Comments on: Peter Sprigg Apologizes

By: Withers: Family Research Council supports death | Gay News Blog | Blog Post on 365gay.com

Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:18:12 +0000

[...] from American evangelicals? More than likely he meant these kooks. And who can forget FRC’s Peter Sprigg? He wants gay sex to be a criminal offense and ‘mos deported. Sprigg is the same [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:58:57 +0000

Here’s an idea that I’d be willing to contribute towards: setting up a fund for Mr. Sprigg, his bosses and similarly anti-human people, to send them on a trip to see Auschwitz and Treblinka and talk to Holocaust survivors, and/or to the FSU to see the gulags and talk to their survivors, along with a raft of publicity about why they were going… it might not shame them into rejoining civilization, but the signal should be clear enough, yes?

By: BobN

BobN — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:51:22 +0000

I didn’t mean “export”; I meant “exterminate”. Sowwy.

By: Andrew K

Andrew K — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:02:26 +0000

What FRC cannot and will not say is that their position on homosexuality itself does not recognize the basic human dignity of every human person. It has nothing to do with how they speak about it…what was originally said was completely consistent with their view of homosexuality. They wish we were gone, or did not exist, because the persistent existence of homosexuals is a living rebuke by God Himself of their errant beliefs.

By: David

David — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:00:54 +0000

What he means is he hastily spoke what he really thinks rather than recite the polished sophistry of the FRC.

Of course, to maintain that the FRC is a legitimate organization and not really a gussied up hate group, his employer insisted on an apology in order to maintain the facade.

By: Christopher™

Christopher™ — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:28:45 +0000

I posted this over at XGW, but I thought I’d chime in here, too. My problem with this “apology” is that 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.

By: David

David — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:08:09 +0000

Why should he apologize? He meant what he said.