Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Mel....

Postby Dreams End » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:34 pm

Puhleeeeeze....<br><br>First off, I dont' accept the Gospels as an historical account...just have a look at the two Genealogies of Jesus if you disagree. Slightly different...<br><br>This shouldn't bother Christians too much as no one writing the Gospels for historical accuracy. They were trying to figure out what just happened...who was that guy we were following. And we've discussed elsewhere how the current Gospels were selected and shaped by subsequent politically oriented councils, etc. <br><br>And Starman Skye does point out that crucificixion was a Roman practice. In the film, naturally, it was a bunch of scheming (and very semitic looking) Jews who manipulated the hapless Romans (Pax Romana, dontcha know) into killing Jesus...<br><br>Since those days, Christians have often wanted to blame Jews collectively for this event. Somehow, Italians escape criticism. How ironic, of course, that the Holy See is in Italy and is, in structure and some would say other ways, a continuation of the Roman Empire itself.<br><br>Gibson shot a scene, not included in the film...and one based on the Gospels, where the Jews wail and gnash their teeth as they proclaim "his blood will be upon us and our children." Gibson's brother told him he was a wimp for leaving it out.<br><br>Hey, it's biblical...nevermind the implications of THAT gem of scripture. it's in Matthew, by the way. <br><br>So, some of us suspected this movie of having a pretty blatant (though traditional) anti-Jewish message. And here comes Gibson with his drunken rant. (He has since apoligized for his "abbhorent statements" but I couldn't find if he mentioned specifically what they were.) So all his protests about how it's all "historical" (Hey, it's in Aramaic and Latin...gotta be accurate) and how he loves the Jews he works with in Hollywood (how's that for a sligh little dig) ring a little false now. But, you know, it was all a set-up to keep the Christian message marginalized in this country where Christians are persecuted (when not busy running the Executive Branch and counting up their billions from televangelism empires.) <br><br>Gibson and his dad are part of a Traditionalist Catholic group and even in that fringe group, they represent a fringe. Oh...and by the way, there weren't that many Jews killed in the holocaust...see, most of them moved to Brooklyn. <br><br>Even the "historical accuracy" bit is a con...the details are based on the visions of a nineteenth century mystic...well, maybe she really could go back in time and did witness these things...I'm thinking...no.<br><br>I feel very bad for Catholics right now. What a false dichotomy...acceptance of the current state of the Church or the viewpoint of those like Gibson. Listen, just ignore Gibson and go find a library with lots of Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day books and you'll be fine. Especially Merton if you wonder how to combine mysticism (lost in Protestantism almost entirely) with a social gospel that suggests that Jesus calls us to more than just a "personal relationship" with him..but tells us we should get off our asses (inside biblical joke) and go feed the hungry or something.<br><br>Anyway, I found several references yesterday on all this but didn't look too deeply. Interesting that I ha<br>d just noted that Sinead O'Connor had also joined such a movement...no idea if they are related.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>For Gibson is a passionate member of the Catholic Traditionalist movement, a minority (but growing) Catholic sect that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council in 1964-65 - in particular the abolition of the Latin Mass. The Passion is nothing short of a party political broadcast for this movement, if only in the crude way Gibson's earlier Braveheart was propaganda for the SNP.<br><br>How influential is this Traditionalist movement, and what might it do with a multi-million-dollar war chest from Gibson? The publicity surrounding The Passion has fed all sorts rumours - particularly of an anti-semitic nature. Much of this has been provoked by the increasingly bizarre public comments of Gibson's 85-year-old father, Hutton. Gibson senior is a self-confessed anti-semite and Holocaust denier. In one recent radio interview, he claimed there were no Nazi extermination camps: "They [the Jews] simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles."<br><br>He went on to claim: "They're after one world religion and one world government. That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine."<br><br>Gibson senior belongs to the extreme fringe of the Catholic Traditionalist movement which has gone so far as claiming that the Church in Rome has been taken over by a weird coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan. However such conspiracy theories are not representative of the Traditionalist movement as a whole.<br><br>Nor, it seems, Mel Gibson himself. He organised a private screening of The Passion at the Vatican - not something you'd happily do if you thought it was occupied by the Devil himself. However Gibson junior has maintained a discrete silence regarding his father's racism. This may be down to filial loyalty but it has had the result of tarring him and the movie with his father's nasty brush.<br><br>The Catholic Traditionalist movement is not a monolithic body, organisationally or doctrinally. Nor is it that big: of America's 63 million Catholics, estimates of the number of Traditionalists vary between a low of 50,000 and a high of 100,000. They worship in some 600 chapels across the States, many of which are independent congregations. Traditionalists also refrain from eating meat on Fridays and women wear hats in church. Leaving aside the X-Files lunatic fringe, most Traditionalists are just ultra-orthodox Catholics. They vary between those who see the Vatican reforms as the work of foolish liberals who will eventually see the error of their ways, and a more conservative wing which sees the Vatican as genuine heretics.