Re: Mel Gibson: I want to point readers to the following incisive article written by a conservative Jewish man who publicly supported Mr. Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ." It is a very revealing piece, showing us that Mr. Gibson is not getting a pass by conservatives for being an anti-semitic alcoholic (as has been suggested in a recent comments thread at Contratimes). Let me assure everyone that Mr. Gibson has not gotten a pass with me. But I will offer Mr. Gibson exactly what I try to offer everyone else here: cupfuls of grace and baskets full of mercy.
There are indeed conservatives, like myself, who are not glad that Mel Gibson is finally getting his stripes and lashes for bigotry. Instead, we are sad that he is anti-semitic; we grieve for him (and others like him). This is not a laughing, cheering or high-fiving matter. This is news that is profoundly sad and disappointing. And it is also news demanding -- like so many things -- profound grace. This is not the sort of time for gloating.
Please read Don Feder's essay at the conservative website, Frontpagemag. com. You can find "Mel Gibson Unplugged" right here.
Let me know what you think.
UPDATE: According to Fox News, Mel Gibson has reached out to the Jewish community for help regarding his acid tongue and alcoholism. How, I wonder, shall that be received?
Pace. BG
8 comments:
The arresting deputy sounds like a class act to me. Perhaps others will follow his lead.
I agree with you, Mike, though my initial (deleted) post would reveal that I thought quite badly of the deputy. It is foolish that I should have jumped to such conclusions.
Peace.
BG
It is indeed sad that the man is anti-semitic, but it's probably sadder that he's an out-of-control drunk. His being a famous entertainer wouldn't make a lot of difference if our culture didn't impute demigod status to celebrities. That's the sadder part in my mind: that it matters more that an actor is anti-semitic than that, say, the guy behind the counter and Wendy's. Mercy is indeed in order. The difference about Mr. Gibson from others with sin in their hearts is that he got smashed and actually expressed it. And now's he's repented. That's huge whoever you are.
Bill--
If you really want to see something acidic on this topic, read Christopher Hitchen's latest here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146880/nav/tap1/
This comment by Milton Stanley: "...the sadder part in my mind: that it matters more that an actor is anti-semitic than that say, the guy behind the counter at Wendy's"--is absolutely true.
I would like to point something out, though: Gibson's blood-alcohol level was .12, according to his breathalyzer (I have no idea if I spelled that right). Until recent years, the threshold for DUI in most states was .10. A .12 is not exactly astronomical, but Gibson, judging by his recent statements, wants everyone to believe he was trashed out of his mind.
And I would like to point out that Al Gore (I'm not a Gore fan, by the way) receives less "mercy" on this blog for making a film about his take on global warming than Gibson does for saying "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." I find that utterly absurd.
However, I did find your response to the guy positing Gibson's drunken state as his true self (at 'Bookworm Room') brilliant and true.
peace!
Luke
Luke,
I thank you for the link. I will look at it soon.
What do you want from me, Luke? And how many times do we have to go through this? Why do you always circle back to the same topics? Have we not had these very same conversations before -- last year? And, in a separate comment, you bring up hell -- again -- as if this has not been specifically and effectively addressed by me in my direct responses to you. OK. So you are an incredibly merciful and tender man, more tender than a Christian God who would send -- unlike you -- people to the hell they choose. You have shared your moral excellence on this point too many times, I think, for it to have any other effect on me than to make me feel rather cross.
You are asking me to condemn a man who spouts out junk when he is clearly in crisis. I will not do this. Nor will I damn a drug-addled anti-semite who is making no attempt to rule the world. Al Gore, on the other hand, is trying to rule the world. And what he says he says while completely sober. If Gore spouts crap when straight, and if wine truly sets the spirit free, then I might suspect that he spouts some tremendous crap while drunk. But I do not damn Gore either. I simply criticize him.
You assume that when Mel Gibson's BAC was tested, he was merely indulging in alcohol. A .12 BAC late at night, had the alcohol been combined with other things, can easily mean one's plastered. I am surprised you did not consider this. But the audiotapes will eventually be made public, and we'll then see whether Gibson is overstating his condition.
What should I think of David Horowitz, a Jew and a political conservative (he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage), who believes that Gibson is a man who is profoundly down; who believes that "The Passion" was not anti-semitic; who stated tonight on TV that he is less afraid of Mel Gibson's alleged anti-semitism than he is of Jimmy Carter, who's constant criticism of Israel suggests that Carter believes Israel is indeed responsible for all the wars of the world? All kinds of people say awful things about Israel every day; why should I fixate on Mel Gibson (to whom you keep asserting I've given a pass, when I have done no such thing) who says drunken absurdities when we've got too many folks actually trying to fix policy against Israelis? And why should I do anything other than David Horowitz is doing, who intends to wait until Gibson is out of rehab before he determines Gibson's contrition and the seriousness of his apology?
Peace.
BG
Bill--
Since you are basically calling me arrogantly self-righteous in front of your readers, I think I should re-post what I actually said:
"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 stand by it.
Luke
Luke,
You raise a very interesting point here. In a different though related comments thread at Contratimes you suggest that "tossing off" some aspects of orthodoxy can be quite adventurous, perhaps even liberating. Let me ask, if you do not believe that even Hitler merits hell, then on what basis do you presume to argue that Mel Gibson deserves shame? If there is no hell, if you are a universalist (in the sense that all will find bliss in some sort of after life), then why should we hold Mr. Gibson to account if he is indeed free of any sort of lasting guilt? And if you believe in a nihilistic sort of universalism, that after life there is nothing (nothingness is both source and end), then why should we care whether Gibson is an anti-semite? If everything is nothing, why care about hate?
I mean, if there is really no hell, then Jews will party in the afterlife with Hitler and with Gibson -- right? -- assuming, of course, nihilism is not real? Why take umbrage with Hitler if he of all anti-semites is not damnable forever? At what degree does his hatred become intolerable; what is the cutoff point between various degrees of THIS WORLDLY censure of hatred? I mean, when should I take Hitler seriously and when should I take Andrew Dice Clay seriously? Or should I not take either of them seriously at all? And can I ever think an act or even a person is worth eternal damnation? But if there is no eternal damnation -- if something or someone is never so bad as to be deemed so forever -- then what do good and bad even mean; what is justice? And if Mel Gibson's guilt and punishment are not eternal but temporary, how long should his guilt and punishment last? Who decides? And if it lasts, let's say, ten years, why should we not say that it might as well just last two seconds since at some point in the next ten years there will be only "two seconds" left of his guilt and punishment? What does time have to do with it?
Just wondering.
Peace.
BG
These are very good questions, Bill. And I enjoy dealing with them, so thank you for asking. Perhaps you will find my answers inept, or even vapid, but I'll have to risk that. Here goes:
"...if you are a universalist (in the sense that all will find bliss in some sort of after life..."
I'll treat this as a question. And my answer is: no. I don't believe anything about the afterlife. I don't believe in heaven, in hell, in purgatory, in nirvana. I don't disbelieve in them, either. I don't know any more about the afterlife than you do. None of us know if any sort of afterlife exists. I feel childish stating these things, but I'm not sure how else to make myself clear.
How could I possibly form real beliefs about the afterlife? And what purpose could those beliefs possibly serve? I think that to do so, especially as a writer who spreads my beliefs around, would be irresponsible. When I said I didn't believe in hell, I was telling the truth: I don't. I didn't say that I can prove it doesn't exist. I don't have a clue.
However, I must admit that the idea of every creature finding bliss immediately after life fills me with giddiness. Doesn't the idea make you happy? Perhaps we should all believe that we are all going to heaven together. I will try to believe that, from now on. Why not?
