comment #1

Dave at Garfield Ridge says ...

And I'm just saying that, sometimes, people are human first, BIG HOLLYWOOD STARS second.

Gee, Mel Gibson got a DUI? Congrats, he's just like my cousin Robby, who isn't a conservative goony-bird or a hardcore Catholic or rebelling against typecasting.

But other than that, yeah, I'm sure Mel was acting out against his image. Or, perhaps he just had to much to drink and did something stupid.

Sheesh, Jeff. Get outta L.A., New York and Paris more often, breathe in some humanity.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

comment #2

Mr Big says ...

Is it me or does this increase Mel Gibson's cool factor by like a gazillion? Since he's left the acting game and begun financing his own megasuccessful films it doesn't matter what he does... he's bulletproof.

I fucking love this guy!

comment #3

Scott Mendelson says ...

This might be more amusing if not for Gibson's well-known two decades-long battles with alcoholism. Whatever glee might be found otherwise, it's always a shame when someone who has obviously tried hard to kick the booze habit falls off the wagon, especially in so public a manner.

Scott Mendelson

comment #4

catholic boy says ...

It was very hip and cool to rip Mel Gibson apart during the season of "The Passion" here in Los Angeles a couple years back. Most of the nasty ripping I witnessed first hand was just totally off base and, not to stereotype, but mostly coming from my liberal, Jewish friends. I was raised Catholic, had no choice in that matter. I am now sort of lapsed, sort of still loyal, mostly as confused as the next guy about what it all means. But I found that hostility toward Gibson totally loathesome. It flattered no one. When it resurfaces? It still doesn't. Live and let live.

comment #5

Mike Schaefer says ...

as attempts to change his image go, I'm more impressed by the fact that he co-financed the Leonard Cohen documentary than by a DUI.

comment #6

Verks says ...

Funny that when the conservatives get busted for something like this, their political ideology is trumpeted with disgust by the reporting party. I don't see a Mr. Penn or Mr. Clooney (Both equally, how do you say, "Gooney-Birds"? for the liberal cause) being subjected to the same scrutiny. And who gives a SHIT about Gibson's dad? Like he has control over what the guy thinks however misguided he may be.

comment #7

NYCBusybody says ...

Mel Gibson has, over the last 4 years, become the single coolest figure in Hollywood, BAR NONE. He's a true iconoclast, and a true rebel.

After all, how can you be rebellious in Hollywood but be a bit religious, a bit conservative, and a whole lot of fuckin' awesome? It's a pansy, effete city, so anytime someone bucks the system and goes against the prevailing authority, he get's the cool page in my book.

comment #8

Bert Seefeldt says ...

"Mel Gibson has never identified himself as being a conservative Republican, but he has been perceived as such to the point that The Washington Times called him one. He joined many of his colleagues in the entertainment industry in opposition to the Iraq War and praised the liberal director Michael Moore and his documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11, leading some to see him as a "real" (traditional) conservative in opposition to the neoconservative policies of the Bush administration and others to believing he leans toward a libertarian viewpoint.
In 2006 Gibson told Hotdog Magazine, a UK film magazine, that the "fearmongering" depicted in his film Apocalypto 'reminds me a little of President Bush and his guys'."

Above is all straight from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that he may have praised Moore's flick so as not to look like Icon backed out of its production for political reasons. Still, the Apocalypto comments pretty much stand on their own. So, "conservative gooney-bird"? I'm not so sure.

I don't really understand your motive here, Jeff. This is a really aserbic, borderline Catholic-phoic comment (if that's what works for you, fine, I guess; it's trendy and acceptable in many circles to dislike Catholics, conservative and liberal alike). Still, it would be presumptuous of me to call you an anti-Catholic by these comments alone. What your comments really seems like, to me is glee. Almost ablosute glee that may otherwise be absent if the man in question had not made a movie that played well with the same right wing that reelected Bush. I may be wrong; but this seems like a pretty childish post.

Jeff, I used to read every column. Not only did I read every column, I anticipated. Smugness like this continues to drive me further and further away. And while it's not an excuse for getting a DUI; but if you really knew Catholics, you'd know that even the self-righteous among us are still good drinkers.

comment #9

NYCBusybody says ...

The anti-Catholic uproar when Passion came out was a disgrace to this country (and I'm an avowed agnostic). There were vastly spread reports of quaking fear that violent Catholic bigots would attack Jews, etc. etc....and...nothing....happened....

