Last night I made the rather rare decision to delete a post I wrote yesterday regarding the arrest of Mel Gibson. My essay was replete with problems; I misspoke; haste made for waste. I am not suggesting that Mr. Gibson should be lynched (in the metaphorical sense) for his tequila-soaked anti-semitic outbursts; nor do I think such speech should be applauded or even defended (except as free speech, perhaps). My issue is with what I called (yesterday) Red Herring reportage: journalism fixed upon what a drunk man said in an extremely vulnerable and poisoned state, and not on what he did, which was to drive drunk at high speeds on a dark roadway in Malibu, California. For this is the only thing for which he is charged; it will be the only thing for which he is convicted.
I visited a website yesterday wherein the writer wrote this marvel about Mel Gibson:
The thing is, when he made this tirade, Gibson was rip-roaring drunk. In other words, remove the mask of civility that maturity and social constraints impose, and you discover that Mel Gibson is, in fact, the anti-Semite everyone thinks he is. However, that’s not where Mel Gibson wants to be in the public eye, either because he’s embarrassed by his deepest, darkest thoughts or (more likely, I think) because harboring those thoughts will affect his bottom line. [emphasis added]
My two responses to this statement can be found at the link above. But I will at least say this: do we all not have our demons? If so, how do we know that alcohol does not reveal the demon, blocking out our true selves? Why this cynical belief that the heart is revealed when a man is drunk?
Jesus Christ said, or so it is reported, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man; it is what comes out of him that defiles him." Powerful stuff. But surely Mr. Gibson was defiled by what went into him and what came out. But that does not mean what came out of him is the voice of Mr. Gibson. Moreover, Jesus' words are tough to unravel: Is it defiling for a man to stare at pornography, since that is merely something which goes into him? Is it defiling to inject heroin into the body; is it defiling to attend a hate rally? I will not answer these questions. I merely ask them so as to direct us to the possibility that Jesus' words are more complex than meets the eye.
Peace.
[Special thanks to Contratimes reader R. Sherman, who sent me the following comment yesterday about my now-deleted post. His words opened my rather narrowed vision, made so by the "dim" light of early morning posting. I share it merely so I may give him proper credit:
From a different perspective, let me say, I've seen DWI reports in Missouri, both as a prosecutor and defense counsel. Our state law mandates certain things be included in the reports and the total number of pages usually are 15 - 20.Thanks for the help, R!]
Of course, I don't know about California law, and you are correct vis a vis defendant's statements not being a part of the corpus delecti of the crime.
Nonetheless, everything normally makes it into the report, if for no other reason than to allow the officer to remember and identify the defendant if the case goes to trial.
Cheers.
P.S. I like Mel Gibson.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Mel Gibson, DUI, drunk driving, Anti-Semitism
13 comments:
Hi Bill.
You know what? Screw Mel Gibson. If he didn't make movies about Jesus and the bravery of soldiers, conservative commentators would be kicking the crap out of him right now. You yourself are being far too mild with him, presumably because you admire 'The Passion'.
I agree with you that it's cynical to assume that a man's true self in revealed by drink, but I don't think Gibson's drunken comments are all that far from what he actually believes, though I'm not sure if he's self-aware enough to realize that. I've seen a lot of drunken people say a lot of stupid things; I've done it myself, many times. But never in my life have I heard the kind of vemon that Gibson is reported to have said (and admitted to), from anyone, and I've heard a lot of drunken fools.
You probably already know this, but here goes: Mel Gibson belongs to a fundamentalist Catholic sect founded by the extremist French bishop, Marcel Lefevre, that refutes the reforms made by Vatican II. Gibson's dad, Hutton Gibson, also belongs to the sect, and denies the Holocaust.
Gibson has repeatedly said that his father "never lied to him" about anything. ANYTHING.
And remember this lovely little interview? Here:
Reader's Digest: "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?"
Mel Gibson: "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."
Uhm, excuse me? Let's look at that again: "Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
Doesn't he just make your skin crawl?
