Malibu Mel

Anti-Semitism, Hollywood, The Zeitgeist

Mainstream media only recognizes a narrowly defined spectrum of opinion: Republican and Democratic. The one they consider Right; the other, Left.

Both generally support gratuitous, unconstitutional wars, for ostensibly charitable reasons. Each is more likely to support such adventures if their guy is strafing the lucky recipients of the gift of democracy. To wit, Democrats cheered a “preemptive attack” on Slobodan Milosevic; Republicans rubber-stamped sundering Saddam.

Thus when the topic of Gibson’s anti-war-in-Iraq comments came up, commentators on Fox and elsewhere on the blogosphere (which seems as one-dimensional, in many ways) wondered if the immensely wealthy Gibson was not pandering to “Hollywood elites.” (As if he needs to.)

Gibson is probably a paleo-conservative. As far as I know, he’s always been against this war (it fits with his view about “dem Jews”). More material, why would anything he says matter?

Thomas Fleming’s comments on Malibu Mel are the best I’ve seen so far:

I find the whole Mel Gibson saga depressing, because it reminds me of the grotesque stupidity of American Catholic conservatives, who insist on putting their faith in actors like Ronald Reagan and Mel Gibson. Have they ever read an interview with Gibson? He cannot frame a three-word sentence that does not sound like it comes from the mouth of Malibu Barbie…men who spend their adult lives making movies are, to put it as nicely as I can, unreliable as guides to living…

Why does anyone care what an actor thinks about, whether it is the life of Christ or Jewish influence on history? And why, by the love of all that is holy, would anyone with even the brain of Rush Limbaugh, give two seconds to a Christophobic charlatan like Abe Foxman?…
If you really wish to study the Life of Christ, read the Gospels. If you like C.S. Lewis or Tolkien, read their books and do not waste time on the slick and manipulative films made out of them. Christian lovers of Peter Jackson’s version of Lord of the Rings will be pleased to know that he is contributing a large chunk of their ticket money to promote leftist, anti-Christian moral causes. As the most notorious ‘anti-Semite’ in history once observed, ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.’

“Mel’s ‘Malady,’ Foxman’s Fetish“—that too is good stuff (if I say so myself).

Letter of the Week: Natural Rights Vs. Sharia

Islam, Natural Law

I have been thinking quite a bit about Islam. One difference, I think, boils down to this: Catholic Christian thinkers eventually reached a consensus that natural law must be derived, at least to some significant degree, from the nature of man—that is derived through reason, from the very nature of God’s creature or God’s creation. While there was no unanimity, Catholic thought—which WAS western philosophy because theology and philosophy were not split, but rather were merged essentially from the beginning of Christendom until perhaps about 1600 years after Christ—eventually moved in this general direction.

It was not always clear that the Church would move in this direction. Certainly Duns Scotus and William of Occam and others tended to see natural law as something imposed from above by the wording of scripture. But they lost out. Aquinas and the Spanish scholastic Francis Suarez were important in this debate and indeed Gabriel Vasquez, who was a Spanish contemporary of Suarez, viewed the rational nature of man as the primary source of natural law and man’s obligation to obey the natural law. You move from that base easily along to Grotius, Pufendorf and Locke, and the idea of rights, freedom, and so forth.

Islam clearly did not follow that road. Law was a product of the word of God—certainly this is how I understand Sharia. While there are other factors—e.g. Christ’s standing outside the state, being neither a ruler nor a military man, and Mohammed being within the state as it were, a ruler and a military man—certainly the view of law is an important distinction. Islam, I think, views law as something that is imposed from the top down, that is they believe in something consistent with legal positivism; law is set out by the authority, and it must be followed or punishment follows. Whereas Catholic thought laid the critically important groundwork for the notion that law comes—in some significant way—from the bottom up; that is that the rules that should govern society come from the nature of man as derived by human reason, thereby placing reason in the forefront of Catholic political and legal thought.

— M.S., Canadian lawyer, friend

The Liberal Worldview: We're all Just Monkeys

Ethics, Morality, Natural Law

When liberals fought tooth and nail to dehydrate and starve Terry Schiavo for her imperfections, I wrote that “What distinguishes civilized beings from animals, primitive societies, and liberals is that they don’t see nature as an exemplar of all that is fine and good.”

Watch this hateful little video doing the rounds on the Internet. Its narrator—Ernest Cline—has a tinny robotic voice, which you just know is attached to a smug mug with trendy eyewear. He goes through a litany of human achievements and their alleged, attendant evils, and concludes contemptuously: “We’re all just monkeys.”

Note how irrational the liberal philosophy is: This primate (Ernest Cline) can’t tell you logically why he thinks the specimens that designed the microchip and painted the Mona Lisa are no better than monkeys—creatures that have never created anything, live in trees, throw coconuts, and hoot to communicate. There is no rational basis upon which to equate man and monkey. Since the position is irrational, it is also manifestly false. Feelings—not reason—inform this hackneyed and deeply silly narrative (disguised as sophisticated, like all liberal dogma).

Ergo, the reason Cline feels (for he can’t be thinking) that man is merely a glorified ape is because he hates people and civilization and idolizes animals and primitive life.

Refresher readings on human rights and animals are here:

a href=”http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35022″ target=”_blank”>No Rights for Animals

How Much is that Doggie in the Window?

Gaga for Gaia

Shark Tales