Sprigg Apologizes
Box Turtle Bulletin and ExGay Watch both have this story already, but since it has a local angle I think I'll put it up here, too.
We first heard of Peter Sprigg when the Citizens for a Responsible ... Curriculum ... had their town hall meeting in 2005. Some of us attended and you couldn't shower enough afterwards to get the dirty feeling off you. We refer to that meeting at the "Hate Fest." You can read transcripts of the main speeches and hear them HERE.
One of the speakers was Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. When I first heard of that group, I thought maybe they had something to do with families, or research, or that they were a council. None of the above, sorry, they exist to oppose gay people. Of all the speakers that day, Sprigg worried me the most because he was actually able to put a sentence together, he was articulate and charming, and it sounded like he knew what he was talking about. If you look into any of the "facts" he cites, you realize they are bogus science or hardly more than rumors, but he runs them by you so fast you think he's saying something.
Since then we have seen Peter, who lives in our county, as PFOX's designated member of the MCPS citizens advisory committee.
I haven't been following this controversy, but apparently when an American is married to a person with foreign citizenship, the government lets the foreigner stay here. But if they're gay, if I'm understanding this correctly, the government deports the foreign half of the couple. Okay, that's a bad deal, agreed.
Not hard to guess what Sprigg's view on this is. He said in an interview last week:
Box Turtle Bulletin awarded him the LaBarbera Award, which is, let's say, not a good thing, for these comments.
Yesterday on the Family Research Council's blog, Peter apologized for what he said:
I'd like to know what went into that. Why does he care all of a sudden about the "essential dignity" of gay people? He's saying that gay people were created in the image of God? Maybe I'm not getting something here, but his original words did seem to reflect the standards of the Family Research Council, they were consistent with everything else that comes out of there. Peter didn't apologize when as a "homosexuality detection expert" he was quoted alleging that SpongeBob SquarePants was supporting the homosexual agenda and that words like "tolerance" and "diversity" are part of a "coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community." So why is he apologizing now?
Our battle here has been mostly against stupid people, people who can't see nuances of anything. People who define their sexuality -- we've actually heard them say this -- by looking down in the shower. Whatever you see tells you all you need to know, who you should fall in love with, what you should act like. Peter isn't like that, that's what makes him so dangerous. He's actually kind of likable, one of those examples of the banality of evil that so confuse people. In the school controvery, he seemed to be the only one on their side who understood that the other members of the citizens committee were actually taking his and the other rightwingers' ideas seriously, even though we obviously didn't agree with them, and were giving them a fair chance to make a point. He can be reasonable, but you can't trust him. He's agenda-driven, and the agenda is one that marginalizes people who deserve to be active participating members of our society as a whole, treats good people as a threat, encourages other good people -- straight people, religious people -- to stereotype and despise others based on irrelevant characteristics.
So what's up with this apology?
We first heard of Peter Sprigg when the Citizens for a Responsible ... Curriculum ... had their town hall meeting in 2005. Some of us attended and you couldn't shower enough afterwards to get the dirty feeling off you. We refer to that meeting at the "Hate Fest." You can read transcripts of the main speeches and hear them HERE.
One of the speakers was Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. When I first heard of that group, I thought maybe they had something to do with families, or research, or that they were a council. None of the above, sorry, they exist to oppose gay people. Of all the speakers that day, Sprigg worried me the most because he was actually able to put a sentence together, he was articulate and charming, and it sounded like he knew what he was talking about. If you look into any of the "facts" he cites, you realize they are bogus science or hardly more than rumors, but he runs them by you so fast you think he's saying something.
Since then we have seen Peter, who lives in our county, as PFOX's designated member of the MCPS citizens advisory committee.
I haven't been following this controversy, but apparently when an American is married to a person with foreign citizenship, the government lets the foreigner stay here. But if they're gay, if I'm understanding this correctly, the government deports the foreign half of the couple. Okay, that's a bad deal, agreed.
Not hard to guess what Sprigg's view on this is. He said in an interview last week:
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.
Box Turtle Bulletin awarded him the LaBarbera Award, which is, let's say, not a good thing, for these comments.
Yesterday on the Family Research Council's blog, Peter apologized for what he said:
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.
I'd like to know what went into that. Why does he care all of a sudden about the "essential dignity" of gay people? He's saying that gay people were created in the image of God? Maybe I'm not getting something here, but his original words did seem to reflect the standards of the Family Research Council, they were consistent with everything else that comes out of there. Peter didn't apologize when as a "homosexuality detection expert" he was quoted alleging that SpongeBob SquarePants was supporting the homosexual agenda and that words like "tolerance" and "diversity" are part of a "coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community." So why is he apologizing now?
Our battle here has been mostly against stupid people, people who can't see nuances of anything. People who define their sexuality -- we've actually heard them say this -- by looking down in the shower. Whatever you see tells you all you need to know, who you should fall in love with, what you should act like. Peter isn't like that, that's what makes him so dangerous. He's actually kind of likable, one of those examples of the banality of evil that so confuse people. In the school controvery, he seemed to be the only one on their side who understood that the other members of the citizens committee were actually taking his and the other rightwingers' ideas seriously, even though we obviously didn't agree with them, and were giving them a fair chance to make a point. He can be reasonable, but you can't trust him. He's agenda-driven, and the agenda is one that marginalizes people who deserve to be active participating members of our society as a whole, treats good people as a threat, encourages other good people -- straight people, religious people -- to stereotype and despise others based on irrelevant characteristics.
So what's up with this apology?
posted by JimK at 6:31 AM
28 Comments:
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
Maybe Peter will speak up and let us know.
These things do happen, however. Recently Maryanne attended an Easter service with the pastor and his family at a local church (no, not the Unitarians) which was a local breakthrough of decency and civility and a true eagerness to drop the shades of ignorance, learn and move forward.
I've mentioned that a leader of the state group which opposes marriage equality intervened to take down the slanderous comments made about me on the "traditional values coalition" website. And now we have Michelle condemning death threats, which I guess is a start.
Hope spriggs eternal, as they say. Maybe it is the audacity of hope we've been hearing about, seeping into some of the darkest reaches of our country.
Stellar post, Jim.
Hope spriggs eternal...
Dana, you should be ashamed of yourself for this one!
JimK
"One of the speakers was Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. When I first heard of that group, I thought maybe they had something to do with families, or research, or that they were a council. None of the above, sorry, they exist to oppose gay people."
Wrong. This is only one of many pro-family positions they are concerned with.
You may notice that Spriggs didn't actually change his position on the issue. He just apologized for speaking in a manner that trivialized the issue. The statement didn't sound that bad to me but maybe you had to see it in context to appreciate why he felt he should apologize.
Spriggs' position is correct, btw. If a couple is gay, they aren't married because gay marriage is not recognized in Federal law or by 49 states. Hence, they don't qualify for automatic residency. The purpose of the law is to keep families together. Keeping gay partners together isn't something that should be encouraged any more than keeping unmarried co-habitating straights together. These arrangements shouldn't be illegalized, in my opinion, but neither should they be granted some kind of special dispensation under the law.
One thing you guys never seem to understand is that Christians can feel someone is engaged in sinful behavior without hating them. They have to. They believe everyone is sinful. And they're not supposed to hate everyone; not supposed to hate anyone. Simply not endorsing or encouraging behavior is not the equivalent of hate.
Anon, you are making a distinction that has no consequence.
Those who say that someone's feeling of love for another person is evil prove their hatred.
They can say they "love" them, but that kind of love is academic and meaningless, a philosophical construct of no interest outside those concerned with constructing a coherent theology of a particular type.
JimK
Your comments make no sense, Jim. Might be worth some more discussion later today.
"A California court announced Tuesday it will reconsider what Dr. James Dobson called an "egregious decision" to criminalize home schooling in the state.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles agreed to the request by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) after a nationwide outcry over the Feb. 28 ruling, which said parents without teaching credentials do not have a right to home-school their children.
“Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children,” ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb said. “Because this ruling impacts all Californians, we believe the case deserves a second look. We look forward to presenting this case for rehearing.”
And just as importantly, it is of no comfort to those who are hated. Not being a Christian I don't care, but those who are Christian are often deeply wounded by the hypocrisy they see every time they hear such nonsense. "Hate the sin but love the sinner." It doesn't work, and everyone knows it.
And I'm so glad you believe we are all sinners, and not because we are fallible human beings, but because of "original sin."
This just leads, once again, to the conclusion that the separation of church and state is an absolute necessity to protect people like me from people like you, and just as importantly, to protect your right to believe what you will and to do so in peace.
I'll be honest, Anonymous, I just don't feel the love.
"One thing you guys never seem to understand is that Christians can feel someone is engaged in sinful behavior without hating them. They have to. They believe everyone is sinful. And they're not supposed to hate everyone; not supposed to hate anyone. Simply not endorsing or encouraging behavior is not the equivalent of hate."
Jim,Dana,Robo
What I said is above. I never said "Hate the sin, love the sinner." I don't because "love" is used many ways in our culture and, thus, the statement leads to misunderstanding- and is easy for the immature types that support TTF to ridicule. I think a more accurate principle would be: "Hate the sin, show charity to the sinner."
Is that possible? Again, interesting topic and deserves more than a few quick lines. Perhaps tonight there will be time to go down that rabbit hole.
Anonymous
Would you claim that someone who says things like "the immature types who support TTF" displays charity to anyone?
Regina will always fall back on the "tough love is real love" argument, but, again, as one of your "sinners", I don't feel so much the CRG/CRC PFOX, FRC, FOF, CWFA, et al. display much charity towards me. I just don't experience it that way. You can take that for whatever you consider that is worth.
rrjr
Don't worry, AnonFreak... God even loves bigots, so you are safe.
I just wish that you could feel the real love of Jesus Christ so that you could use it for good instead of using it for an obvious evil of hating others. Shameful!
andrea-not anon
wow, I am so grateful for M.N. Anon's compassion. Hey, and my
loving response is stuff it. Keep your nasty theology for your nasty self.
"wow, I am so grateful for M.N. Anon's compassion. Hey, and my
loving response is stuff it. Keep your nasty theology for your nasty self"
You gotta wonder how she could ever get into a shouting match in front of a grocery store with anyone. What kind of person could actually insult such an enchanting woman?
"Hey, and my
loving response is stuff it. Keep your nasty theology for your nasty self."
Delightful. Simply delightful.
Where did she go to charm school?
Anonymous:
Andrea actually graduated from a reputable charm school. You, and you friends from CRG(?) either dropped out or flunked out of the fly-by-night school that you enrolled in. No wonder you carry around such anger and vitriol in your lives.
Diogenes
Oh, you're right about that, Dio. You never hear the rain-lady gettin' angry.
When you see writing of grace and composure like this:
"Hey, and my
loving response is stuff it. Keep your nasty theology for your nasty self."
You just have to think:
Heaven
dow-dow-dow-dow-dow-dow-dow
must be missing an angel
dow-dow-dow-dow-dow-dow-dow
I don't know about any missing angels but look at all the judges right here on this thread.
Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."
JN
Don't be too hard on Andrea, JN. Yeah, she's kinda judgmental but she has an elegant way of expressing herself that really transcends the moment. That "stuff it" comment was really lovely.
Just lovely!
Andrea- not anon
Ooh, I really got to MN Anon. I didn't go to charm school - I went to college and graduate school. I think suggesting charm school shows a lot about your issues with women. Is that where you got your education?
Did pathetic baseball cap and old nasty old white haired guy tell lies about what happened? Too ashamed to give their names, too ashamed to let me counter their lies by handing out a piece of paper and my favorite, sad little baseball cap guy thinking he could scare me by telling me he was talking to the police. You people are a hoot-pathetic- but a hoot.
"One thing you guys never seem to understand is that Christians can feel someone is engaged in sinful behavior without hating them. […] Simply not endorsing or encouraging behavior is not the equivalent of hate."
Oh we get it, there’s just nothing uniquely Christian about it. Any atheist could tell you there’s a difference between a person’s being and their behavior. What you’re proposing however, is that you should be able to condemn the behavior of others ARBITRARILY, set public policy based on this arbitrary "morality," and that that should not be seen as hateful, simply because you’re “Christians.”
Your “morality” is arbitrary, which is immoral, so you attempt to hide this fact at all cost. Therein lies not only your hatred, but your awareness of it.
The hatred lies in willfully deluding yourselves into thinking that a person’s sexuality can be separated from their humanity so that you can define their expression of it as “sinful,” and henceforth, pretend that your hatred of the person, is merely hatred of their “sin.”
The hatred is in the effort you put into justifying it. If homosexual “behavior” was malicious, in and of itself, you’d have no need to justify your condemnation of it, or feel the need to explain how you don’t really hate the person. That’s why you can’t answer my repeated questions as to what precisely is the “morality” of homosexuality, because it’s nothing more than personal disdain on your part. But to admit as much, would be to admit to your own unChristian bigotry, and it’s more important to you and your anti-gay ilk to look like Christians, rather than to act like Christ.
"I didn't go to charm school - I went to college and graduate school."
You did?
What did you try to learn?
Andrea- not anon
Obviously I learned more than Anon. However,MN Anon- tell us your name(although I think I know it) and I will tell you what degrees I got and where
"Obviously I learned more than Anon."
IN WHAT SENSE IS THAT OBVIOUS, ANDREA?
YOU MAKE A LOT OF NASTY PERSONAL INSULTS HERE BUT I DON'T RECALL EVER READING A COMMENT OF SUBSTANCE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU.
You're the one making nasty insulting comments Red Baron. Andrea sticks up for what is good, right, and moral.
Untrue, Priya. Andrea never makes comments with any substance.
I DON'T RECALL
Memory is the second thing to go.
Andrea- not anon
I guess we can see who does the screaming.
Post a Comment
<< Home