Anti-Jews and Anti-Gay, Mel Gibson Go Away.
But seriously, Jew-hatred and gay-bashing typically go together like peas and carrots, don't they.
Bashing Jews and Gays, the Mel Way.
ADVERTISEMENT
Anti-Jews and Anti-Gay, Mel Gibson Go Away.
But seriously, Jew-hatred and gay-bashing typically go together like peas and carrots, don't they.
31 Comments for “Bashing Jews and Gays, the Mel Way.”
posted by Antaeusz on
I looked at your link and expected to find the use of some serious slur, such as \\”kike\\”, or \\”yid\\”. Exactly what is bigoted about Mel Gibson blaming Israel and its passionately attached Zionist-but-for-the-Zipcode fans for the Wars of 1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, and now this? You just don\\’t like his ascription of blame, that\\’s all. Besides, look at all the Jerry Falwells, John Hagees, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertsons: Slavishly Pro-Israel and Hawkishly Anti-Gay – it\\’s Levitically Correct!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Didi Herman has written an excellent book, The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right, concerning premillennial dispensationalism in conservative Christianity, focusing on 50 years of writing in “Christianity Today”.
The book traces the ties between anti-Jewish and anti-gay rhetoric in politics, journalism, and worship.
Herman makes an important point: The opposition to gays and lesbians among conservative Christians has little or nothing to do with bigotry. Instead, it is an adjunct to premillennial dispensationalist theology.
We aren’t going to change this folks.
posted by J.P. on
Mike Gibson blames “the Jews” for starting “every war in history” and Antaeusz can’t figure out why that’s offensive. If anyone needed any more evidence that “anti-Zionists” really means shove them in the ovens, this should make it clear.
posted by Br Katana of Reasoned Discussion on
People rarely will have strong negative feelings for just one group. If they’re anti-semitic they’re likely to be generally racist as well, or sexist, or homophobic, etc… I’m just sorry that we live in a culture where these people have to hide and only exposure themselves when they’re under the influence of something or other. I prefer my enemies out in the open.
posted by jomicur on
I can’t help but notice that even though the various Jewish organizations are speaking out (and quite rightly) about Gibson’s anti-Jewish rot, none of the gay organizations seems to have protested his anti-gay baloney. For that matter, none of them has had anything to say about dear Ann Coulter’s use of the word fag last week. Where’s HRC? Where’s GLAAD, whose brief is suposedly to protest anti-gay defamation? It’s as if they were determined to underscore their own uselessness.
posted by Bobby on
Gibson hates the jews because he’s a pre-Vatican II Catholic, they’re ones who blamed the jews for the death of Christ.
HOWEVER, there are plenty of left-wingers who hate the jews as well, Antaeusz is a good example. So I’m not gonna trust either front.
HRC and GLAAD don’t need to concern themselves with anti-semitism unless it comes from the gay community.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“For that matter, none of them has had anything to say about dear Ann Coulter’s use of the word fag last week. Where’s HRC? Where’s GLAAD, whose brief is suposedly to protest anti-gay defamation? It’s as if they were determined to underscore their own uselessness.”
Ann Coulter makes a living out of her outrageous statements. Why would HRC or GLAAD give her more of that publicity she so desperately seeks?
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Gibson hates the jews because he’s a pre-Vatican II Catholic, they’re ones who blamed the jews for the death of Christ.””””
Which makes him stupid, believing in a religion and all.
“”””HOWEVER, there are plenty of left-wingers who hate the jews as well, Antaeusz is a good example. So I’m not gonna trust either front.””””
Which makes them stupid, because they only hate jews because muslims hate jews, and the left has a fetish for anything muslims say or do.
posted by Antaeusz on
Who said anything about “hate”? You want, hate – even anti-semitic (in this case anti-palestinian) hate? I’ll give you hate.
posted by JimG on
Sometimes what happens when you vociferously challenge someone’s point of view, and act like you have been terribly offended is that you give them power. You let them know that they, and their opinions are important. There is a balancing act here. If he was a major world leader, what he said in a drunken rage might be important. But Mel Gibson, in my view, is not important. He is not even of the caliber of a Spielberg or Scorsese. He is a minor character who is now getting all this publicity because Entertainment Tonight and Inside Blabberwood have another juicy story to tell. I heard on the news that one Jewish group plans to pursue prosecuting him for “hate crimes”. Sometimes I think we all need to get a little thicker skin.
posted by Bobby on
I’m not anti-palestinean, I’m anti-suicide-bomber, anti-terrorist. As the saying goes, “if arabs put down their weapons, there’d be peace. If Israelis put down their weapons, there’d be no Israel.”
