Last week, Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving and made anti-semitic comments toward the officer, including, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars of the world,” and “Are you a Jew?” Yesterday, he released his second apology, this time admitting to and apologizing for the anti-semitic comments as well.
There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge.
The response from the media has been rather interesting, with Barbara Walters unsure if she ever wants to see another Mel Gibson film. I in no way defend Mr. Gibson in his actions or his words. But why the sudden moralizing over hateful comments made toward other groups of people? The beliefs, symbols and figure heads of Christianity are attacked daily without so much as a shrug.
Take for example the Huffington Post. While Gibson says he is “in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display” Bill Maher gives him some insight.
But he’ll never win as long as he’s so religious, because, I hate to tell you, the disease isn’t alcholism, the disease is religion.
Religion. The root of all evil. This sounds frighteningly like the thesis of Sam Harris’ book, The End of Faith. The problems of the world can be solved by one and only one means: the eradication of all religion. Of course, that includes the Jews as well. Yes, there is a religious war going on in the Middle East. And yes, many atrocities have occurred bearing the name of Christ. If we repeat this long enough, however, we’re going to forget the atrocities which have occurred in the name of eradicating religious expression: Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, the Eastern Block, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia.
I know the root of Mr. Gibson’s difficulties, the source of the disease. And it isn’t the alcohol or the anti-semitism. It is “that old deluder Satan” himself. The prince of this world, the father of lies. Anti-semitism is not unique to the faithful…the atheists of the past have gone further in attempting to eradicate the Jews. And the western world which stands on the border with Israeli policy, officially allied with them but publicly criticizing every action, is not “deluded” by religion. In the European world, religion is all but dead, existing as a memorial of a former age. Sure, they have state funded churches and beautiful cathedrals, but there is no personal relationship with any faith.
“Religion” is a convenient scape-goat which seems to be coming in vogue these days. If Bill Maher is arrested for drunk driving and goes on a drunken tirade against the religions of the world, are we going to demand a public apology and then not be sure whether we actually believe it? Oh, wait. He isn’t drunk. That is what he believes, and it isn’t a demon he is wrestling with at all.
Bill Maher, Mel Gibson, religion, Christianity, antisemitism
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
The problems of the world can be solved by one and only one means: the eradication of all religion. Of course, that includes the Jews as well.
Bill Maher doesn’t want to kill anyone, and you’re not doing your own credibility any favors with this kind of simple-minded interpretation. Railing against “religion” is very different from railing against “the Jews” . . . one is a concept, the other is a group of people.
Hi, Dana
I’m sorry, this is unrelated to your post, feel free to delete this-
I just wanted to know, 2 things:
1-I see my blog is on the TTLB Homeschool page; do I need to do anything further?
2-can you talk about your Blogrolls sometime when you get a chance? I’ve read some info on the web, but the info sounds more clear to newbies like myself when folks like you explain it.
Thank you,
Allison
“The danger of disbelieving in God is not that man will believe nothing; alas, it is much worse. The danger of disbelieving in God is that man will believe anything.”
A few points, anonymous.
I never said Mr. Maher wanted to kill anyone, only that he appears to desire the eradication of all religion. I understand that the Jews are an ethnic group, but they are also a religious group. To be a Jew can mean that your mother was a Jew or that you converted to Judaism. Circumsision is a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, not of race.
Your dismissal of religion as merely a concept indicates you do not understand much about the faith of the believer. “Religion” is like the soul of the believer and can no more be separated from him than can the geneology of the Jew.
“Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.” (Noah Webster, 1828 dictionary)
How do we intend to eradicate religon? Through debate? Hasn’t worked yet. The debate actually seems closed, now, and we have already declared God to be dead. His name has been removed from the classroom, from the public square and now we’re working on taking it down from monuments. It hasn’t eradicated religion.
Nations have attempted it, and it has always been a very bloody mess, from Hitler’s attempted annihilation of the Jews, to Stalin’s murderous persecution of Jews and Christians.
Sun Ok Lee, a devoted member of the Communist Party, ws arrested in Communist North Korea and endured six years of prison. She had refused to give an officer more than his share of fabric because she didn’t have enough.
While in prison, she witnessed torture and mass killings of Christians. She did not understand why they so stubbornly refused to deny Christ at the beckon of the N. Korean government. Preferring torture and death to the “eradication” of their “concept.”
She finally left…and escapted to South Korea where she, too, found the Lord and understood why those tortured and murdered for a belief chose the path they did.
Eradicating a religion is not so simple so long as there are believers. It is a rather simple view of the world to think that there will not be bloodshed in such an assault. What exactly are you willing to do to take on this ideal?
Censor my church so that they cannot speak truth? Mark me…perhaps with a nice yellow star…to warn others that I am one of “those?” Or mark those who have no religion so that only they (2% of the population) can buy, sell and trade? Imprison me so I can’t talk to my neighbor? Remove my children so that I don’t infect my children with my beliefs?