This reminds me of when Do the Right Thing came out, and theaters in white areas wouldn't show it, for fear that the big black thugs couldn't see it without going crazy.

comment #10

NYCBusybody says ...

SOME white areas. I certainly didn't mean all.

comment #11

Nicol D says ...

Gibson is the cat's ass in my book and he really is the coollest cat in Hollywood right now.

And his father's beliefs have nothing to do with him.

Be bigger than that, Jeffrey.

But DUI is stupid and Gibson has had problems with this in the past. I do not think it makes him 'cool'...just human.

I'll say a prayer for him tonight and thank God something worse did not happen.

comment #12

lac says ...

Even cooler because he has a DUI. Are we now taking are standards for what is cool from Hip Hop.

No

Mel Gibson is an asshole. Just like everyone else who gets drunk and drives!

comment #13

Hopscotch says ...

I say this just because I'm an LA resident. But when you get pulled over for speeding in a school zone: you get a higher fine. If you get pulled over for speeding in a construction zone: You get a higher fine.

But if you get caught drunk driving on PCH: I think your license should be suspended for at least a year. That thing is hard to drive on SOBER let alone at 2:30 after doing some boozing.

Of all the things celebrities get arrested for, I notice that DUI's get a little bit more sympathy. Because WE'VE all done it. Some of us are smart about it, some of us are just plain lucky (Our Prez and Vice-Prez have 3 DWI's between them). And I've had mixed feelings about Mel for awhile, pre-Passion of the Christ, but this looks bad because he's a father. He should act like one.

comment #14

Storymark says ...

No such thing as an accident? That's just flat-out stupid, Jeff.

And are you going to be relating to your two teens how cool it makes you to get a DWI?

comment #15

Hopscotch says ...

As for PR Damage Control:
Mel will be on the Tonight Show very soon. Maybe as early as next week. He'll make fun of himself, admit guilt, tell everyone how dangerous it is and what a bad example he and hope that everyone moves on, and btw my movie comes out in Dec.

comment #16

sinda star says ...

All the praise you guys are giving to this homophobic,sexist,anti semite pig is disgusting.the reason why conservatives get the harder criticism is because they believe themselves to be morally superior than liberals ,so when they committ these mistakes,it's just a pure example of hypocrisy like rush lumbaugh attacking druggies just to be revealed that the man was a drug addict with a penchant for viagra.

I have no sympathy for this bigot.Not because he's a catholic but because of his belief that's OK to attack people whose lives he believes to be morally wrong.
So it's with glee that Mel Nutjob is showing that he's not as holy as he thinks he is.Back to the bottle,Mad Mel!

comment #17

Anonymous says ...

And I'll bet you a new bicycle he's smiling in the mugshot.

comment #18

Nicol D says ...

Let's all give a big fat round of LA style applause to Sinda Star, Catholic hating bigot of the week.

You are a true benefit to the cause of tolerance and diversity.

Ass.

comment #19

Josh Ehrnwald says ...

"Above is all straight from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that he may have praised Moore's flick so as not to look like Icon backed out of its production for political reasons. Still, the Apocalypto comments pretty much stand on their own. So, 'conservative gooney-bird'? I'm not so sure."

Yeah, but that's Wikipedia. Most of the time, I put more stock in what Twitchy the Vomiting Hobo has to say about Mel Gibson and conservative politics than that site.

Take whatever you read there cum grano salis.

comment #20

Storymark says ...

Not giving Mel a pass for Drunk driving because he's a constervative is not Catholic-Bashing Nicol? You're starting to sound as paranoid as you did on Poland's site over "V".

comment #21

kadoogan says ...

Hey Nicol D, I didn't see anything in Sinda Star's post saying that Mel Gibson was deserving of contempt because of his religion. Ms. Star was attacking Gibson for being a hypocrite. And if it's bigoted to be find fault with hypocrites then call me a bigot.

comment #22

catholic boy says ...

sinda star, thank you for basically serving as an example of the kind of person I was talking about. Your attack is hyperbolic, unfounded and generally ridiculous.

comment #23

Hopscotch says ...

Mel, like millions of other Americans, is against abortion and against embryonic stem-cell research, while at the same time is for the death penalty and has killed literally hundreds of people (on screen).

I've always found that to be a hypocritical stance, but, like I said, we are indeed filled with a nation of hypocrites.

The top three candidates for the next Republican nomination for President (McCain, Guliani, Gingrich) are all divorced, and all divorced for fucking around on their wives, yet they are the "Moral" party, right?

comment #24

travis b. says ...

mel gibson, the actor and director has made several movies that i've enjoyed. the mad max films, the original lethal weapon, braveheart, galliopoli, the bounty, etc. etc. i don't really know much about his personal politics because, honestly, i don't really give a shit. but there are two things that he has done that i flat out do not agree with. 1.) saying he was being "persecuted" on leno during the opening of the passion of the christ (which is minor, but it shows a lack of perspective, which i felt was missing from the passion). and 2.) this dui. there is nothing more frustrating than to see people my own age (twenties) go driving while drunk, but for a man of his age, stature, and wealth to do such a thing, it becomes that much more irritating. if he wants to get drunk, great get drunk. but don't endanger yourself and those around you by driving. call a cab, i'm sure mel gibson, selfish prick that he is (and yes, driving while drunk is quite the selfish act) can afford it, no matter where he was going.

comment #25

Bert Seefeldt says ...

"Yeah, but that's Wikipedia. Most of the time, I put more stock in what Twitchy the Vomiting Hobo has to say about Mel Gibson and conservative politics than that site."

Get serious. All of that info Wikipedia is cited to other material. Why not prove anything I said wrong as opposed to your moronic ad hominem? You can't. Of course, this is not saying everything on Wikipedia is reliable.

Or you might as well just link one of the stupid Onion article that your ripping off. I'll do it for you: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Idiot.

comment #26

Anonymous says ...

The reason people go easy on DUI's is because we've all done. But why have we all done it? Because it's so easy to do. If you go to dinner and drink two beers, or maybe just a glass of wine; there's a good chance you're over the legal limit. You don't feel drunk, no one else would think you're drunk, but that breathalyzer will say otherwise.

I'm not making a case for drunk driving, but come on. Until we find out that he was two or three times the legal limit, give the guy a break.

comment #27

Hopscotch says ...

That's kind of the benefit for being a little overweight (like myself), it takes more for me to get drunk than say Mel, who's in great shape and is 5'8''.

But did Mel have a couple of drinks after a meal....at 2:30 in the morning, on a Thursday night? Probably not. I'm still shocked the cop pulled over a celebrity. They don't do that shit in LA (unless he's black). Sorry, couldn't resist.

comment #28

Hopscotch says ...

The celebrity, not the cop. sorry for that confusion.

comment #29

gh says ...

I like the guy.

comment #30

Daniel Zelter says ...

Jeff: There are a lot of celebs who get in trouble for DUI's, and most of them aren't religious like Mel. Though I think what pisses me off is his bail is 5 grand, when I was told in traffic school that it can go anywhere from 12-30 grand in this state.

NYC: "The anti-Catholic uproar when Passion came out was a disgrace to this country (and I'm an avowed agnostic)."

So priests raping little boys for the last 70 years,and the Pope promising salvation to people who murdered Jews, Muslims and American Indians and Protestants for centuries isn't a disgrace?

"This reminds me of when Do the Right Thing came out, and theaters in white areas wouldn't show it, for fear that the big black thugs couldn't see it without going crazy."

I thought you hate black people complaining about being victims.

"You don't feel drunk, no one else would think you're drunk, but that breathalyzer will say otherwise."

Clinton lowered the legal limit before he left office.

comment #31

God says ...

Mel. Gibson. Rocks.

comment #32

Aladdin Sane says ...

Jesus' first recorded miracle was turning water into wine. Mel was celebrating this fact!

comment #33

Griff says ...

Ya gotta love the Internet. Where all of the (virtual)badasses hang out.

comment #34

Josh Ehrnwald says ...

"Get serious. All of that info Wikipedia is cited to other material. Why not prove anything I said wrong as opposed to your moronic ad hominem? You can't. Of course, this is not saying everything on Wikipedia is reliable.

Or you might as well just link one of the stupid Onion article that your ripping off. I'll do it for you: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Idiot."

"Moronic ad hominem"? Wow, I think someone here needs to count to five and cool down. Overreact much? Sometime reader of "The Onion," lo these many years, but can't say I've ever read this particular article you cite.

So...what's with the pent-up rage, anyhow? Don't think it had any bearing on the point at hand, except as a way to score cheap points. Next time, Bert, kindly stick to the issue without trollerizing.

comment #35

BL says ...

