This really is a good article, the first I've seen linking the Bush administration's rhetoric with hateful results like this.

Thank you for pointing out that Gibson is not an isolated 'cartoon drunk', but is representative of individuals who now feel they have the cultural backing they need to go public with their prejudices and hatreds.

Yes, George Bush has certainly been 'a uniter and not a divider', in that he has united all those bigoted, fearful, right-wing Christians and melded them into the New America.

Now what we need is a couple of good articles linking right-wing radio, Fox 'News' and other hate-speech media with this sudden need for the individual to go public with their own brand of racism. Surely they must take some responsibility for the outcome of their commentaries. Perhaps we'll have another 'Mel' sometime soon that will tell police (and the world), that they learned everything they know about hating their fellow countrymen from Fox, Mike Savage, et al.

Thanks again for this article.

skinpole that's a funny name. how many times did this guy use "thus". mel blew a .12, for those who have no idea this while legaly drunk is not drunk. lw is correct mel claims to be a devout catholic not an evangelical christian. his father was a jew hater as is he, the rehab is just a cover for those that just don't understand.

Doesn't really matter whether a person is a Catholic, Protestant or evangelical; a right-wing Christian can be any of these, just as there are left-wing Christians. Unfortunately, when someone spouts the kind of 'bile' Mel did, the label 'right-wing Christian' does apply, no matter what the actual denomination of Christianity he belongs to is called.

And in any case, does it matter whether a person is Catholic or evangelical under these circumstances? Whatever that person is, it's about as far away from 'loving your neighbor' as you can possibly get, and certainly not Christian.

Like a lot of people who think like him, Gibson had his bible literally beaten into him.

"Doesn't really matter whether a person is a Catholic, Protestant or evangelical; a right-wing Christian can be any of these, just as there are left-wing Christians. Unfortunately, when someone spouts the kind of 'bile' Mel did, the label 'right-wing Christian' does apply, no matter what the actual denomination of Christianity he belongs to is called."

Actually, it does. It makes a HUGE difference, one that a great many folks who haven't learned much about the varieties of Christianity don't always appreciate and one that Salon has missed, I think.

In one very large branch of the Evangelical movement, the Jewish people, as a whole, are sacred because they are God's Chosen People. This is not true of all branches of the Evangelicals, but it is for a large percentage. The Catholics in America however, from my own experience, tend to pay lip service to this notion, but not really buy into it with the fervor of the Evangelicals. (Of course, Catholics and Protestants, especially Catholics and Evangelicals, never have gotten along very well, despite politics turning them into close bedfellows.)

Mel's comments are something that this group will have to do their best to ignore, as they do Rush's addictions. Or perhaps not ignore. It'll be interesting to see what they do with it. I'm curious what sin, exactly, you have to catch a Conservative hero engaged in before he/she the Evangelicals will stop making excuses.

Before the Grammar Police can arrest me, let me offer a mea culpa for the odd little "he/she" thrust into the middle of the last paragraph.

First Salon publishes an article villifying the Christian right because of it's links with judaism. Then Salon publishes an article villifying the Christian right for being anti-semitic the (Tom Delay article published about a year ago).

Is it any wonder that liberals in general and democrats in particular are confused?

And as far as Mel Gibson goes, is it fair to criticize him because he made those remarks? Is it OK for Israel to kill innocent civilians and for us as Americans to support it? Doesn't Mel Gibson have a right to his opinion?

BTW, I have one last point. If Mr. Gabler is jewish, I believe it would have been better for Salon to have clearly pointed this out at the end of the article. Prejudice is prejudice, whether toward Arabs or Jews.

I wish Mr. Gabler could meet my mother, a born again Christian from the midwest. She tears up when speaking of the Jews. "I love the Jews," she said on the phone the other day. "They are the apple of God's eye. As long as American supports the Jews, God will support us." She speaks for millions. Her church and countless other evangelicals believe the Old Testament makes it clear that the Jews are God's chosen people. Mel Gibson is not embraced by people like my mother. She would not recognize him as anything but a lost and befuddled man who needs her prayers. Gabler's thesis of a juxtaposition between GWB and Mel Gibson's ranting is not acceptable or supported. Some people are assholes, but that is not a result of the head of state being a dogmatist. GWB is unreflective, dangerous, and tunnel-visioned, but he espouses his world view in a twisted sincerity that is not fueled by hate. Mel Gibson, on the other hand, is clever and manipulative man who found a way to captitalize on GWB and other evangelicals' innocence. In his film, he gave them a suffering Christ and they could not get enough. I thought then and still do that The Passion of the Christ was not anti-Semitic. The account, with some Catholic and mystical digressions, stuck to the New Testament text which makes it clear that God intended to sacrifice His Son to pay for the sins of the world. The human beings who were the agents of Christ's death are not the focus of the gospel. It was God who made the call: Jesus will die. Mel Gibson is no martyr. He is no saint. There will be no reputable defenders of his behavior or his remarks. (In vino, veritas, indeed.) He's blown it big time.