<br><br>Some of the Traditionalist breakaway groups have ordained their own bishops, which makes them schismatics in the eyes of Rome. One tiny group in Kansas has even elected its own Pope Michael. But most Traditionalists say they still "respect" the Pontiff in Rome and only disobey him because he leads a Church that has strayed from revealed truth. In return, the Vatican has tried to keep open the door to Traditionalists by relenting and allowing the Latin Mass to be used if the local bishop agrees.<br><br>The biggest of all the splinter Traditionalist groups is the Society of St Pius X, formed as far back as 1970. Its original aim was to train seminarians to keep alive the Tridentine Mass after it was replaced by the new liturgy after Vatican II. Originally the Society was unofficially tolerated by the Vatican. Only when the Society's founder, the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained his own bishops without papal permission in 1988, did the Vatican declare that he had committed a schismatic act incurring automatic excommunication. However, in the wake of numerous sex scandals in the mainstream Catholic Church, the Society of St Pius has attracted a growing number of adherents - it claims 20,000 members in the US. The Society is an ultra-orthodox Catholic movement which rejects ecumenism.<br><br>Mel Gibson is widely known in Traditionalist circles and has never made a secret of his religious beliefs: "I go to an all-pre-Vatican II Latin Mass," he told the USA Today newspaper two years ago. "There was a lot of talk, particularly in the Sixties, of 'wow, we've got to change with the times'. But the Creator instituted something very specific, and we can't just go change it."<br><br>Gibson does not belong to any of the larger Traditionalist groupings, but to an independent congregation, with some 70 members, called the Holy Family. Originally, most of the congregation attended Mass at another chapel which was then taken over by the Society of St Pius X. Gibson and others left in protest though the reasons for the split are obscure. Gibson then came up with $2.8 million to build and maintain a new Mission-style church complex in a little valley in the mountains north-west of Los Angeles, near Malibu Beach. According to public financial records, Gibson is its chief executive officer and its sole benefactor.<br><br>Is there anything to be feared from the Catholic Traditionalists, who are normally ultra-right-wing in their politics? Yes, says Professor Michael Cuneo, who studied their activities in his 1997 book, The Smoke of Satan. He thinks the Traditionalists "would like nothing more than to be transported back to Louis XIV's France or Franco's Spain, where Catholicism enjoyed an unrivalled presidency over cultural life and other religions existed entirely at its beneficence".<br><br>This prospect seems unlikely in Protestant America where the Christian Fundamentalists number in the millions. But the political importance of the Traditionalists, and especially of Mel Gibson's propaganda movie, lies in the impact they might yet have on those 63 million mainstream US Catholics - the largest religious group in America. These Catholics are now deeply disenchanted with a clergy discredited by a host of sex scandals in recent years. Only last month, an official Catholic review board reported finding more than 10,000 cases of assault on minors by priests from 1950 to 2002.<br><br>Many liberal Catholics are leaving the Church in despair. On the other hand, Gibson's movie is acting as a rallying point for many conservative Catholics inside and outside the Church. For instance, the Vatican official charged with bringing Traditionalist dissidents back into the fold, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, declared after viewing The Passion that it was "a triumph of art and faith" that would bring people "closer to God".<br><br>Part of the appeal of the movie to conservative Catholics in America (and elsewhere) is its source material. Overlooked in much of the criticism of The Passion is the fact that it is not actually based on the Gospels so much as on the visions of a forgotten 19th century mystic and stigmatic, Anne Catherine Emmerich. She claimed to have the gift of being transported back in time, which enabled her to supply details missing from the biblical accounts of the Passion. These were then written down and published in several best-sellers by the German poet Clemens Brentano. Very probably, Brentano embellished her account. For example, in the Gospels, Jesus is shown praying in Gethsemane, but the Devil is not mentioned. But in Emmerich's visions, the Devil tempts Jesus as he prays. In Gibson's movie, the Devil also tempts Jesus in Gethsemane.<br><br>The Passion is really about a return to a mystical, non-rational idea of religion, where life's uncertainties can be avoided. It is a counter-revolution against ecumenism and against the attempt by Christians of all denominations to grapple with the moral complexities of modern life, and how to live with those of other faiths and none. That, rather than anti-semitism, is its message. But for many, such a retreat into the Middle Ages is only possible on celluloid or, if you can afford it, a mountain in Malibu.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general645.html">link (it's a Rick Ross reprint that left out some lines at the beginning.)</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Mel....