Gibson can’t be prosecuted for hate crimes because even offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment. And I will defend his right to be an a-hole, however, that does not mean I will say he’s a good guy, or worthy of being treated well.
He’s getting what he deserves.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Nor do HRC and GLAAD have a word to say about anti-Jewish slurs. Why? Because they’re GAY organizations and gay organizations focus on anti-gay slurs, funnily enough.
posted by J.P. on
If Gibson had let loose with an anti-black slur, you can be SURE that GLAAD and HRC and the rest would have Condemned him, and brought up his anti-gay positions to make the link. But they can’t bring themselves to make the anti-gay, anti-Semetic link because progressives don’t want to be seen as supporting Israel.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If Gibson had let loose with an anti-black slur, you can be SURE that GLAAD and HRC and the rest would have Condemned him
Not without being asked to, and if a Jewish group approached those two groups and asked for a condemnation of Gibson, they’d get the same.
I’m not a fan of either organization, but I prefer to keep my criticism fact-based. I also don’t view the Israeli situation as a gay issue and don’t view gay groups as an appropriate venue for either side. In fact, I am tired of others ideological quarrels using our underfunded and over-inflated gay rights organizational milieu as a proxy for their own battles. Gay people have enough worries of our own without having our limited resources used to fight battles over abortion, Israel, socialist medicine, etc.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | August 1, 2006, 6:58am
In fact, I am tired of others ideological quarrels using our underfunded and over-inflated gay rights organizational milieu as a proxy for their own battles.
I agree with that, with one caveat. I am tired of organizations that purport to be, and have sold themselves as being, “gay rights organizations” that allow themselves to be used by their leaderships as proxies for other battles.
As far as I can tell, HRC has produced nothing for gay people, and they are now branching out into the “pro-choice” milieau. For no obvious reason.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh HRC are worthless. They have been for aeons. I lost respect for them shortly after they appointed the straight guy as their “interim leader,” as though there were no qualified gay people to lead a gay organization even in the interim.
posted by Bobby on
I agree with Northeast L, gay organizations should focus on gay issues, nothing more. Leave abortion, affirmative action, the envrironment, legalizing prostitution, to the pros.
posted by etjb on
If, as some one here suggests, a ex-member of a pop band comes out is important, then so is the racist rants of another celebrity.
We can hope that one has more importance then the other. Gibson made variou anti-gay comments in the past, but was able to smooth it over with some p.r.
posted by dalea on
Actually Bobby for many lesbians abortion is very much a gay issue. One old technique for bashing lesbians was rape. And when the woman became pregnant she had to carry the fetus to birth or risk her life and health with an illegal abortion. For women abortion is a very vital issue, one that resonates particularly with gay women.
The right to control one’s own body which is at the heart of the abortion issue strikes me as very clearly part of the gay rights struggle.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
for many lesbians abortion is very much a gay issue
I doubt that it’s such a big crisis these days, and lesbians who wish to fight for abortion have plenty of abortion groups which are well-funded which they can join to direct towards their agenda.
Just like gay men who demand socialist “universal” health care (and point to the HIV pandemic) can join any number of large, well-funded socialist groups calling for such a program — rather than insist that the entire gay community back something which many accurately perceive would seriously harm the quality of health care in this country.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Individual gays and lesbians can support issues that are important to them but not directly related to GLBT equality through groups formed to focus on those issues.
I think that GLBT groups should focus on issues directly related to GLBT equality, and those issues alone.
That does not mean that GLBT groups cannot or should not address other issues when those issue impact gays and lesbians, but I think that GLBT groups should always address the other issues in a way that brings the point home to GLBT issues.
For example, I have no problem with Steve’s pointing out that anti-Semitism and anti-gay attitudes typically go hand in hand, just as I sometimes point out that “faggot” and “nigger” are the same word used against different groups. But I do not agree with those that suggest that GLBT groups should address anti-Semitic bigotry outside of a gay and lesbian context; GLBT groups need not address or right every wrong.
I think that GLBT groups should avoid “alliances”, that is, signing on to either liberal or conservative “agendas”, except with the “agenda” directly relates to our issues.
It is not an easy line to draw, I know. But GLBT groups should have a singleness of purpose, in my view, and avoid distraction.
posted by raj49 on
dalea | August 2, 2006, 12:43am |
Actually Bobby for many lesbians abortion is very much a gay issue.
A few years ago, a gay political operation in Boston published, in the gay BayWindows, an article that contended that
(i) abortion was a “gay issue,” because some gay people (by “gay people”, I include lesbians, although not exclusively);
(ii) welfare was a “gay issue,” because some gay people may ultimately need to go on welfare;
(iii) homelessness was a “gay issue,” because some gay people might find themselves homeless some day;
etc, etc., etc.
So, according to them, every issue is a “gay issue” because some gay person might find himself in some dire strait that may need to be addressed.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. A “gay issue” that a “gay organization” should be addressing is one that relate to equal rights for gay people. There are other organizations that are fully capable of addressing these other issues. If gay organizations were singularly successful in achieving equal rights for gay people, I might simpathize with their and your comment. But they haven’t been. Until and unless the gay organizations are able to achieve some modicum of equal rights for gay people, as far as I’m concerned they should address the equal rights issue, and let the other organizations address what their mandate is.
And that’s why we refuse to donate to HRC any more.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The quality of organic produce at Pathmark is a gay issue, because many gays buy organic produce at Pathmark! HRC should start an Organic Produce Lobby and take on the powers that be who deliver suboptimal field-ripened tomatoes at northeastern supermarkets!
posted by Greg on
dalea suggests \\”The right to control one\\’s own body which is at the heart of the abortion issue strikes me as very clearly part of the gay rights struggle\\”
It is of course very much a part of the gay rights struggle. Women\\’s rights and gay rights are intimately entwined, and not just for gays who are also women.
In both cases opponents to rights seek to say that women and gays are not competent to make decisions for themselves and need Papa State to do it.
posted by Bobby on
Greg, defending yourself against gay bashers is also part of the gay rights struggle and yet only Pink Pistols sees the second amendment as a gay issue.
So I will not see abortion as a gay issue. I will see it as an issue that might affect lesbians who are raped. And since fertilization and pregnancy has nothing to do with sexual orientation, I see it as a “woman’s issue.” Or “womyn” if you preffer.
posted by Greg on
Bobby states “So I will not see abortion as a gay issue. I will see it as an issue that might affect lesbians who are raped. And since fertilization and pregnancy has nothing to do with sexual orientation, I see it as a “woman’s issue.” Or “womyn” if you preffer.”
Its a free country (sort of anyway) so you can see things how you want. I think though that if you look at the root of both issues you will find the same cause.
I see the gun issue as fundamentally different, though I am not opposed to gun ownership. People want other people not to have guns because they’re afraid that those guns will be used to shoot them. Both gay rights, and women’s rights is about controlling the behavior of others without having a similar fear. Gays marrying cannot impact on anyone other than gays. Women having medical control of their bodies also effects only themselves.
posted by Bobby on
Well Greg, the gun issue is about not having other people controling us. So both abortion, gay rights, and gun ownership are issues of control.
It’s about fundamentally different philosophies. Gun grabbers believe that people are dangerous and only the government can be trusted.
Pro-lifers believe life is sacred and the government must protect it.
Gay rights advocates believe that sexual orientation should not be used as an excuse to discriminate or deny gays or rights straights enjoy.
I believe that I should defend myself against gay bashers as I see fit. And those who choose not to defend themselves should do so without denying their rights of their fellow neighbors.
Just like we allow women to have as many babies or abortions as they want, we must allow the people to defend themselves.
Otherwise, we’ll end up like China, with the one-child policy and forced abortions.
Give the government an inch and they’ll take a mile! That’s what happened in Europe, where people sacrifice free speech, low taxes, cheap gas, and capitalism for an utopia that doesn’t deliver. No wonder they legalized most drugs and have porn on public TV, what else are they gonna do?
posted by etjb on
“That’s what happened in Europe.”
What? a higher standard of living? Lower poverty and crime rates? A better record on gay rights?
