- 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 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 that
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 1,800 chapters of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People 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 that 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 that 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 lawmaking 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.
|