"Is it me or does this increase Mel Gibson's cool factor by like a gazillion? -- Mr Big"

"Mel Gibson has, over the last 4 years, become the single coolest figure in Hollywood... how can you be rebellious in Hollywood but be a bit religious, a bit conservative, and a whole lot of fuckin' awesome? It's a pansy, effete city, so anytime someone bucks the system and goes against the prevailing authority, he get's the cool page in my book.---NYCBusybody"

Jezus Christ, what are you guys, like 12 years old?

I can only imagine neither of you have lived long enough to have known somebody killed by drunk driver.

I am not saying that driving under the influence is not a forgivable mistake or that its time to bring out the tar and feathers - but anybody who would CELEBRATE some pathetic schlub like Gibson for it is beyond redemption.

comment #36

Mike Gebert says ...

Where the hell did you people get the idea that it's hypocritical for Catholics to be drunk?

It's practically a sacrament in Ireland.

comment #37

Nicol D says ...

"So priests raping little boys for the last 70 years,and the Pope promising salvation to people who murdered Jews, Muslims and American Indians and Protestants for centuries isn't a disgrace?"

Priests did not 'rape little boys'. Adult male priests took advantage of and molested post adolescent teenage males.

It was not a problem of pedophiles in the priest hood. It was a problem of gay men in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's entering the priest hood as a way to facilitate meeting other men and young adults.

The largest study on the Catholic Church's problem was put forth by Dr. Philip Jenkins of the University of Pennsylvania. It has been published in book form. It was never a problem of pedophilia. The rate of pedophilia amongst Catholic priests was/is no higher than amongst Jewish rabbis, teachers or the general public at large.

The probelm Jenkins found was that adult males molested teenage males. It was also largely concentrated in white North America which was undergoing a sexual revolution at the time. Since homosexuality was still not widely accepted by the mass public many men went where they could be in the easy company of other men. The priesthood.

It also coincided with the liberal Catholic Church movement of the late sixties.

It was never a problem in ethnic Catholic churches or traditionalist Catholic churches in other parts of the world.

When Pope John Paul II was initially told of the problem he couldn't believe that the issue was one of too many gay men in the priesthood in North America. When he was living in communist Poland post WWII, falsley being accused of being a homosexual was a way to defame and destroy someone by the government. He thought this was more of the same. When he finally realized the gravity of the situation it was too late.

Many people did wrong in this scandal and the church will pay for it for generations to come.

But let's be very clear about what the problem was. It was not a problem of pedophilia or raping young boys.

I know it is convenient for hate-mongers to distill complex truth into simple bile. Please bring more to the conversation next time than gross generalizations better left to a post depression KKK handbook on 'filthy papists'.

As for Gibson,

...funny how this is in the mainstream press but nobody seemed to care when Mel donated a million dollars to children in Mexico recently.

comment #38

lesterg says ...

Uh oh. Mel was apparently making anti-semitic statements and threats towards the officers who arrested him. Oh yeah, and it was videotaped.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/07/28/gibsons-anti-semitic-tirade-alleged-cover-up

Maybe me made a bet with Lohan to see who can completely self-destruct in the shortest amount of time?

comment #39

Daniel Zelter says ...

Nicol: " Adult male priests took advantage of and molested post adolescent teenage males."

Actually, the post adolescent males9more like adults) are the ones reporting these crimes, because they were too afraid to come out when they were younger.

"It was a problem of gay men in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's entering the priest hood as a way to facilitate meeting other men and young adults."

Actually, they have it on record as far back as the 30's, and the men raping the children are straight, because the Church doesn't allow marriage.

"The rate of pedophilia amongst Catholic priests was/is no higher than amongst Jewish rabbis, teachers or the general public at large."

I've heard like hundreds to thousands of male priests who have been caught, while only one or two rabbis.

"The probelm Jenkins found was that adult males molested teenage males. It was also largely concentrated in white North America which was undergoing a sexual revolution at the time.Since homosexuality was still not widely accepted by the mass public many men went where they could be in the easy company of other men. The priesthood.

Actually, most gay guys back then just tried to fake being straight by marrying women and bearing children.

"It also coincided with the liberal Catholic Church movement of the late sixties."

You mean the one which didn't blame Jews for Jesus' death?

"It was never a problem in ethnic Catholic churches or traditionalist Catholic churches in other parts of the world."

It's being reported around the world, Nicol.

"When Pope John Paul II was initially told of the problem he couldn't believe that the issue was one of too many gay men in the priesthood in North America."

Well that's because gays are not the problem. The problem is an outdated religious institution which refuses to change.

"When he was living in communist Poland post WWII, falsley being accused of being a homosexual was a way to defame and destroy someone by the government."

And for us, it was accusing someone of being a communist or witch.

" It was not a problem of pedophilia or raping young boys."

What you really want to say, but you're trying to be politically correct about it, is that it's the
"fault" of "the fags".

"I know it is convenient for hate-mongers to distill complex truth into simple bile. Please bring more to the conversation next time than gross generalizations better left to a post depression KKK handbook on 'filthy papists'."

Newsflash. Catholics aren't minorities, although their religion is becoming irrelevant, because at least the Scientologists are honest about their religion being a front for ripping people off.

"...funny how this is in the mainstream press but nobody seemed to care when Mel donated a million dollars to children in Mexico recently."

It's probably just part of a tax break for shooting Apocalypto. Anyway, he also put a restraining order on a guy who just wanted to pray
with him.

comment #40

Ian says ...

Nicol D,

Dr. Philip Jenkins teaches at Penn State, not the University of Pennsylvania.

There's a difference.

And Dr. Jenkins is, indeed, the scholar most likely to be quoted on Catholic affiliated websites, i.e. sources for apologists of the Church. I'm not saying he's wrong, incidentally, but it's funny how many sites with your viewpoints quote Dr. Jenkins and *only* Dr. Jenkins. You'll discover that the sites discussion pedophilia in the church are far far better documented. But that's just because the hatemongers are more willing to do their research, I guess?

Whether the problem is gay priests (as you seem to want to scapegoat it in a way that's homophobic to a level of disgusting ignornance -- the whole argument relies on the theory that gay men are incapable of resisting the desire to bugger adolescent boys, which is just ridiculous) or pedophiles (check out "Deliver Us From Evil" when it gets released this fall), do you want to deny that the attempts to cover up the scandals have gone to the very top of the Church? Do you want to try to do that?

Then again, what on Earth does any of this have to do with Mel Gibson getting drunk and then driving on the PCH? It's not like he's gotten on a pulpit at any point and condemned boozers. Quite the opposite. He admitted he had a problem, sought treatment and this is sad for him and probably not relevant to the rest of us.

As for the proported anti-Semitic slurs, well, that just makes the guy look bad. But he's looked plenty bad before and turned himself into a martyr, so I'd expect him to do the same here.

comment #41

Nicol D says ...

Daniel,

You have given me nothing but lies and rhetoric based in being extremely defensive.

Do you have a source for anything you write?

Let's just look at one of the myths you talk about.

"Actually, they have it on record as far back as the 30's, and the men raping the children are straight, because the Church doesn't allow marriage. "

Think about this logically. The church doesn't allow marriage for priests in its doctrine.

Where does it say that it allows the 'raping of children'?

Does it make sense to you Daniel, that if you are heterosexual male and want to have sex with adult women but cannot that all of a sudden you would get the urge to have sex with a male child which you are also forbidden to do?

Have you ever had an extended period of time where you did not have adult sex, Daniel?

Did you then all of a sudden get the urge to go for a child of the opposite sex you are normally attracted to?

Human sexuality does not work that way, Daniel.

Deep down, you must know that.

I understand it is very important to you to not have this be seen as 'all gay men are pedophiles'. I never said they were because these cases overwhelmingly were not about pedophilia.

I also never used the word 'fag', nor would I.

But too much damage has been done to too many people over this issue and I for one will not let the lie that it was about pedophilia be proliferated when that was not the issue.

Many people in the Catholic church covered up this problem and Catholics have to face that fact and deal with it. There is no way around it. Wrong was done.

And I reiterate, this was a white, North American problem that coincided with the liberalization of the Catholic Church during the dawn of the sexual revolution of the sixties. Read the reports friend. The overwhelming majority of scandal victims were not children. They were teen males. That's not pedophilia.

The gay community also needs to take their share of the blame. Just chiding me point for point with more propaganda and rhetoric that you cannot back up does not make you right, friend.

I suggest if you really care about the abused you read up on this issue with people such as Jenkins and many others.

If you do not, then please quit spreading lies. Too many people have been hurt already.

comment #42

Nicol D says ...

Ian,

If I wanted to deny the coverup I wouldn't have wrote what I wrote.

Jenkins has done the most foremost research on this subject and is no Catholic apologist. He is not even Catholic.

Can you give me sources for any of your generalizations or are you just on a general rant like Daniel?

And trying to censor me from the speaking truth with words like 'homophobia' won't work. I had enough of that crap in university and never again.

As for why we are discussing this...

Ask Daniel. He never fails given the occasion to bring up this topic in a vulgar way. And as long he does and I read it...I will counteract the lies.

Give me a source for your views friend. I'd love to comment.

comment #43

sinda star says ...

I'm not anti-catholic.I ,myself am a catholic.I believe in god and I have the utmost respect towards jesus.But what I don't respect is the fundamentalists who smear god's name with their narrowmindedness and utter hatred.And Mad Mel is one of these loons.
Is homosexuality a sin? Yes,but the same thing can be said about unmarital sex,drinking,lying and we all know this happens anywhere.Only God is perfect.Homophobia is inexcusable.HATE IS HATE!!!!God is love and people like Pat robertson,William J.Donehue and Mel Gibson are better represantives of the devil than god or jesus.

comment #44

Daniel Zelter says ...

Nicol: "Do you have a source for anything you write?"

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Catholic_Church_Abuse_Scandal

"Think about this logically. The church doesn't allow marriage for priests in its doctrine. Where does it say that it allows the 'raping of children'?"

Apparently under the same doctrine which allowed genocide of people who were not Catholics.

"Does it make sense to you Daniel, that if you are heterosexual male and want to have sex with adult women but cannot that all of a sudden you would get the urge to have sex with a male child which you are also forbidden to do?"

It's not about whether they're sexually inclined to do it with that child. It's about using that child as a surrogate for their lust, so that they're still technically "chaste", since they didn't do it with a woman. And there actually isn't anything specific in the Bible which says pedophilia is forbidden.

"Have you ever had an extended period of time where you did not have adult sex, Daniel?"

Almost a decade, but mostly by choice, not because I've forced myself to give up on any possibility of it.

"Did you then all of a sudden get the urge to go for a child of the opposite sex you are normally attracted to?"

No, but sadly, I've been attracted to women who act like children. Goes with the territory around here.

"Human sexuality does not work that way, Daniel."

But you're talking about people who are forced to deny their sexuality.

"The gay community also needs to take their share of the blame."

Why? They're not even allowed to become priests anymore.

comment #45

Nicol D says ...

Daniel,

Do you know what the definition of a bigot is?

Really.

Hateful generalizations against a whole group of people rooted not in fact but in prejudice and historical ignorance.

The Yahoo link you provide is mostly just op/eds and 200 word articles on specific cases. Not throrough academic research.

"It's not about whether they're sexually inclined to do it with that child. It's about using that child as a surrogate for their lust, so that they're still technically "chaste", since they didn't do it with a woman. And there actually isn't anything specific in the Bible which says pedophilia is forbidden. "

Unbelievable! Are you actually trying to tell me that Christians and Catholics interpret the bible so that pedophilia is moral? That one could 'rape a child' and still be chaste.

The Catholic philosophy's view on sex is that all sex outside of sex that allows for the possibility of procreation with a woman is a sin. It is the same as the Bhuddist philosophy of purity of the body.

Again, feel free to disagree with them but your ignorant lies about the philosophy, saying it allows 'raping a child' is not appreciated.

Daniel, it is traditional Catholics and Evangelicals who are the ones who are fighting the hardest to stop child pornography. When the new Conservative government in 'liberal' Canada recently raised the age of consent to 16, it was feminist and gay rights activists who fought for SSM who complained and wanted it lowered. Some even wanted it pushed back to 12.

What you believe has no basis in reality or logic Daniel.

"But you're talking about people who are forced to deny their sexuality."

No one is forced to do anything Daniel. No one is forced to become a priest. It is voluntary and by choice.

"Apparently under the same doctrine which allowed genocide of people who were not Catholics."

Glib responses rooted in DaVinci Code history don't travel well, friend.

I find you amazing Daniel. Your hate combined with your ignorance is a true marvel.

I look forward to your next negative generalizations with a great eagerness.

Sinda,

I do not know whether you are really a Catholic...or just someone who says she is Catholic but lives like a New Ager...

If you are Catholic, remember tolerance is not acquiescence.

comment #46

Bert Seefeldt says ...