If we are talking about western Europe, they never sacrificed free speech. Their laws have always viewed the limits of free speech differently as a result of their own history.
“low taxes”
Yeah, damn the people’s need to have good roads, decent electricty and safe drinking water.
“cheap gas”
Honey, Have you checked the gas prices in America? They are hardly cheap. They may be cheaper then Europe, but that is because it is subsidized by Uncle Sam.
“capitalism”
Um no. Europe has not given up on capitalism. The iron curtain gave way to market capitalism and most of the major political parties endorse market economics.
“they legalized most drugs”
Um no. As far as I know, only Holland has legalized small possesion of so-called ‘soft’ drugs. For some reason the tiny kingdom has developed a rather strong libertarian ethic.
“porn on public TV”
I thought that you said that they had given up on free speech? :0) I have never seen pornography on BBC. Heck, the sex scenes in ‘QAF’ UK are much tamer then the ones shown in the US.
posted by Main Lad on
We as Christains should wage an holy war against the jews, as they killed jesus may his soul rest in peace. The jews are ok compared to the Muslims who we should also wage a holy war on cause they convert people to Islam with lies. Most Africans are muslim because of lies, the Muslims preach that Islam was the religion of the African ancesters witch is not the case. The native africans were not Christian or Muslim but they had there own beliefs. Muslim’s ( Islam )are trying to take over the world. One Relgion that is Muslim….
Do u want ur children to be muslim i know i don’t!!!!!!! Fight back and convert to christianty…
regards
Christian Loyaist
posted by Audrey on
Main Lad, are you gay?
posted by Len Bourret - Poet and Writer on
The Mel Gibson Controversy
by Len Bourret (Copyright 2006)
As a Jewish person, who happens to be gay, I can only respond by saying that Mel Gibson has always been kind to me, to the Jewish community, and to the gay/Jewish community. He has not appeared to be anti-semetic, and has always been respectful to those around him–regarding of their ethic, racial, or sexual orientation. I believe that the alcoholic personality was talking, and not Mel Gibson.
As a human being, Jewish or Non-Jewish, I do not take offense to an otherwise gentle-and-kind Mel Gibson.
There are others who agree:
Sigourney Weaver Backs ‘Decent Guy’ Mel Gibson…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4792235.stm
Christian Evangelicals Hate Mel Gibson’s Sin, but Love His Passion…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/13/AR2006081300871.html
Fox Poll: Mel Gibson Still ‘OK’ for Many Americans…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208025,00.html
Mel Gibson Conducts Gay and Lesbian Seminar…
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n728/ai_19392855
About Mel Gibson…
http://www.answers.com/topic/mel-gibson, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson
Mel Gibson News You Didn’t See On TV…
http://www.spectacle.org/497/warren.html
Does Mel Gibson Have a Jewish Problem?
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14640
‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ of the Mel Gibson Controversy…
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4699
“Mel has apologized profusely for the incident and there the matter should rest. Mel has also indicated his willingness to seek help to overcome his alcoholism and has asked the Jewish community for forgiveness. What more can he do?” — James Dobson
But, there are others who disagree. Here’s what the San Diego CityBEAT has to say about the Mel Gibson controversy:
“First, the matter should not rest. The matter is a matter because it matters. Public discussion of Gibson?s drunken conniption has people talking about important issues: anti-Semitism, drunken driving, sexism, alcoholism and favoritism in police treatment of the rich and famous. Even if Dobson forgives Gibson, he shouldn?t call for the matter to be laid to rest?because the matter is not just a matter of pity for poor, drunken-driving, Jew-hating, arrest-resisting, power-mongering Mel.
True, Dobson is accurate in reporting that Gibson has reached out to the Jewish community for forgiveness. Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has even graciously offered to help Mel after he gets finished with rehab. But by not owning up to his anti-Semitism, doesn?t Gibson?s reaching out look a little bit like a desperate effort at damage control? And if Gibson is really about to begin this transformation into a decent person, the matter is the opposite of ready for a rest?it?s just starting to matter.
Second, Dobson asks, ?What more can he do?? Lots, Jim. Let me share with you some of the suggestions from my fellow Jews, as reported by Jocelyn Noveck of the Associated Press, and then I?ll respond to each suggestion and offer one of my own before I get in the car and drive (sober) to L.A. for a good bagel from Brooklyn Bagel…”
What do you think?