Okay, we're all imperfect. You're right that we all have our "demons". But this guy, like most Hollywood stars, is obviously dangerously detached from reality in ways that most of us don't have the luxury of being. And I guess that if he were an outspoken liberal, you'd be talking about that detachment.
His explosive anti-semitism, as included in the police report, was not the least bit surprising to me. I hope he gets raked over the coals for his ridiculous bullshit.
Sorry if this is too vitriolic, but this guy really angers me. Drunk driving I find easy to forgive; I find most errors easy to forgive, but not racism. Racism is one of the few things that really gets my blood boiling. Perhaps I should be more merciful, but I'm glad that this man has been disgraced; I think he richly deserves it, and I hope he learns something from it.
Luke
Luke the Passionate!
I cannot be certain, but there is no correlation between the conservative sect you cite and Holocaust denial. They are two different things. Moreover, there are all kinds of people who reject Vatican II; surely you are not one of those people who accept either Vatican I or II, are you? Well, there are countless others like you -- Catholic and not -- who reject the modern liturgy (and catechism) of the Catholic Church. Did you know that there is a Catholic Church in Richmond, NH (just down the road from you) that is still entirely Latinate, complete with head-coverings for women? I doubt all these folks deny the Holocaust.
Gibson's remark does not make my skin crawl at all. It is clear to me that he does not want us to forget that other people besides Jewish people died in WWII. When I say, "Holocaust", what immediately comes to mind? Millions of dead Jews, of course. But Gibson is right to point out that there is more to the word, "Holocaust" than meets the eye. I am not suggesting that European Jews were not decimated by Hitler's hatred; but I would be remiss not to point out that most people do not show the same passionate anger when I say that Stalin killed 30-40 million people or that Pol Pot killed 3 million.
Let us hurl all due disgrace upon Mr. Gibson. Let us hate him for what he is: an anti-semite born of an anti-semitic father. Let us, in fact, hold all men to account for the genes -- the vices and mental illnesses -- they've inherited from their fathers, their grandfathers.
All this plays to something I wrote about just the other day. We excuse people their many misdeeds if they do something heroic; we villify heroes if they dare do something offensive. We like to dismiss T.S. Eliot's poetry because he was an alleged anti-semite; we accept someone else's alleged anti-semitism (Jesse Jackson?) because he does good things in spite of himself. The left tells me that Bill Clinton was not a lecher; he was merely enjoying himself in private when he was disgraced by right-wing puritanicalism; and this by the same left who delights in reminding me that Christopher Hitchens is nothing but a drunk or George W. Bush is a fundamentalist.
This is bigger than I think you are permitting, Luke. This is not merely about an anti-semitic drunk. It is an attack on Catholicism, on Christianity. It is the suggestion that both -- Catholic and Protestant -- are inherently racist; it is the argument that Christianity excuses racism at every turn. It is an attack on the "Passion", which is a brilliant film. But it is even more than that: It is an attack on grace, mercy, forgiveness. It is about stoning hypocrites. It is about asserting that there exists perfect people; that there are people who are not hypocrites and they deserve the high places.
Egads, Luke. Just watch as people make generalizations about groups of people, groups like Catholics, fundamentalists, evangelicals. The media -- from films and essays and poems -- are rife with offensive stereotypes, blind to their own hate. Why is anti-semitism more offensive than other forms of racism? And if that is not the case, why does racism raise your ire more than hate founded on different bases? Hate is hate; racism is no more offensive than hating folks because they are Republicans, love NASCAR, or don't believe in global warming. Why is racism more offensive than just plain, blind hate?
Anyhow, thanks for the provocation. I do not know Mr. Gibson. I only know myself. And I know that I have demons, that they are legion.
Peace.
Gnade
Bill--
I am stunned, at times, by your ability to revise reality to fit your prejudices. No doubt you will accuse me of doing the same.
I didn't say that the sect that Gibson is a part of is all about holocaust denial. However, some of the significant reforms it rejects are those meant to ease relations with the Jewish community, and this is sometimes made to seem more significant in the light of the behavior of Gibson and his father.