Postby bvonahsen » Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:50 pm

Roman Catholicism is a BDSM fetish, pedo run cult. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Postby StarmanSkye » Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:06 pm

Wolfmoon Lady sed:<br>"If that doesn't make sense, it's okay. I don't really care why."<br><br>****<br>Hey, s'cool. <br>Thanks for yer genuine and gracious reply.<br>Sometimes we just say stuff that isn't well thought out. Glad to see your sensitivity and critical focus are still in fine working order. Rather thought they were, which is why the crucifixion quip seemed so grossly untypical.<br><br>In otherwise:<br>'Interesting' suggestion via prison planet that Mel might have been set-up;<br><br>Or else, as an argumentative raging fool he "just" lost his cool.<br>But drunk driving IMO IS, frankly, unacceptable. Esp. reckless DUI.<br>NOT cool at all. One of my issue 'buttons'.<br>A sign of boorish disrespect for others, immaturity via lack of care and consideration, poor self-esteem and devoid of self-discipline.<br><br>Who knows what inner demons plague the glittering social 'stars', what 'price' of stardom, emotional stress, lack of privacy, being held to impossible standards, harrassed and under pressure to keep topping one's past accomplishments, being manipulated and glad-handed by social-climbing parasites, the challenge of graciously accomodating the burden of success while dodging the prying microscope of a fickle, bloodthirsty celebrity press that preys on the vagaries of status and contrived outraged spectacle in order to amuse and titilate the jaded pallete of their stay-at-home vicariously-living audience, etc.<br><br>Surely Mel can swing the expense of a bodyguard/chauffer, eh?<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:41 pm

Thanks Starman. You're a true gent. Always have been, at least to me.<br><br>I'm still feeling out of it from yesterday. I was out in the heat running multiple errands, in a car with no air-conditioning. Horrible. I was lucky to make it home without crashing.<br><br>We're in for a week-long heatwave here in the Northeast and I was out getting supplies to keep myself, my roommate, and our two cats going until it breaks. We've got a/c in our upstairs bedrooms, but the downstairs part of the condo is built wide-open, and it's difficult to close off one area for the existing 8500 btu wall unit. It keeps overheating and we're using fans to push the air around. Neither of us wants to stay in our respective bedrooms when we're off work. It's the inverse of wintertime cabin-fever. Not to mention, the cats are ill, and we monitoring them closely. One is vomiting and the other is drinking so much water she cannot make to the litter box down in the enclosed garage area. We're constantly mopping up after her peeing accidents. Last night, we were able to keep the living area pretty cool, though, and the cats are little more comfortable today.<br><br>Overall, we're thankful to have electricity. Here's hoping the power doesn't go out this week as the temperatures climb into the high 90s. Wednesday, we're due to break 100 degrees, which CT hasn't seen since 2001. I realize that many across the US have it far worse. It's bad out there. Food prices are already going up. Not good.<br><br>About yesterday:<br><br>After I read the article on Gibson's DUI, I started thinking about Pat Robertson's call to assasinate Hugo Chavez and how Ann Coulter wants to 'kill' liberals. I thought about the abortion doctor hit list, and all the ugly rest of it. All of what these people do and say is just fine because they are 'good Christian' Republicans who support Bush. I was angry that these people can hide behind their so-called faith and say/do anything. Mel bore the brunt of my long-simmering anger, unfortunately.<br> <br>The controversy surrounding Passion is about whether the film exhibits anti-Semitic subtexts due to Gibson's personally held anti-Semitic viewpoints, which the ADL contends.<br><br>I don't know if his film is intentionally anti-Semitic, and have no way of proving whether Gibson's remarks, while under the influence, betrayed his true feelings about Jews (in vino veritas, as it were). If so, it's not up to me to judge him. Gibson's personal beliefs are his own, and NOMB. He's the one who has to face his God and reckon it all out. Not me.<br><br>Further, I'm well acquainted with the insidious nature of alcoholism. I'm thankful every day that my father has been sober for 30 years and my older brother, for 20. It is a destructive illness. Every single family member suffers.<br><br>In the end, this whole thing is a prime example of how the media profits by stirring up the culture war cauldron. The 'us' vs 'them' dichotomy is divisive, and serves the few, not the many.<br> <br>*DE - I just saw your post. Good luck with it, dude. I'm trying to save energy (in more ways than one) but, later on, I'll read what you have to say with an open mind. I'd like to know more about the sect that Mel Gibson belongs to.<br><br>Also, I'm interested in reading viewpoints that address the Gospels as LITERATURE WRITTEN BY MEN and, therefore, open to interpretation. None of us were there, after all! I've said before that I do not agree with fundamentalist, literal interpretations of holy books (some call it traditionalism) because belief systems built around them are exclusionary. When you have an overcrowded planet full of polarized people, that mindset becomes dangerous and threatens the greater good. The closer we get toward a common, shared system of beliefs, the better, imho. It may be Pollyanna-ish, but I think it's a survival strategy worth considering.<br><br>Well, time to log off. Sorry if this was post was all over the place. I tried to get in everything I could in one lump. <p></p><i></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Postby havanagilla » Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:01 pm

thanks DE, interesting info. seems like "the plan" to radicalize the old religions is working. <br><br>As for antisemitic comments under the influence. I had one of those experiences in the USA, with a friend (who was a non jew, german in fact) who hosted a nice party at his pasadena condo. he had a few too many, and said that jews were biologically screwed up, or something (he is a biologist/nueroscientist in caltech). I threw my wine glass at him, missed him, and hit an antique cupboard. Now, over ten years later, i think he was just drunk, and that this wasn't the "truth" coming out. He was a racist by his upbringing, but in fact as an adult he was self made, and developed a very deep awareness of his family and background, and in fact was the most cross-cultural person I ever knew, and his analyst of years, was a jew of israeli origins. I think this is overblown, but as a celeb, Mel Gibson (nicest ass in town, 20 years ago) proved to be not so mature or responsible as he is trying to present himself. he never appeared as the sharpest tool in the box anyway. <p></p><i></i>
havanagilla
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Postby bkkexile » Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:23 pm

"Roman Catholicism is a BDSM fetish, pedo run cult."<br><br>[w]hat is a thousand-year Reich compared to the eternity of Zion?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
bkkexile
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Genealogies and anti-semitism

Postby rothbardian » Sun Jul 30, 2006 11:07 pm

In fairness to 'bvonahsen', I understand his disgust with the Catholic church but...even though I am not Catholic, I would hasten to point out that it has been set up identically to a secret society (in my opinion):<br><br>Vast numbers of Catholic parishioners and clergy are well-meaning and devout. But they are unaware of a huge evil core inside the organization. I think that's the more accurate way of looking at it. Anyway...<br><br>A comment on DreamsEnd's comments--<br><br>I certainly get my gander up a little when people breezily dismiss the historicity of the Bible as though it's an automatic given ("a small child could see through the Bible's fabrications." <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Oh really?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->)<br><br>I'm not sure what the 'issue' is in some people's thinking, regarding these two genealogies-- quite simply, one related to Mary and the other to Joseph. In Eastern culture (particularly at that time) the name of the mother in her genealogical listing, would be replaced by the name of the father, even though it was Mary's genealogy.<br><br>In any case, you can't have your cake and eat it too-- if the whole objective of the Bible writers was supposedly to slip a sneaky 'fast one' past the Bible-reading public, then it is absurd to think they would've inserted this gigantic, colossal contradiction/inconsistency (as Bible critics incorrectly describe it)...and then hope against hope that nobody would notice this 200 ton 'mistake'. That conspiracy theory truly makes no sense. <br><br>A separate comment about 'anti-semitism'--<br><br>There are huge numbers of (conservative Christian) people who mistakenly (in my opinion) believe there is a Jew-dominated effort to conquer the world. However...these same people (with their mistaken views) DO NOT have a racist antagonism and dislike for Jewish people. <br><br>I've noticed that 'mainstream' liberals (including numbers of RI posters) love to NOT make that distinction...and therefore eagerly rush forward with a sloppy blanket indictment of "antisemitism".<br><br>In fact, I myself grew up in a subculture where a Jew-dominated conspiracy was routinely argued for...but at the same time, this very same subculture believed in all-out support for all things Jewish and/or Israeli.<br><br>We were taught (in an unbalanced way) that to befriend the Jewish people, and to support their state was to invite the "blessing of God". <br><br>But a huge number of people within this same group nevertheless still believed it was Jewish bankers, Hollywood moguls and intellectuals who were trying to take over the world.<br><br>Mainstream liberals, including a lot of people here at RI, apparently love to run roughshod over these distinctions. I think some people are seeking refuge behind 'red herrings'. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Genealogies and anti-semitism

