Why Jewish Groups
Passionately Hate Mel Gibson
by
Rabbi Daniel Lapin
President, Toward Tradition
Surely
it is now time to analyze the vitriolic loathing demonstrated by various
Jewish groups and their leaders toward Mel Gibson over the past six months.
This analysis might help forestall some similar ill-conceived and ill-fated
future misadventure on the part of self-anointed Jewish leadership. At the
very least it might advance human understanding of destructive group
pathologies.
As the
whole world knows by now, Mel Gibson, his movie, his father, his church and
anything else even remotely associated with Mr. Gibson have been smeared as
anti-Semitic. From the immoderate assaults, you might have thought that the
target was a thug with a lengthy rap sheet for murdering Jews while yelling
"Heil Hitler." From the intensity of the rhetoric you would have
thought that from his youth, Gibson had been hurling bricks through synagogue
windows. Yet until The Passion, he was a highly regarded and successful
entertainer who went about his business largely ignored by the Jewish
community, so why now do they hate him so?
Even
assuming for the moment that Jewish organizations had a legitimate beef with
The Passion, which assumption I have refuted in earlier columns, they should
have hated the movie rather than its creator. After all, Judaism originated
the calming idea of hating the sin rather than the sinner. Yet from the pages
of The New York Times to
Jewish organizational press releases and from rabbinic rantings to synagogue
sermons the personal hatred for Mel has been palpable.
The key
insight, vital to understanding their hatred, is this: just because an
organization has either the word "Jewish" or else some Hebrew word
in its title does not mean that its guiding principles emanate from the
document that has been the constitution of the Jewish people for 3,500
years-the Torah. Every organization has a set of guiding principles which
defines its purpose and unifies its membership. However the guiding
principles are often not what they appear to be. This departure from founding
principles is not unique to Jewish organizations but is found throughout our
culture. For instance, almost none of the eighteen hundred chapters of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supported
the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court in spite
of the undeniable fact that Justice Thomas was, and remains a "colored
person."
Were
the NAACP truly to be guided by the principle of advancing the interests of
colored people, it would always do so even if it occasionally disagreed with
the positions of the colored people it supported. For instance, back in 2000,
when the NAACP filed an Amicus brief on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia
Abu-Jamal, it surely was not endorsing the killing of law enforcement officers
as a form of political _expression_. The NAACP was simply doing what it claims
it was formed to do, support people of color. In reality of course, as their
failure to defend Clarence Thomas reveals, the causes adopted by the NAACP
share something far more profound than the skin color of their protagonists.
They share a uniform commitment to the doctrines of secularism. In
non-political terms one could say that the NAACP seems to be guided by the
principles of secular fundamentalism. Secular fundamentalism is the belief
system which buttresses the creed of political and economic liberalism just
as the Biblically-based beliefs of Judaism and Christianity buttress the
creed of political and economic conservatism. It was its adherence to the
guiding principles of secular fundamentalism which compelled the NAACP to
obstruct the rise to greatness of a religious conservative, even if he did
happen to be a colored person.
Again,
almost nobody in NOW, the National Organization of Women, supported radio
personality Laura Schlessinger while her media career was being destroyed by
homosexual activists. Now Schlessinger is undeniably a woman, so clearly
NOW's guiding principles are not to support all women but to support only
certain women. Had NOW been about all women, it would have supported
Schlessinger, pointing out perhaps that although they do not endorse all her
views, since she is a woman under attack the organization supports her just
as it was formed to do. After all, in 2001, NOW had no compunction supporting
Houston child
murderer, Andrea Yates, who cold bloodedly drowned her five tiny children. As
Deborah Bell, president of the Texas
chapter of NOW put it, "One of our feminist beliefs is to be there for
other women." "Other women" obviously doesn't include Laura Schlessinger.
Not only couldn't NOW bring itself to support Schlessginger, it named Andrea
Yates Mother of the Year. An honest explanation is that NOW seeks to advance
secular fundamentalism, and since Dr. Laura preaches religious conservatism
NOW, in remaining true to its guiding principles, had no option but to oppose
her.
Similarly,
many Jewish organizations and even many individuals of Jewish ethnicity who
possess the title "rabbi" are not guided by the principles Judaism
found in the Torah. Instead, like the NAACP and NOW, they are guided chiefly
by the principles of secular fundamentalism. Nothing else can explain their
dogmatic and ideological commitment to causes such as homosexuality and
abortion, both of which are unequivocally opposed by the Torah-based guiding
principles of Judaism. How revealing it was last November, when one such
Jewish organization saw fit to publicly applaud the Massachusetts Supreme
Court on their ruling in favor of homosexual marriage. In choosing between
courageously defending Judaism's unequivocal opposition to homosexual
marriage and obsequious obeisance to the doctrines of secular fundamentalism,
this "Jewish" organization made its choice and in so doing, proved
my point. Paradoxically, these so-called Jewish organizations are virulent
secularists because of belief-the belief that religion poisons the world and
that we would all be better off living in an eternal utopia of secular
democracy.
In
their belief system, serious Christianity, which they recognize to have
founded western civilization, must be confined to the home, synagogue, and
church. It must never be allowed to influence our culture or our political
law-making apparatus. In their belief system, religion, when practiced by
professional religionists like priests, pastors, and rabbis, is acceptable
because these professionals, doing what they are expected to do, are unlikely
to influence significantly the public perception of faith as a refuge for the
uneducated, the unsuccessful, and the miserable. However, religion when
practiced seriously by influential public figures such as presidents and
movie producers is totally unacceptable because it might lead to upsetting
the current religious-secular cultural balance.
Thus
President Bush also merits hatred. Here is Whoopi Goldberg musing in the
pages of The New York Times,
"Wait a minute, is this man leading this country as an American or is he
leading the country as a Christian?" Just try to imagine the outcry from
the Jewish groups I describe herein were Mel Gibson to have asked during the
2000 presidential elections, "Will Joe Lieberman lead this country as an
American or would he lead this country as a Jew?"
Once
Mel Gibson revealed himself to be, like the President, a person of serious
religious faith the gloves came off. Mel Gibson has done a major favor for
serious faith, both Jewish and Christian, in America. He has made it 'cool' to
be religious, but in so doing he has unleashed the hatred of secular America
against himself personally, against his work, and against his family. God
bless him.
Radio talk show host, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, is
president of
Toward Tradition, a bridge-building
organization providing a voice for all Americans who defend
the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation’s survival.
Become A Member Of
Toward Tradition!
Toward Tradition Home Page
|