You completely ignore history and human nature with the argument that religion is the source of the world’s evil. Greed, hate, jealousy, lust for power all have nothing to do with religion. In fact, for the most part, religion seeks to temper those vices. But it is possible to twist or invent a religion to suit one’s own desires like any other belief system.
No, Allison. That’s it. Nothing else you have to do. I’ll comment more on your blog : )
Bravo, Dana.
Anonymous: “Railing against “religion” is very different from railing against ‘the Jews’”
No, it isn’t. To rant against Jews IS to rant against religion, in that their culture is COMPLETELY tied into their religion. You are looking for an excuse to continue your campaign against religion. Get over yourself.
In portraying “the media,” you chose a single source — a comedian whose jokes are well known to treat nothing but Bill Maher himself as sacred. That is not a convincing way of ridiculing the media. It is no more convincing or persuasive than Bill Maher’s jokes about religion or anything else are. In fact, it is quite cheap.
There is a purpose to hate speech laws. Had they existed in a Christian country like Rwanda, many lives could have been spared a very horrible end. Bill Maher does not practice hate speech. He practices comedy. Mel Gibson did appear to exercise hate speech with respect to Jews. For that, he deserves public ridicule at the least.
I fear you missed the point. I’m not criticizing the media but the idea that I have heard reiterated in a number of places since since learning about Sam Harris’ book, “The End of Faith.” It isn’t about “hate speech” but about the growing call for the “eradication of religion.”
If you define hate speech so narrowly as to only affect those you disagree with, you are perhaps correct. But for the religious, we cannot help but wonder exactly what is meant by such statements and this movement. And to what ends you are willing to go to bring about the end of religion.
I don’t throw around the term “hate speech.” And I didn’t accuse Bill Maher or anyone else of engaging in it.
I fail to see how laws against “hate speech” in Rwanda would have stopped the murder…it was yet another effect of a very old conflict. The hate brought about the speech, not the other way around.
It was not some spontaneous mob stirred up by a few Catholic bishops who had long lived with privilege under the Hutu government. The propoganda was chosen specifically to stir up already existing prejudices and hatred toward the Tutsis. Would an international law against hate crime have stopped Hitler? And the idea of Germany accepting such a law in that time is laughable.
I agree. The idea that Hitler would have accepted such a law is laughable. That is why such a law is a good thing to have in our nation today. It’s a sign that our nation has not become a dictatorship, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary.
It is too simple-minded to say that ‘the speech came from the hate, not the other way around.’ It was well documented in the case of Rwanda that voices of right-wing radio fanned the racist fears and spread racial division among the populace where it had not existed before. The same sort of fear-spreading goes on all over the U.S. today, whether or not it is full-fledged hate speech.
As for the very large question of the end of religion, I would think that religious people should least fear those who openly call for its end or declare its irrelevance. Such posturing only comforts the religious and gives their religious fervor strength. (A case in point would be your blog.)
Religion will never be felled by open opposition. It is constructed in such a way as to feed off of such opposition.
Despite certain sociological statistics suggesting less participation in established religions, one would be foolish to declare religion on the wane. Moreover, one would be remiss not to notice that the “death of God” as a concept is not even secular in origin. It comes from Luther, who first discussed the idea as being the fruition of religion itself — a fruition without finality or end.
Finally, to say that I ‘missed the point’ is to disallow me the freedom of making my own point. My point (which you have not responded to) is that your strategy of characterizing “the media” was unfair. I did not say or imply that that was your ‘main point.’ But not speaking to your ‘main point’ does not necessarily disqualify mine.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Good article, Dana. Many good points, including the ones in your comment to “Anonymous” regarding the eradication of religion.
Mankind has always been “religious.” The earliest cave dwellers worshipped gods.
Mankind will always be “religious.” Only now we know the one true, almighty, and living God, and He is a jealous God who will not stand by helplessly and watch His creation annihilate itself for the sake of false gods. It’s a hard time for Christians right now, and it will get harder before it gets easier - extending even, perhaps soon, to those identifying marks in hand or forehead…
Do you think that maybe it’s time for the church to WAKE UP???
In His love,
Lady Gilligan
The conflict in Rwanda goes too far back to be attributed so readily to “hate speech” by any particular group. In fact, one could as easily blame the Belgians meddling in their politics. After WWII, Rwanda became a UN trust territory under the authority of Belgium. Belgium attempted to institute more democracy which was seen by the Tutus as a threat to their reign. Belgium redistributed cattle to the Hutus and issued ethnic identity cards. Their king was exiled by Belgians for refusing baptism. His son succeeded him. He allowed greater access by Hutus, and got assassinated. This lead to instability, with both groups vying for control. Another attempted assassination. Genocide. Hutus killed perhaps 100,000 Tutus and 150,000 were exiled, back in 1959.
In 1960, Belgium declared them independent and left the Hutu in power. The Tutsis became a scapegoat for everything. They were limited in their ability to obtain an education and receive a job. The exiled Tutsi’s became organized and, perhaps with encouragement from recent pressure from the international community’s insistence on increased democracy, invaded Rwanda. The Hutus responded with wide scale genocide and civil war.
It cannot all be blamed on stirring up hate. It was already there…just as hate for the Jew was already present in Germany.
You can make a second point if you wish. But my post is not intended a criticism of the media. Gibson was wrong. He shouldn’t have been driving drunk. And he shouldn’t be making statements like that. Public shame is fine.
But really, what is the difference between saying that the Jews started all war and religion is the root of all evil? It is the same sort of sweeping attack made against people with no fact and only distaste for whatever it is they stand for. I only chose Bill Maher (who is not really a member of the media to begin with) because he so succinctly brought out the issue of religion. This view I first heard in a comment regarding Sam Harris’ book on another blog. Then on several atheist websites (most trying to separate themselves from him both for this statement and his views on torture). Then in a book review which I believe was done by the New York Times. And now I see it popping up in an entry by a comedian. Yet it seems to be an undercurrent behind a lot of social change in the US today.
I did not present Bill Maher as a member of the media and perhaps my transition was misunderstood. My criticism of the media stops with pointing out that Christianity is attacked without any outrage. The only member of the media I even mention is Barbara Walters.
Bill Maher’s statement is an example of an entertainer (as is Mel Gibson) saying essentially the same thing about relgion in general. Mel Gibson implies a problem in the accusatory way he asks the officer if he is a Jew. Maher informs us the problem with Gibson is his religion. Gibson states that all wars have been begun by the Jews. Maher states that religion is a disease.
The two statements are principally the same. Gibson spoke out in a drunken tirade. Maher is completely sober.
That is what I was getting at when I said you misunderstood me.
I did not declare religion to be on the wane. I implied that the eradication of it seems to be underway.
In reference to Martin Luther, I presume you are referring to his hymn,
“O great need,
God himself lies dead.
He has died on the cross
and has through this the kingdom of heaven
out of love gained for us.”
I don’t know your knowledge of the Christian religion, but we do believe Christ to be part of the trinity and that he physically died upon the cross. That is being expressed here in this hymn. Not the death of God in Nietzsche’s sense.
Either way, we as a culture seem to have proclaimed him to be dead, whether a new or old concept.
No, direct assault will not do away with religion. Neither will “hate speech.” You can read my response to anonymous to see what I think of any real attempt to eradicate religion. But that is not what I fear. My God is a bit stronger than that.
What I “fear” is that this concept which right now is quite vague will grow. More people will hold it without particularly examining what exactly it means. Gradually, those with strong religious views will be increasingly marginalized and viewed as nuts. And as responsible for the evils of the world. For hate. For war. For whatever, really. And there will always be a few nuts claiming to be of some sect or other to fuel the animosity.
And one day, perhaps, we will see in this country conditions like those I allude to in my other comment regarding N. Korea. Or China. Or the former Soviet Union where a real, bloody campaign was waged against religion.
And maybe not. Perhaps we have too much respect for life for that. But it begins as an idea. And I will confront that idea, whether it is directly opposed to Christianity or about Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, Wicca or whatever other religion you can think of.
Religion is not the problem. Sin is. And it lives in the heart of each of us.
Most of Nazi Germany did not desire what was happening. A good many tried not to know. Soldiers did as commanded because if they did not, it meant their lives or the lives of their families. I knew a man who fought for Hitler. He was 18 at the time and said the greatest desire of every soldier was to be captured by the Americans. They all knew treatment was better in their prison camps. The trick was getting captured without making your intentions so obvious that your commanding officer shot you. He succeeded and told me stories of his treatment in an American prison camp in England…and how grateful he was for it.
Sorry, a bit unclear in my statement about the criticism of the media. I meant that it was not intended as criticism of the media regarding their stance on Gibson. And that Maher is not a part of that media. He is to be compared with Gibson.
Sorry, it is late. And I seriously need sleep.
I am reminded of an illustration a professor gave regarding communist Russia a few years back. During the early years of communism the leaders chose not to shut down/destroy the old Orthodox Churches on the assumption that they would die out on their own. The reason being only the “old folk” were members and worshipers of such an uneeded institution such as this and as they passed on the church would as well. Funny thing tough, every year for decades upon decades there were always plenty of the “old folk” worshiping and participating in this crazy thing called faith. Seems as though the worship of the almighty Communist Party couldn’t overcome what God had intended in the land.
Just some thoughts…
That is very true. Even when they did decide to actively pursue Christians, faith did not diminish.
Crowley made an interesting statement back in 1919.
Let me seduce the boys of England and the oldsters may totter unconverted to their graves. Then these boys, become men, may bring about the new Heaven and the new Earth…but without an army I am useless…give me my army, young men; and we will sweep these dogs into the sea.”
–The World’s Tragedy, p. XXV
That army is being developed through public education. Ultimately, it cannot be successful, but it shall perhaps cause some suffering in the mean time.