As for Mel Gibson: if I hadn't visited your site, I wouldn't know about the Gibson incident. None of my other friends are talking about it, and since I don't watch TV, listen to the radio, or read the newspaper, I wouldn't have heard about it unless I'd visited you here. I point this out because I want you to know that my hotheaded, somewhat bombastic reaction was the result of viewing the information for the first time. I warned from the beginning that racism is one of my pet peeves, and expressed at least slight misgivings over my own fury. I see now that my misgivings were justified. It was utterly stupid of me to use Mel Gibson's freak-out as a device to talk about other, more important things. It was even stupider to use it as a vehicle for venting my gripes with what I see as partisanship on your part.
Now that I've cooled down, I can take a bit more time to articulate myself.
Obviously, Mel Gibson is already suffering, along with the rest of us. On reflection, I feel bad for him. Nobody could say the things he said, drunk or sober, if they weren't suffering; and I'm sure that much of his suffering is not his own fault; after all, he didn't ask to be born in the first place. His humiliation, his exposure, is a continuation of the punishment that, for whatever reason, he inflicts on himself, probably in imitation of others who inflicted punishment upon him previously.
Hitler didn't have a very happy existence, either. So both of them have already been punished for their misdeeds and, in fact, they were punished before they comitted any misdeeds: the outside world punished them simply for being born the moment they were squirted into it, and they took care of the rest quite neatly.
Who would profit by further punishment, whether here or in some (quite possibly fictional) afterlife? Will the pain of the Jews Hitler tormented be solved by sending him (or even allowing him to send himself) to an eternal suffering from which he cannot escape? Will the events of the past be erased by that suffering? And who would choose hell, if they were given a real choice? Nobody has ever been presented with such a choice, except by theological speculators, and to me, that kind of speculation doesn't count. "We are blind and live our blind lives out in blindness" as William Carlos Williams said.
If you are really an orthodox christian, then you must at least admit the possibility, according to your faith, that many, perhaps even a majority, of the Jews that Hitler tormented are even now suffering in eternal torment for not accepting Christ as their savior. For christianity does not posit the existence of an afterlife in which people who do good things are rewarded and people who do bad things are punished. It puts a different (and I believe equally idiotic) kind of simplicity forth: that those who repent and put their faith and their best efforts in the service of Jesus will find everlasting life, even if they did so sincerely at the end of their existence, while those who do not will suffer eternally. So if Hitler had a moment to repent (and perhaps he did; none of us know for sure), he could very well be in heaven now; that possibility is put forth by your faith, not mine. I have no faith!
As to your question: "what does time have to do with it?"
I am a human being, Bill. Time has everything to do with it. Who wouldn't take ten minutes of torment over ten years, given the chance?
Since, as I've already stated, I don't have any beliefs about the afterlife (and I am really curious as to how exactly people form such beliefs), I don't "believe" that after life is "nothing", as you say.
But I have considered the possibility. And here's what I think: I would like to promote a human future: in other words, a future for mortal creatures, since their existence is something I CAN substantiate. I would like a future to contribute to. Since I can never in my life substantiate any convictions whatsoever about an afterlife, I would like to simply contribute something wonderful (and I know I often fail in that effort) to the here and now, cross my fingers, and hope that it goes down in history; if not, at least I contributed to my time and place. I would like to believe that even if the sun burns out, and the stars fall from the sky (as they will someday), that human beings will be all over the galaxy, exploring it in their spaceships, able to survive elsewhere, visiting incredible other worlds, terraforming, finding new methods of propulsion; these things may actually be possible, and can be striven toward in practical ways. I cannot strive with any sincerity toward what I do not see; for what I do see absolutely thrills me, and IS worth striving for. There is a universe worth keeping right here; and if even the very fabric of that universe collapses, I hope I will have done my part to keep it.
You may say that this is a faith. I would say it is a a rational, selfish hope, based on experience. The greatest tragedy I can imagine is a future in which people no longer exist on this mortal plane.
If there is to be a human future, I hope you and I experience it together. If there is an afterlife, I hope you and I can enjoy it together. But I find myself able to strive for only one of those goals; I can imagine the other, but not believe in it.
Peace
Luke
Post a Comment