So, now we have Rob Reiner weighing in on the Mel Gibson imbroglio. He’s stated that, if Mel ever hopes to be absolved of his sins, he must start by admitting to us all that his anti-Semitic views have been reflected in his movies (i.e. The Passion of the Christ?). In other words, according to the Rob, only when the Mel has done that, can there even be a “beginning of some reconciliation for him.” My question is, “And then what?” After the Mel does that, what will he then have to do to make the Rob happy? At what point will the Rob ever say to the Mel, “Okay, Mel, you’ve done enough. You may now consider yourself to be fully redeemed.” Do you suspect, like I do, that such a time would most probably never ever quite be arrived at? And, if that’s true, the question then becomes, why should Mel even consider making any attempt whatsoever to gain the approval of a person like the Rob? The essence of the Rob’s demand is that, now that he perceives the Mel to be in a vulnerable and weak position, it is somehow appropriate to make him grovel and beg for a hand of mercy and forgiveness that will most likely never be extended. And, for what? So the Rob can coerce an admission from the Mel that will disgrace the Mel’s masterpiece forevermore. Bad move Rob. The reason? Because your demand now focuses the spotlight on you, rather than Mel.
By suggesting that The Passion of the Christ is something that is a direct outpouring of someone’s personal feelings of anti-Semitism, what exactly are you saying Rob? Are you suggesting that the picture in someway was told with a slant that would not have existed, but for those sentiments? If so, what parts of the movie were in error when measured against the facts about the event it depicts as we know them to be? Rob, can you tell us in detail exactly what parts of the movie that Mel made about Christ’s crucifixion that you would have done differently to make it more “accurate”? Are there facts about the event that he included that were not true? If so, what are they Rob? Or, are there facts that he failed to include because of his bias that should not have been left out? If so, can you tell us what those facts are that you think should have been included? Or, are you suggesting that Mel simply misrepresented facts, or as they might say today, that Mel spun the story in such a way that it caused you to form the opinion that he misrepresented the story of this historical occurrence to advance some anti-Semitic agenda? It must be so, if you are suggesting that The Passion must now be acknowledged by Mel to be an anti-Semitic piece of propaganda. And so, please tell us how, in your view, Mel inaccurately spun the story to advance the nefarious agenda you have suggested he had? Can you do this for us?
It’s important that you answer these questions Rob. The reason is, if you are not able to, would we not have to conclude that you are in agreement with many of the rest of us that Mel’s telling of the story essentially was historically accurate? And if that is so, that to me would be scary, because I would then have to conclude that you must also believe that even an accurate telling of the account of Christ’s crucifixion by anybody somehow constitutes an anti-Semitic act. And if that is true, Rob, aren’t you really saying that in your opinion anyone who may believe the Bible’s account of the events immediately preceding the death of Christ is, by definition, an anti-Semite? And if that’s true, I, for one, must object to such a blatant expression of prejudice that would smear the whole of Christendom with your broad brush of bigotry. It’s an unfounded accusation that is as ugly and hateful as it is erroneous.
If you think about it Rob, it might just be that, by your attempt to coerce Mel to condemn The Passion as a work of anti-Semitism, you may well have revealed to all of us a prejudice that you hold in your heart that could well be every bit as despicable as the one for which you are now attempting to extort Mel. Please understand, Rob, I sincerely hope that is not the case, but before I can decide the issue, I hope you also understand that I must await your responses to the foregoing questions posed. In the meantime, however, you may take comfort in the fact that, even if you are found to embrace such an unjustifiable bigotry against Christians, I, for one, think it appropriate to refrain from being so offensive as to publicly declare those conditions by which I may think you might achieve your redemption for such a sin. That is a matter I feel might best be left for you and the God many of us all worship to work out between yourselves in private. Come to think of it, perhaps it would also be a good idea if you were to consider leaving Mel alone to do this as well. What do you say, Rob? On this, can we agree?
© 2006 Clifford C. Nichols, Esq.
Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com.