Without getting into the embarassing history of religion with regards to racism and slavery, I'll just say this: the bible is racist. The moment in the OT when the descendants of Ham are damned by jehovah, makes it so. The Bible also tells slaves to obey their masters. So the very roots of biblical Christianity ARE poisoned by racism and oppression, and always will be.
Why didn't Gibson just answer 'yes' to the question asked by Reader's Digest? Why does he undermine the emphasis on Jewish deaths? He could've made the point (which any child can easily understand) that Jews are not the only people who suffer, and still given a blunt, simple answer to a simple question. Look at him dance.
Hating someone for the skin they were born in is obviously a much different thing from hating someone for voting Republican or enjoying NASCAR; hating someone for those things is pathetic, but it is, at least, in some warped way, a loathing based on a person's choices and preferences (in a word, their values), as opposed to their inherent genetic being.
But I notice that you don't point out that people hate other people for being liberals or for preaching about the environment, or for going to rock concerts. And that, my friend, is because your critique of this culture is utterly one-sided, and therefore blind in one eye. You take every opportunity to relentlessly remind us of liberal failings, and hardly ever of conservative ones. As far as I can tell, you lack the courage, or perhaps the vision, to launch a real critique of the status quo and the establishment in this country, because you are focused on going after its leftist portion. Your partisan stance undermines your natural perceptive abilities, and limits you as a writer and cultural critic. It also makes you less genuinely 'Contra times', unless the only times your blog name refers to is the NY Times.
Allow me to sigh with sadness, for a moment, over the thought of what you might accomplish if your critique was broader and less biased. And I sigh even deeper in the suspicion that this critique on my part will make no significant difference, whatsoever, in the way you view the world. Perhaps I cannot reach you; no doubt you have often felt something similar about me.
Did I call for Gibson to be put in jail? Did I say that he should be stoned to death, or even be flooded with hate mail? No. I simply revile his racism, and find it good that he is being publically humiliated for it. I also said that I hoped that he would learn from the experience, not that I hoped he would be destroyed by it.
You and I may be filled with imperfections; but I really doubt that either of us would ever launch a racist rant, no matter how drunk we were; I cannot even imagine such a thing. This, to me, puts Gibson on a lower moral rung than most people. I feel comfortable saying that I and most of the people I know well, as messed up as we are, are far less monstrous than he is at his worst. This does not mean that he deserves eternal suffering (I don't think even Hitler deserves that, I don't think any human could "deserve" such a fate). But I do think he deserves something of a kick in the ass, and I'm glad he's getting it. I know that most of those attacking him are doing so for dubious reasons; that most of his attackers are idiots, I agree. But that is all irrelevant. What's at stake here is bigger than the media.
Luke
Dearest Luke,
The reason I do not critique the (other) world you'd like me to critique is that I stand in a tradition. I do not stand in a vacuum; to do so is impossible. There are presuppositions I accept; there are things with which I agree.
However, if you cannot see that I have been particularly subversive in my views re: established Christianity, for example, then I can only say that is because you have not taken note. Moreover, I am largely at war with the left because A) the left largely controls the media, B) the left largely controls the arts. Hence, I am trying to strike a chord for a less utopian view of things; utopianism, I believe, is the prevalent trend right now. I have stated here that I am dystopic to the core; how is that not good enough for you, my dear friend? As you know, I am not an anarchist; I don't believe in attacking things for naught. True anarchists can be anything they want, and act in any way they choose; so perhaps I am an anarchist in hiding. But I deny anarchy, even decry it, because I stand for something: Christian orthodoxy.
OK. So you believe there is a distinction in "hate". I agree: it is despicable or, more aptly, it is hateable to hate something in a person for which that person has no choice; or over which a person has no power. OK. I AGREE WITH YOU. But who are you to suggest that Mel Gibson HAS A CHOICE IN BEING A RACIST? Is his alcoholism, too, a choice? How did you become his judge (and you did judge him -- harshly) in this matter? And what if the Republican has no freedom in being Republican; what of the homophobe or the NASCAR fan? Sorry if I've delved into determinism; sorry, too, if I've opened the door to a discussion of psychology, genetics, up-bringing, and all the influences over which one has little or no control. Do you have freedom to be anything other than what you are? Do I? Perhaps. But I have no idea if that freedom is available to others. Is it at all possible that Gibson has no control over his demons? Is it possible that his hate is as much a part of him as the color of my skin is part of me? Is Mel Gibson in a prison from which he cannot escape?
I did not actually state that you directly connected the sect to which Gibson belongs with Holocaust denial. But you surely came close to blending them, I believe. You wrote:
You probably already know this, but here goes: Mel Gibson belongs to a fundamentalist Catholic sect founded by the extremist French bishop, Marcel Lefevre, that refutes the reforms made by Vatican II. Gibson's dad, Hutton Gibson, also belongs to the sect, and denies the Holocaust.
Since this is a discussion about racism, why mention Gibson's relationship to this sect? How is such information relevant if you are not implying that the sect is "extremist" and somehow racist? And then, alas, you do make such a connection in your second comment. My point was actually this: that a lot of people STILL reject Vatican II, are devout Catholics, and do not under any circumstance deny the Holocaust. It was distinction I felt needed to be made.
As for my not damning those who hate liberals for being liberals, I can only say, again, that you are not paying attention. Just notice how I treat people here, Luke. I denounce hate, arrogance, self-righteousness, in all forms. And yet I know in that very denunciation I am at times hateful, proud, and very righteous. And I hate myself for it. In fact, no one can hate me more than I hate myself. But if you do not see that I try to approach everything with grace, that I try to be a gentleman to everyone, and that I am trying to turn the tables -- as a conservative -- on the leftists who presume that genius and intellectual supremacy are their birthright; well, then what DO you see about me?
Please, I don't try to "change" you; I don't need you to see things my way. I love you for your brilliance, your passion, your different perspective. At what point have I proselytized you? At what point have I expressed discontent with you for not seeing things my way? To hell with my way.
Lastly, I did not say that you thought Mr. Gibson should be arrested or stoned. However, you did say "Screw Mel Gibson"; you said you find his racism nearly unpardonable ("Drunk driving I find easy to forgive; I find most errors easy to forgive, but not racism. Racism is one of the few things that really gets my blood boiling"); you admit you were not surprised by his racist remarks, implying that you knew his rotten soul without his added drunken disclosures; you said he makes your "skin crawl" and that you are "GLAD"(!) he is disgraced; you said you believe he deserves such disgrace. OK. So you did not ask that he be stoned. I'll give you that.
As for your assertion that the Bible is racist, well, that is an assertion I will permit to go unchallenged.
Peace to you, and all grace,
BG
PS. To Luke:
You suggest that because Mel Gibson writes and directs films that favor certain conservative ideals, he is getting some sort of pass:
If he didn't make movies about Jesus and the bravery of soldiers, conservative commentators would be kicking the crap out of him right now.
How then, do you account for such alleged favoritism in light of this?
You know, to be in full agreement with the Catholic Church, a good Catholic is expected to oppose the War in Iraq. Sounds like Mel might be more submissive to the Holy See than you think. So, if Mel is critical of Bush and Co., why would conservatives then be giving him a pass?
Just some thoughts.
Peace.
BG
Bill--
As far as I know, Mel Gibson has never been a Bush supporter. I was already aware of that when I made my comments. Still, it's obvious that he is viewed favorably by many conservatives (though perhaps that won't last--I actually wouldn't be surprised if some conservative tries to connect his anti-semitism to his anti-Bush statements, with the idea that both positions stem from drunkenness and insanity.) because he does indeed "make movies about jesus and the bravery of soldiers". If this bias on their part proves to be short-lived, I think that's a good thing; he'd do well to forsake their approval.
I don't think you would be trashing him to death if he were a flaming liberal, but I also don't think you would be so quick to leap to his defense.
Do you actually think that I WANT Mel Gibson to be a terrible person? I'm glad he's seeking help from Jewish people; he has been publicly humbled, and is apparently learning from the experience. Good!
I suppose I should reveal the history of my annoyance with Mel Gibson: it started when I went to see 'Lethal Weapon 4'. The treatment of Asian people in the movie made me furious. The American action movie often relies on half-conscious racism as part of its appeal--just look at the 'Die Hard' movies--every villian HAS to have a "foreign" accent, and there is never any serious consideration of their motives; they are merely evil, and must be disposed of by a cocky all-american man in a wifebeater T-shirt. Anyway, the movie disgusted me, as most american action movies do. It showed Asian people as pitiful cartoons, mere foils for the brave and hilarious american cops who were up against their mafia (I think it was a mafia; it's hard to remember the ludicrous plots that feature in these movies). The only Gibson movie I've ever even remotely liked is 'Braveheart', but even that is not one of my favorites.
I haven't seen 'the Passion', but the reason I wasn't interested is that I think Mel Gibson's craft is generally pretty conventional; he is not an artist of cinematography in the way that Kubrick or Lynch are, and that makes me bored by his work. (However, I plan on going to see his new movie, primarily because I am interested in Mayan civilization. You see, I am not even boycotting him.)
Does this lack of appreciation for his work make me more likely to disdain him? Maybe, but I've also criticized my own favorite artists pretty sharply for what I see as indefensible mistakes (Pablo Neruda, for supporting Stalin, for example). But really, I find it hard to permanently condemn anyone even for a serious error, perhaps because I think mere condemnation is pretty boring; reality is complex enough to allow us to love, if not totally excuse, even the most greviously flawed people.
I guess I've spent my fury. But I think one of my points stands: Mel Gibson is (was?) more dangerous than the average person; most people I know simply don't spout racist tirades, no matter how drunk they are. Can't we agree that evil comes in degrees, and racism is a pretty high degree?
Luke
Bill--
I have to head off to work, in a moment, but I wanted to briefly answer some of your questions, which are intelligent.
I think that (and I may be wrong here, so bear with me!) your view of my harsh judgements comes from your religion. What I mean is, you stand in a tradition that includes the existence of a place of eternal punishment. So perhaps you take my fury at racists to be more damning than it is; I do not believe in hell, and I don't want anyone to suffer such a punishment. So my "judgements" are merely part of what I see as a moral obligation (and not necessarily a happy one) on my part--I owe it to Jewish people, and to the rest of the human race, to denounce Gibson's racism in a fiery manner, even though I myself am flawed; my flaws do not exempt me from the obligation to make that judgement.
I grew surrounded by racists and homophobes (a dumb word, but I'm not sure what to put in its place yet), and I fought them constantly, and bitterly. However, many of them were then, and remain, my friends, and many of them have also given up their racism and homophobia. I don't think I was wrong to denounce their racism furiously, at the time; I believe it contributed positively to their learning process, despite the fact that I am hardly righteous and my approach was far from perfect. So you're getting a glimpse of my personal history, here.
Also, I want to make it clear that I, too, agonize over determinist ideas; that I often acknowledge how many of the beautiful and hideous things about human beings are the result of coincidence, or genetic make-up, and how this makes our moral battles look somewhat silly. But how can we give up striving toward what we think is right, even if we seem to be moved by forces beyond our control? How much mercy can we give to racism, to homophobia, even if those characteristics are not a person's fault? And is it healthy to believe that an adult human being is nearly totally controlled by upbringing and blood? I try to believe in free will, but I wanted you to know that I share these concerns.
More on this later, I suppose...there is much to think about, here.
Luke
Here is some serious irony, in light of our debate:
"There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark."
--Mel Gibson
Bill--
I wanted to respond to this before signing off:
"I am largely at war with the left because A) the left largely controls the media, B) the left largely controls the arts..."
Well, okay. I'm at odds with the liberal portion of the establishment, too, though only from a great distance; my small group of friends and I don't even agree with each other on all that much, and we certainly don't have much intimate contact with "the left".
But here's the thing, Bill: I don't buy it. I don't think that the reasons you give for your negative focus on the left are wholly legitimate, (though I also don't think you're aware of any dishonesty in your statement).
After all, Fox News is one of the most-watched stations in the world, and conservatives dominate every branch of our government; they are even beginning to dominate the Supreme Court. Surely their dominance is part of the zeitgeist? Surely the immense popularity and influence of Fox News, and the rise to power of the Bush Administration, is part of the zeitgest, part of the "times" that you declare yourself to be "contra" to?
It's true that you've thrown a few pebbles at O'Reilly. But I still believe that you do a serious disservice to yourself and your perceptive abilities by limiting your attack. Perhaps you are afraid of making things lonelier for yourself? I have no idea. I can only speculate.
But I do know that Christianity gives you a context for even your most radical ideas, thereby making you safer. Being a Republican, even a reluctant one, also serves to help legitimatize your positions, at least among many people in this society. And though I enjoy your intellect, I can't help the nagging feeling that there would be even greater, riskier adventures waiting for you if you cast off certain forms of orthodoxy. (Notice that I haven't claimed that orthodoxy is without its adventures; but you already know that I don't think it holds the greatest adventures; otherwise I'd have chosen some form of orthodoxy myself. This is a key part of where we differ.)
And I get a little dizzy at your constant insistence that things like "the left" and "the right" even exist; do you actually see human beings carrying these labels? Do you really buy so deeply into politics?
As for your "to hell with my way!"--I love you for saying that. But how far does it go? Do you mean to tell me that you've never relished the fantasy of converting me? Should I be insulted?
I'd better say goodbye for now--I'm exhausted, and I have a feeling that my posts are about to turn into so much mindless drivel. Peace.
Luke
Luke,
How can I appease you; how can I please you, when I so thoroughly refuse to criticize what you think I should? Consider me narrow and non-conforming. I'll take that with pleasure.
Fox News may be a popular news channel; I think it might even be the Number 1 channel in CABLE news. But that does not mean it is NUMBER 1 in BROADCAST news; its numbers fall far short of the big 3. And it does not even come close to the sort of market controlled by The New York Times. Do you mention it here because you suspect it is my only source for news?
To what am I to convert you, Luke? You've repeatedly said to me that you are a Christian. You've even said that you've given your life to Christ. But my point was not that I think my view is damnable, but that YOU should damn it. For all I DON'T say, for what I don't critique and slam and berate should not concern you one whit; it should not be a stumbling block for you at all. Why do you care about what I don't do? I can't criticize everything, Luke. I can't confront ALL of the zeitgeist. I can only confront what I feel called -- or feel able -- to confront. I am not a superhero; nor have I ever boasted that I was taking on the world. I am confronting the spirit of the age; a spirit which changes with the age. And the spirit that is predominant right now is a utopian one; and, in some places, a nihilistic one. I try to confront both of these spirits at the same time -- though I believe they are really the same spirit -- and I try to render them foolish.
Yes, of course I believe in labels. I believe in them because I believe in words. And just like I know that every word falls short of all I mean -- serving, as all words do, as shorthand for everything I'd like to express -- I also know that labels fall short. But they do EXPEDITE things; they do make things easier for discourse. And as for your assertion that "conservatives" dominate the three branches of government, well, that is patently absurd, and a perfect example of a label used poorly. For it might be the case that Republicans control the three branches of government right now, but there is nothing conservative about many, if not most, of the Republicans in power. Surely you are conflating what you do not mean to conflate.
You are right: there would be riskier adventures if I tossed off "certain forms" of orthodoxy. There would even be riskier adventures if I'd stop breathing or stopped driving with my eyes open. But I am not interested in such adventures; they are tedious and easy. What is hard is to haul the gear, and oneself, up the cliff with rope and anchor. What is easy is to simply let go of the cliff. Neither choice is equally adventurous. But one, I am sure, is much more thrilling.
Good night.
BG
Bill--
This requires a response, I suppose:
"To what am I to convert you, Luke? You've repeatedly said to me that you are a Christian. You've even said that you've given your life to Christ."