Postby Dreams End » Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:44 am

Roth, I'd be absolutely fascinated to see where in the Bible it says the geneologies are from two different lines. Which one is Mary? Which one Joseph? Secondly, I'd be curious as to the relevance, as of course Joseph was not Jesus's father, so what's the emphasis on his ancestors about? However, the easiest thing to do is count..and if you look at the number of generations between ancestors in the two you'll see a very large numerical difference. <br><br>As for not hating Jews...yes I absolutely agree...except it sounds like ole Mel does have a lot of hatred. However, often these theories are "anti-semitic" in terms of their emphasis on Jews and I am aware lots of people believe them who don't "hate" Jews. it's not necessary to prove what's in their hearts to trace the genesis, if you'll pardon the pun, of some of this type of thinking. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Zionists

Postby yathrib » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:03 am

Sicx Bastardx, you write:<br><br>"he should of said zionists."<br><br>Lessee... Mel Gibson said Jews were responsible for all wars. You, <sarcasm alert> very generously <end sarcasm alert> say Zionists, not Jews, are responsible for all wars. How many trees did Gavrillo Prinzip plant in Israel? What about the war of 1812? <br><br>No doubt this seals my designation as a Zionist disinformation agent, no doubt a surprise to anyone who actually knows me! <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: I am actually a mascot

Postby havanagilla » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:11 am

Yes Rothb, the strange "jew is a blessing" concept doesn't smell too good. I have met with an evangelical devout christian who kept hovering around me to get some special blessing, till I felt she will soon rather hang me from the roof as a maskot, alive or dead. Cause at the same time that she explained to me how special i am, having an entenna that can recieve god's radio waves directly, she was also sure that somehow I am missing the "return to jesus" commercial.<br>That was<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> kinky.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
havanagilla
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zionists

Postby sunny » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:14 am

I hardly think Jews are responsible for all the wars, and not to put words in his mouth, but I <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>think</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> sicx bastardx was helpfully suggesting to Mel or anybody wishing to criticize Israel should say "Zionist" as opposed to "Jews", as Zionism is a real movement of Jewish supremacists, opposed by progressive and religious Jews alike, and as worthy of harsh criticism as white supremacists. I think it is important to make the distinction. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Yes, but...

Postby yathrib » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:23 am

Sunny, <br><br>You may be right, but the original statement was absurd anyway, about anybody. You could say "males cause all wars," and you'd actually be close to literal truth, but it would still be an absurd and meaningless statement. <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Yes, but...

Postby havanagilla » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:28 am

If we are trying to be historically correct, then Zionism has had many movements within it, some are not supremacist and not even political. But, regardless, i agree to the common usage of zionism now, to describe the hegemonic zionist movement, political zionism, that is now identified with the term (regretfully). <br>If interested, take a look at Ahad Haam, an important zionist writer, to see what used to be "zionism" in its inception, mainly a cultural movement etc, which is perfectly legit and even worthy, imho. <p></p><i></i>
havanagilla
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Yes, but...

Postby xsic bastardx » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:31 am

<br> Listen I can't respond right now....<br><br> But trust me. I will. <p></p><i></i>
xsic bastardx
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Yes, but...

Postby sunny » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:36 am

yathrib, <br><br>I think we do agree- the original statement was absurd.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to Media and Information Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest