politics rather than objectivity.
Mr. Bad:
You’re equivocating “diminished capacity”. There is the capacity to get things done, and there is the capacity for knowing right and wrong…Yates may well have thought that she would get in trouble for what she was doing, and therefore planned to ‘be successful’ to whatever degree–but this doesn’t mean that she could tell the difference between right and wrong, aside from possible punishments.
Bringing it back to topic: We might say that Gibson had a diminished capacity for, say, driving a car, and for keeping his anti-Semitic thoughts to himself; that doesn’t mean that he had a diminished capacity to know that being anti-Semitic is wrong; more likely, he thinks being anti-Semitic is right (on some level; his apology at least pays lip service to the idea that he doesn’t think it’s ok on some level), but that it’s also practical to generally keep it to yourself.
Sorry for toe-stepping, fizz…you’re likely more consice and clear than I am, but it’s hard to read this stuff without responding.
Gonz, come on. At least quote the whole damn sentence, which goes to the issue of *harm*, not politics.
Fizz, I hold that the only person who is responsible for the “harm” done to an addict -or by an addict - who goes on a binge and acts irresponsibly is the addict themself. Consenting to have sex, whether you are a man or a woman, or drunk/stoned or not, is consent. Anything beyond that is dross. The drunk guy who turns up slapped with a paternity suit a year later has only himself to blame, not the “conniving slut” who “tricked” him into being a daddy; and the woman who doesn’t know who to hit with the paternity suit is equally not a child, and responsible for the predicament she finds herself in.
I didn’t quote it because I find it not relevant to the topic at hand.
I didn’t quote it because I find it not relevant to the topic at hand./–The Gonzman.
But you found it relevant enough to misquote, by leaving out the point of the sentence.
Here, I’ll try it now:
“I hold…consenting to have sex…beyond…relevant.”–The Gonzman
I didn’t quote the whole thing because I didn’t find everything in between those words relevant.
The measure of a person’s faith is not whether she falls, but whether she repents in the aftermath of the fall
Hugo, thanks so much for saying this, and for the whole paragraph this statement is from.
I’m interested to know why you were offended by Braveheart - one of my favorite movies ever. Actually, my cellphone’s ringtone is “The Secret Wedding” from Braveheart. But then again I know little, if nothing, about the history on which it was based. I’m a die-hard Gibson fan. But anyway, Braveheart is not the main topic of this blog.
Gibson is a human being. A devout Christian, yes, but also a human being who has profound struggles like the rest of us. Alcohol is not “truth tonic.” I know from personal experience that any mood-altering substance, be it alcohol or Vicodin, lies and hurts and cheats and disrespects. Gibson f***ed up, yes. But he did not say those things while sober. If he did, then I’d be very, very, very offended and wouldn’t consider myself a fan anymore.
I find inspiration to forgive him - and everyone else who sins - through the message of his movie The Passion of the Christ. I think Gibson’s good outweighs his bad, especially given that he’s come far recovering from the alcoholism that overpowered his younger years.
Mermade, the film bothered me on several levels, but largely for its depiction of the two Edwards (the older king and his son). Edward I is widely regarded as one of the finest kings in medieval English history — a tough warrior, but a compassionate and honorable one by the standards of his era. His depiction as a bloodthirsty sadist in Braveheart (unconcerned with hitting his own infantry) is wildly off base.
And yes, Edward II was gay. But not effeminate — Gibson makes the classic anachronistic mistake of confusing the two. Edward II was famed for his bravery (to the point of foolhardiness) and for his physical prowess as an athlete. An eye-liner wearing aesthete he wasn’t, and it was a very homophobic and inaccurate betrayal.
Isabella of France was born in 1292; Wallace executed in 1305. She was barely 13 when he died, and they certainly never met. Her son with Edward II, the great Edward III, wasn’t born until 1312. The speculation that Wallace was the father — the film makes it obvious in Edward I’s deathbed scene - is ludicruous.
These are the sorts of things that go beyond historical license to absurd invention.
Here’s the question I’ve always had for Mel: given his faith, and his love for the character of William Wallace, what does he mean by Wallace’s obsession with “Freedom”? What kind of freedom was he referring to? Its certainly not the freedoms we think of today, and given that Scotland and England shared a common faith, it can’t have been religious freedom? Some inarticulate belief in self-determination? Ethnic nationalism? It never gets explained.
So yeah, I hated the movie. But I liked Gibson’s “Hamlet”, and I loved “Gallipoli”…
Wow! Given that, I can totally see why you hated the movie! I never knew that Gibson smashed and smeared history that way. I certainly can’t say anything in defense of the movie’s portrayal of Scottish history (yikes!). But (dare I say?) I am still captivated by the love story between Murron and William. And I like looking at the younger Mel Gibson, especially since I have a thing for guys with long hair. My opinion of the movie isn’t based on any education or conviction. But thank you for sharing that - I see it differently now.
Interesting to hear you loved Gibson’s Hamlet - when we studied it during my senior year, my English teacher gave us a lecture on why he hated it and refused to show it to our class. I still need to watch it and form my own conclusions. Teachers and their movie opinions… :-)
Ok, here you go, some really hateful remarks that Gibson made while (presumably) sober:
From a usa today article:
In 2004, after The New York Times’ Frank Rich wrote a column saying The Passion of the Christ could fuel anti-Semitism abroad, Gibson told The New Yorker: “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog.
In a 1995 Playboy interview, he said of a British author of an unauthorized Gibson biography: “I don’t think God will put him in my path. He deserves death.”
In the same interview, when asked about GLAAD’s protest over his statements about homosexuality: “I’ll apologize when hell freezes over. They can f- —— off.”
From an about.com article on atheist and agnosticism:
On not disagreeing with his father about the reality of the Jewish Holocaust:
“I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.”
The trick here, as the author points out is that:
“Holocaust deniers, at least the sophisticated ones, don’t deny that Jews were sent to concentration camps, and don’t deny that Jews suffered during the war, and perhaps suffered a bit disproportionately because they were Jews. What they do deny was that the Germans singled out the Jews for genocide, that millions of Jews were murdered, and that Jews were sent to death camps, not simply to labor or concentration camps.”
Ok, here you go, some really hateful remarks that Gibson made while (presumably) sober:
From a usa today article:
In 2004, after The New York Times’ Frank Rich wrote a column saying The Passion of the Christ could fuel anti-Semitism abroad, Gibson told The New Yorker: “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick. I want to kill his dog.
In a 1995 Playboy interview, he said of a British author of an unauthorized Gibson biography: “I don’t think God will put him in my path. He deserves death.”
In the same interview, when asked about GLAAD’s protest over his statements about homosexuality: “I’ll apologize when hell freezes over. They can f- —— off.”
From an about.com article on atheism and agnosticism:
On not disagreeing with his father about the reality of the Jewish Holocaust:
“I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.”
The trick here, as the author points out is that:
“Holocaust deniers, at least the sophisticated ones, don’t deny that Jews were sent to concentration camps, and don’t deny that Jews suffered during the war, and perhaps suffered a bit disproportionately because they were Jews. What they do deny was that the Germans singled out the Jews for genocide, that millions of Jews were murdered, and that Jews were sent to death camps, not simply to labor or concentration camps.”
sorry about the double post. :( Hit ‘post’ instead of preview, and a preview was obviously needed.
he who is without sin cast the first stone! everyone and i mean everyone has in their life time have said a racial statement at least once in their life. and do not even say you haven’t! further more when you are drunk you do say things you wouldn’t even think of if sober. crist, the man is a human being with faults with sin as we all are, and just because he is a movie star doesn’t make him any different than you or I. so cut the crap out already.