Last week, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council (FRC) made the following comments during an interview:
I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.
Today he issued an apology:
In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.
Sprigg’s original comments prompted strong reactions, no doubt inside and out of the GLBT community.
Wow, not reflecting the “standards” of the FRC. That’s pretty bad.
“Every human being as a person created in the image of God” What a reversal! So is Spriggs now admitting that all homosexuals are also created in God’s image then?
Wow, that’s even a (mostly) real apology, not an “I’m sorry if someone was offended by my comments” sort of apology. Color me mostly impressed.
dont think so yuki. One of the reasonings, as i recall, goes something like, homosexuality(the sin) is expressed through actions. Homosexual(the person) is a confused human being and in no way does that exempt homosexuals from being a person created in the image of God.
Or… some might just say that homosexuals as we understand them(unchosen attraction towards SS) do not exist and are an invention or a construction of this earthly world. THus… Homosexual=homosexuality(meaning that one is homosexual if and only if one practices homosexuality) and is undistinguishable from saying a theif=stealing. Rendering ur analogy that homosexuals are somehow equal to the god-intended relationship as mistaken.
Empathizing with Spriggs… I just believe that he was just caught up in the moment and got demonly influenced at the time and hence was where his expression came from.
I know I’ll be accused of parsing Spriggs’ apology too closely from some quarters, but he seems to merely apologize for his choice of words, rather than for what his words actually mean.
Saying you believe that homosexuals “should be exported” out of the US doesn’t merely “trivialize the seriousness of an issue,” but says quite clearly that you believe it would be best if an entire people group were forcibly removed from American society. Of course it’s disrespectful, but it also communicates a policy intent that borders on genocide.
The disrespect was addressed, but not the underlying policy intent of his statement. Does he repudiate that? I can’t really tell.
As a result, this statement strikes me as the kind of “apology” a schoolteacher forces a schoolyard bully to give to his victim, after the bully was caught making cruel taunts on the playground. The cruel words are addressed, but not the motivation which caused them to be said in the first place. So it rings a bit false, at least to me.
Why is it a part of me suspects his apology for not respecting “the essential dignity of every human being”… is actually an apology to all those foreign people who would have otherwise had an Export-Quality Gay American foisted on them???
Yeah, that’s what he means!
Sprigg plainly doesn’t want them together, anywhere : relationships being “something that we should be actively discouraging”; as he said in the interview.
And a quick recheck… nope. Still nothing in the Exodus Press Releases… deafening silence from this new direction Exodus.
Nothing from Alan.An FRC promo piece from Randy (basically “Do it, but don’t discuss it. Public talk is bad.”)
A side-note: anyone able to do a hand-writing analysis on Sprigg??? (re-view the clip…)
from the FRC website – core principals aka STANDARDS: (for orthodox we would call this a “creed”)
God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.
Correct me if I am wrong, but what they say and what they mean is…
WHAT THEY SAY:
Government has a duty to promote and protect marriage and family in law and public policy.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
The US federal government should define marriage only as between one man and one woman. Same-sex unions or marriages should be illegal, and gay adoptions not allowed.
WHAT THEY SAY:
God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Repeal abortion rights.
WHAT THEY SAY:
The American system of law and justice was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Their interpretation of the Bible comes first and is to be used to make laws and dispense justice. Example: If the Bible (according to them) says homosexuality is wrong, then so should the American legal and judicial systems.
WHAT THEY SAY:
Life and love are inextricably linked and find their natural expression in the institutions of marriage and the family.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Gay relationships are not life and love inextricably linked and are not natural because they are not expressed in their definition of marriage and family.
WHAT THEY SAY:
American democracy depends upon a vibrant civil society composed of families, churches, schools, and voluntary associations.
WHAT THEY MEAN:
Churches can stick their noses into politics.
If I am wrong in my assessment, my apologies.
Now, do I think Peter Sprigg’s apology has any merit, I would say no judging by what STANDARDS his organization holds.
I commented on another blog about Andrea Lafferty’s name-calling (‘she-male’), and I will say the same about Peter Sprigg’s desperate hysterical comments about exporting gays: In a way, it’s good to hear bitterness and fear in the words of social conservatives. It means that they’re not only losing the cultural argument, but they know it too.
This seems a little extreme. Why not just send homosexuals to an Exodus conference?
Paul…one is a problem, two is a conspiracy. Suspect classes tend to get looked at that way.
Besides…you don’t really think they’d want all the gay folks in the same place. At least not on American soil. He wants gay folks where he knows they all are.
what a maroon!
Color me NOT impressed. Read what he wrote!
“I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.”
He is NOT apologizing for what he wrote, but rather how he wrote it. In other words, he’s upset that his honest and unrepentant feelings have provoked a negative reaction. He would much rather be more subtle and underhanded than that since he knows that his Truth(tm) is controversial.
After all, he could have written this:
“I wrote that I would rather that homosexuals be deported. This comes from my long-standing animus toward gay people. That is a sinful way for me to feel toward them, and I repent of it. I will seek to embrace gay people and completely repudiate what I wrote about wanting to deport them. Instead, I would much rather see them come here, and no one should be deported, mistreated, or condemned based on their sexual orientation.”
Wouldn’t THAT seem like a more genuine apology?