Mel Gibson Needs to Cool Off

I spend more time than I should paying attention to "entertainment news", which isn't really news. It's gossip, and juicy details about the various meltdowns of celebrities from all walks of life. Whatever an actor does when they aren't acting falls under the category of "entertainment news". Whatever a professional athlete does besides athletics usually does too. Admittedly, it's more interesting than a lot of what you'll watch on C-SPAN.

One of the more recent meltdowns (or re-meltdowns) has been Mel Gibson's. Remember a few years ago? He got arrested on a DUI and proceeded to tell the arresting officer why Jews were responsible for all the wars in the world. Back at the station, he addressed a female police office as "sugar t*ts". Part of his damage control was to point out that he was a family man and a good Catholic. Exhibit "A" was his wife of thirty years and their bah-zillion kids. Take THAT, Brad and Angelina!

He had the good sense to shut the hell up for a little while after that. He released "Apocolypto", which did okay considering nobody spoke any English. Then he left his wife and took up with a Russian model, and had a kid out of wedlock. Since then, he's been recording verbally abusing her, wishing she'd get gang-raped and telling her she deserved to get hit.

Yawn.

What got me writing today wasn't the need to parrot back what you could have read anywhere. Believe me, I just glossed over the highlights. If you want the real dirt, visit any one of a hundred different web sites, all dishing the dirt. What got me writing was in the comment section, which read in part " the real reason this article was written, is that the writer and the elitists in general hate Christianity (which Mel Gibson represents...)"

Wow. Really?

Let me say first, that I am not a Christian. I was once, but I'm not now. (Long story, ask me later.) It seems as if the person who made that comment feels the anti-Mel writings have more to do with settling a score with Christianity in general and uses its most public representative, Mel Gibson, to make that happen. It makes me wonder if the commenter was hinting that the anti-Mel backlash in the press recently isn't some cleverly orchestrated comeuppance by the Jewish community.

What bugs me is the idea that anyone can represent a religion. In the case of Christianity, you've got Jesus, and then you've got everybody else interpreting who Jesus was, what Jesus was all about, and doing their best to emulate that. Because as Christians - followers of Christ - one would think that you could gauge your performance as a follower by how well you emulate the leader. Now apart from laying hands on the sick or walking on water, I think the best way one could emulate Jesus would be to attend to the sick, to feed the hungry, to offer encouragement to the downtrodden, to not sit in judgment of others, and so on. But don't take my word for it - if you really want to know how best to emulate Jesus - in other words, to be a Christian - then get it from the source. Read the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That ought to be enough to get you started. Do what he would do, say what he would say, and avoid doing or saying stuff he probably wouldn't have done or said. From what I've read, there isn't a lot of mystery to it. You can take what you see at face value.

Understand that to me, it makes no difference if you're a Christian or not. I just don't care. But it seems to me that if every self-proclaimed "Christian" out there were to suddenly and genuinely dedicate themselves to be as much like Jesus the man as they possibly could, there would be a lot less war, a lot less televangelism, a lot less judging, a lot less violence, a lot less homeless, a lot less racism, a lot more caring about the environment, a lot more concern over health care (especially for the young and the poor), a lot less corruption, and a lot less Mel Gibsons in general.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Evangelicals and the Vote

For much of the last twenty years, if you are a Christian in America (and statistically speaking, you probably are), politics has probably been a way for you to exercise your faith in action. Whenever an election year rolls around, we find ourselves bombarded with candidates looking to appease the vast number of evangelical christians, champing at the bit to realize the vision of a "Christian nation". And evangelicals, for their part, were more than happy to tell the candidates exactly which issues mattered to them most.

For example, any candidate for any office, regardless of their ability to affect the issue would be shot down by the collective religious voting bloc for being pro-choice. Look how many self-proclaimed athiests and agnostics curently hold congrssional seats to see how large a role religion plays in getting elected. Prayer in schools, funding for controvertial art, the appointment of conservative judges, abortion, constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage, leaving mentions of "God" in the Pledge of Alliegance and on the currency, these are all topics that Christians lauded as some of the most important issues facing our nation. They were not afraid to cast a vote for candidates based on their stands on these issues, and for the most part, Republican candidates were happy to offer themselves as the most acceptable choices.

In 2000, George W. Bush was happy to tell the conservative christian movement that, despite having binged on alcohol and cocaine in the 70's and 80's, he was now fully in the Jesus Camp and ready to represent them when he became President. They accepted this, and it played no small part in his victory in 2000. Well, that and a lot of voter fraud. But I digress...

Once in office, Bush went on the offensive, flying the religious right's flag into battle like a latter-day Joan of Arc. From faith-based initiatives to nominating Supreme Court judges eager to overturn Roe V. Wade, Bush cut a wide swath across many social issues. When the Democrats nominated an unapologetic Catholic as the 2004 replacement for Bush, evangelicals went into Belfast mode, drawing voting lines along their faith. In America, Protestants outnumber Catholics, and Kerry lost. Again, voter fraud played its role in the 2004 passion play, but that's another blog for another day.

The other day I read a story on NPR's site about how evangelical voters may not be voting like they used to vote. The death of Jerry Falwell last year has allowed the torch to be passed to newer evangelicals, and simply put, things have changed. Once, they rallied against gay marriage and abortion. Now they may be turning their focus instead to issue like poverty and the environment.

It makes sense that Christians would be focus on these issues instead. Indeed, it begs the question: why weren't these the core issues from day one? Now, let me qualify here: I'm not a Christian. But that isn't to say I'm an emeny of the christian church, or even christian principles. I was raised as a Christian, and I've read the Bible more than once. My understanding of Jesus' teachings seemed to focus on the concept that the Kingdom of God was within all of us. In the book of Matthew, Jesus tells the story of the sheep and the goats, wherein the Judgement Day is described. On one side, God lines up the "sheep", those going to heaven, and on the other side we have the "goats", those going to hell. As God welcomes the sheep into paradise, he lists their good deeds, and this passage alone reads like the Liberal Playbook: "...for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." When the sheep fail to remember having performed these deeds for God, he reminds them: "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." To me the translation is crystal clear: how we treat the poor, the sick, the convicts, to the degree that we are willing to fight for the underdogs in the world is the measure of our love for God.

The truth is that is has always been the liberals in our government that have fought for a decent minimum wage for the poor. It is the liberals that fought to make education possible for all, regardless of race. It is the liberals that are pushing now to turn our country's attention away from the business of war and instead focus on giving quality healthcare to those who cannot afford it. When the school lunch programs were in jeopardy in the 80's, it was the Democrats that fought to make sure our children had food. Democrats are often stigmatized for creating a welfare state, which as far as I can tell, means that we make it the business of government not to let poverty destroy any american lives.

Gay marriage and abortion are ultimately going to be issues settled state-by-state. National politician recongize that after all the posturing is over, these are simply too divisive to ever reach a national concensus. In the end, the only things politicians are going to be remembered for are what they did, not what they believed. Poverty and healthcare are issues that can be successfully addressed, and no one group, not conservatives nor liberals, need be against it. I say that if the Republican party wishes to truly identify itself as the party of christian values, it read the parable of the sheep and goats. In the end, all we will be remembered for is how we treated people.