This actually infuriates me. I made those comments to you over THREE YEARS AGO in the midst of a very serious nervous breakdown when I was homeless and trembling with physical exhaustion. The fact that you have held onto these statements made by me at a time when I was obviously mentally unstable does not exactly deepen my trust in you. What's more, I know full well that I have already explained this to you in detail through previous e-mail exhanges, which very seriously suggests that you are being manipulative by bringing it up again. And how could anyone reading my posts on this site suspect me of being a christian? Have I given the slightest sign of a christian agenda? But since we're in front of an audience here, I'll do it again:
No, I am NOT a christian. Not even a liberal christian, not even a unitarian half-assed sorta-christian. I no longer even have any special place in my heart for the teachings of christ, though I find a few of them useful. I have no intention of ever "giving my life" to christ. The very phrase makes me ill. That does not mean that you, as a follower of christ, make me ill. It is simply my personal feeling.
And here's a potentially revealing comment on your part:
"You are right: there would be riskier adventures if I tossed off "certain forms" of orthodoxy. There would even be riskier adventures if I'd stop breathing or stopped driving with my eyes open."
Is this what you think the UNORTHODOX are doing? Are you saying that you would be suicidal if you let go of orthodoxy, or that others are suicidal for doing so? Both?
Finally, why the hell shouldn't I try to broaden your critique? It's fun! At least it's supposed to be. You can do whatever you want; I have no control over you, nor would I want any. I enjoy your posts, but I also enjoy provoking you; what's wrong with that? You do the same for me, and I do not resent it.
What on earth are you defending?
Luke
So then, Luke, at what point, anywhere, in any of these comments, have I offered you advise, or told you what you should do, think; or what you should do to be consistent or more balanced? Which of us, in these comments threads, is the one trying to change the other?
My friend, did I say that being unorthodox was equal to suicide? For me, orthodoxy is my very breath; it is my rope and anchor. I was suggesting that risk and adventure are in the eye of the beholder: to you unorthodoxy -- whatever that may be -- is more vital than orthodoxy, and thus, all the more adventurous. But I find throwing off some aspects of orthodoxy, as YOU urged ME to do, rather tedious and humdrum: orthodoxy IS the adventure, Luke. Anything else is not really adventure at all; anything else is at best a bother, at worst, a really bad bother. In the history of things, I believe, Christian orthodoxy is the newest and coolest thing; it is not some old tired junker in the back lot. Rather, everything else is the old stuff. Tossing off the shackles of orthodoxy as some (may) do is neither new nor creative; nor is it remotely original. There is nothing new in rebellion; there is nothing new in forging one's own path. All that stuff has been tried over and over and over again. Orthodoxy is the wheel; everything that is not orthodoxy is the rut.
See, I guess I could say that I am a bit perturbed here. You begin this whole conversation by insinuating that you knew -- before his drunken outburst -- that Mel Gibson was an anti-semite who deserves his shame. That's fine. But in the midst of that you suggest that he was a Holocaust denier: you cite his father, Gibson's sect, and a quote pulled from an interview, a quote that, to you, implies Gibson is indeed such a denier: his round-about answer made (someone's) "skin crawl."
But when I show in a quick series of links that Gibson may be an anti-semite but is clearly NOT a Holocaust denier; when it is clear that ABC recently discontinued a relationship with him over a planned mini-series on the Holocaust (one would be too credulous to think ABC was about to deny the Holocaust); in short, when I make it clear, or as clear as I can with the info at my fingertips, that you are wrong, what do I get? Nothing other than that you believe I "revise reality" so to make it "fit [my] prejudices."
Moreover, you come here, freely, to tell me that I "lack courage", that I am "blinded", lacking "vision". Plus you write:
"I sigh even deeper in the suspicion that this critique on my part will make no significant difference, whatsoever, in the way you view the world. Perhaps I cannot reach you ..." Truly, Luke, with what do you presume to reach me? What "significant difference" are you trying to make in ME? And then you have the temerity to ask a question, based, apparently, on our relationship OUTSIDE this blog: "Do you mean to tell me that you've never relished the fantasy of converting me?" [my emphasis]
And when I cite two Jewish conservatives, neither of whom gives Gibson a "pass", but are mercifully critical of him; when these citations show that you are wrong again, that "conservatives" would indeed be beating up on Gibson (who is not a political conservative, it appears) if he didn't make films with conservative themes, I get not one hint that you might have overstated all, or even part, of your case against him.
Instead, what I ultimately get is a series of replies on why MY manner and religion are deficient; about why my aim is off; about why I am part of the zeitgeist and therefore part of the very problems I critique. You suggest that I have a secret and fantastic desire to convert you (if so, surely I have not attempted to do so anywhere on-line, at the very least); all finally leading you to ask what I, in fact, actually defend.
Look, I don't mind your words; I don't mind your riffs and jams and improvs; I don't mind you coming here and saying whatever you want to say (though asterisks are not a bad idea). I actually relish all that. But I sort of DO mind you taking a discussion about Mel Gibson and turning it into a discussion about me. I have not strayed off topic; I have not anywhere, as you claim, defended Mr. Gibson. I have been right here, on task, politely handling your every thrust and parry. OK, Luke! Touché!
Let me stand by one thing: I am not about to chide, rebuke, damn, mock, denounce a man who says things in a DRUNKEN state; I am not going to applaud the shame that follows in his alcoholic wake. I am not going to curse a man whose father -- a man his son dearly loves -- is an anti-semite. I am not going to ignore all the confusion associated with being a child of such a father; I am not going to ignore all the complexities associated with a child yearning for his father's approval, even, at times, when that boy (perhaps) imitates his dad in order to vicariously feel some sort of acceptance, some sort of tenuous connection, no matter how false or fleeting that acceptance and connection are. In short, I am not going to kick a man when he is down. You, clearly, want me to do this, or else you would not have brought up the liberals I apparently kick around "relentlessly" as some sort of proof of my glaring double standard.
Well, I stand by this with pride.
(You may have the last word on this, my friend.)
Peace.
BG
PS. Let us assume that Contratimes means orthopedic surgeon and that Zeitgeist refers to cancer. Now, is your critique of me based on the idea that I perform surgery to remove cancer from bones but not from brains or livers? Does it offend you that I am not a surgeon qualified to remove tumors from every part, even most parts, of the human body?
Bill
First off, when I said: "Do you mean to tell me you've never relished the fantasy of converting me?" I said it as a light-hearted jest.
But on second thought, since part of every orthodox Christian's mission is, according to that religion, to convert as many people as possible, it is hard for me to imagine that I, as a fellow human soul, am not included in that mission. Maybe you feel that attempting to convert me would make my conversion even less likely than it already is?
I think you are fully qualified, and capable, of launching an intelligent critique on, for example, the Bush Administration. I enjoy your sarcastic brilliance when you are debunking the NYTimes, Al Gore, or Michael Moore, and many other liberal-leaning things; I also agree with most of what you say on those topics. I think you would rather not apply the same tough standard to Bush, or to most conservative commentators, as you do to these liberal entities. I think you don't want to let go of the last thread that holds you to power, to the establishment-; that you'd rather, to some extent, be a party man, for the protection and admiration that that affords you-and it's very possible that I am wrong. Maybe you adore the Bush Administration, the Republican Party in general, and the commentators who support it, more than I think you do. As for why I should take an interest in such things: I care because I think you're very perceptive--and since there are so few sharp people out there, those of us with intelligence should broaden our critiques as much as possible.
peas
Luke
PS--I've now admitted, on another thread, that my attempt to use the Gibson incident as a vehicle for calling you out was misguided on my part. I have exposed myself as a man with a hot temper, and allowed that temper to skew my judgement. I apologize. I could have found a more elegant way to ask my questions and make my points.
PSS--It's very gracious of you to give me the last word, but I don't WANT the last word, on anything, no matter how vehement my opinions.
Post a Comment