"Next time, Bert, kindly stick to the issue without trollerizing."

Stick to the issue? I intially posted info from Wikipedia that referenced quotes from the Washington Times and Hotdog magazine. But because it was on Wikipedia, you equated the information to that offered by "twitchy hobo". Who is trollerizing? Who is changing the issue?

comment #47

Anonymous says ...

Hopscotch writes: "The top three candidates for the next Republican nomination for President (McCain, Guliani, Gingrich) are all divorced, and all divorced for fucking around on their wives, yet they are the 'Moral' party, right?"

Not to excuse the antics of McCain, Guliani and Gingrich, but the only folks who keep harping on the 'moral' party angle are libs. Republicans don't refer to the GOP as the 'moral' party. I know, I know: You're point of references are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. While they are certainly conservatives who vote Republican, they no more reflect the core constituency of the Republican party than Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi reflect the core constituency of the Democrat party.

comment #48

Daniel Zelter says ...

Nicol: "Do you know what the definition of a bigot is?"

And do you know the definition of a con job?

"Hateful generalizations against a whole group of people"

I didn't generalize against a whole group of people, just an institution which represents those people. And again, the last time you were minorities was when the Romans were feeding you to the lions.

"The Yahoo link you provide is mostly just op/eds and 200 word articles on specific cases. Not throrough academic research."

Um, no, most of those are reports.

"Unbelievable! Are you actually trying to tell me that Christians and Catholics interpret the bible so that pedophilia is moral?"

No. I'm just saying they don't actually deal with the subject.

"That one could 'rape a child' and still be chaste."

Well that's their logic, not mine.

"The Catholic philosophy's view on sex is that all sex outside of sex that allows for the possibility of procreation with a woman is a sin."

But since they're priests who do it, it cancels itself out.

"Daniel, it is traditional Catholics and Evangelicals who are the ones who are fighting the hardest to stop child pornography. When the new Conservative government in 'liberal' Canada recently raised the age of consent to 16, it was feminist and gay rights activists who fought for SSM who complained and wanted it lowered. Some even wanted it pushed back to 12."

From http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=7845e2e1-bf24-49ca-b01e-a54de13fd9f2&k=18014

"Any exploitive or abusive situation is already provided for under the law," said Ariel Troster, vice-president of gay rights group Egale Canada. "So from our perspective this would have little effect other than criminalizing consensual relationships."

"Glib responses rooted in DaVinci Code history don't travel well, friend."

So the Crusades, The Holocaust, and the massacre of the Indians were "myths", too?

comment #49

Daniel Zelter says ...

"Republicans don't refer to the GOP as the 'moral' party."

Since when?

"While they are certainly conservatives who vote Republican, they no more reflect the core constituency of the Republican party than Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi reflect the core constituency of the Democrat party"

Well you're right about Kennedy and Pelosi, since most Dem voters are against the war. But that's a different issue.

comment #50

Josh Ehrnwald says ...

" 'Next time, Bert, kindly stick to the issue without trollerizing.'

Stick to the issue? I intially posted info from Wikipedia that referenced quotes from the Washington Times and Hotdog magazine. But because it was on Wikipedia, you equated the information to that offered by "twitchy hobo". Who is trollerizing? Who is changing the issue?"

Attacking me and calling me an idiot in a personal fashion after all I did was refer to Wikipedia in general (and not you yourself personally) as more than somewhat specious and unreliable.

Most university professors -- including my wife -- forbid use of Wikipedia as a citational resource for a reason, you know.

*THAT'S* how I define "changing the issue." Since you asked.

comment #51

Bert Seefeldt says ...

Well, if I were submitting my message board post for a term paper, I may have reconsidered the source. Still, trying to undercut my entirely supportable statement with such abrasiveness toward my source is a bit hostile on your part, don't you think? I take that as sort of impersonal, at least. I never really changed the subject. Like I said off the bat, prove me wrong. While I'm done defending Mel due to this anti-Semitic ugliness, I still stand by my statements about Jeff's smugness and the obvious glee toward another's misfortune.

I agree that Wikipedia can, in fact, be questionable if used improperly. But writing it off entirely is just as foolish as using it as a source for a scholarly work. It's not scholarly work. It's not meant to be. The New Yorker gave it pretty fair consideration this week. I think the author here might approve of my use as a source on Hollywood-Elsewhere's website "Comments" section: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact