Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Peter Sprigg: We Do It Out of Love

We first encountered Peter Sprigg at the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum's 2005 Hate Fest. He worried me at that time, he is a smooth talker, good with words, likable in his way. He seems sincere and thoughtful but the stuff coming out of his mouth is pure, honey-coated poison. He cites bogus research and plays on the stereotypes of gay people in such a way that the ignorant people who come to hear him speak can easily believe. In fact, the main theme of his career is to insist that the old stereotypes of gay people are in fact accurate.

RightWingWatch caught him on an American Family Association radio show this week, being interviewed by host Matt Friedeman. Listen here:





Sprigg: People are afraid of the homosexual activists and they’re particularly afraid of this character assassination that comes in the form of the word ‘hate.’ Nobody wants to be accused of participating in ‘hate’ and so throwing that word ‘hate’ around becomes a trump card even when nothing that we have done can reasonably be called ‘hate.’ On the contrary, everything we do is motivated by love for the people who are hurt by this lifestyle.

Friedeman: Well, again I think what Tony Perkins has done and Peter Sprigg you by extension, you just say, we’re asking people, and AFA does this all the time as well, you urge retailers to remain neutral in the culture wars, the current cultural battles, particularly when you come down to something like homosexuality. Sprigg: "Nothing That We Have Done Can Reasonably Be Called Hate"

RightWingWatch then summarizes the case.
Such a claim is hard to believe coming from Peter Sprigg, who:

But the LGBT community, Sprigg says, should see all these as acts of love.

The word hate evokes the image of an angry face, a scary face, there is cognitive dissonance in the image of a friendly, good-looking person behaving hatefully. But that's how it works, if bad guys really looked ugly then they would never get away with anything. Spriggs is the master of the benign presentation, he smiles, he jokes with you, his voice sounds like he is making sense, but his entire life is devoted to convincing people that gay people are dirty, perverted, disease-spreading, child-molesting perverts. Here he claims to be doing all this out of love.

22 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

ah, Peter Sprigg

the name itself evokes community service of the highest caliber

I think he once was nominated for a prestigious award to recognize his contribution to some MCPS committee

long may he run!!

August 31, 2011 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"he is a smooth talker, good with words, likable.."

hear, hear

Peter's one-of-a-kind

a mighty fine citizen

"a friendly, good-looking person...the master of the benign presentation, he smiles, he jokes with you, his voice sounds like he is making sense,...his entire life is devoted"

well-said

August 31, 2011 1:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Sprigg said "On the contrary, everything we do is motivated by love for the people who are hurt by this lifestyle.".

Most of us are very happy in this "lifestyle". Some like myself often literally jump for joy we're so happy, yet you do everything you can to make our lives miserable, send us to jail, deny us housing and employment, marriage and the right to adopt children. Peter, you've bastardized the meaning of the word "love" beyond all recognition - that's unmitigated hate you're passing out.

August 31, 2011 1:26 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Yes, Anon, Peter was nominated by PFOX for an MCPS award. Anyone can nominate anyone. Not surprisingly, the nomination went nowhere.

Peter and his allies, like the American Family Association, have determined that their calling is to make life as difficult as possible for gay people, in order to vindicate their vision of what society ought to be.

But that vision is not one of love. It is a vision of conformity that marginalizes anyone who cannot or will not conform to what they believe should be how everyone ought to be. They justify their vision by saying that this is what God wants That other people, who also believe in God, disagree is of no moment to them. Their definition of God's will is a narrow one, that simply ignores the greatest teaching of religion: The Golden Rule.

My children do not need their "love" any more than victims of the Inquisition needed the "love" of those who sent them to the auto de fe if they would not conform to a particular theology.

Love as defined by Dr. King has far more credence than the love posited by Peter and his allies.

For those new to this blog, check out these discussions between Peter and me on the local Fox News channel:


http://www.frc.org/frcinthenews/17feb2011/peter-sprigg-on-fox-5-news

http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org/2011/02/fishback-and-sprigg-on-fox-5.html#comments

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?v=817021819561

August 31, 2011 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

From the next thread down
"whenever the govt owns something, the relationship changes

the workers are no longer hustling to serve the needs of customers but instead feel they are authority figures supervising those who use the services

enterprises based in the first function well, the latter not so much

thus, the folly of socialism


That "folly" has helped keep FRC afloat.

State and federal tax dollars have been helping FRC pay Sprigg's salary for years.

"The Family Research Council, a religious-right outfit some watchdog organizations have called an anti-gay hate group, has recently become quite vocal in its opposition to government spending and has called for drastic cuts to social programs. But a survey by The American Independent shows that FRC’s state-based affiliates, called family policy councils, have raked in nearly $6 million in state and federal funds over the last five years to work on their own social programming goals.

In the run-up to the debt ceiling vote earlier this month, FRC president Tony Perkins penned a column urging cuts to government spending.

“It is easy to lose sight of the spiritual and moral implications of our current debt crisis,” Perkins wrote. “Christians must stand up against an immoral political regime which indebts us to such foreign powers as the anti-Christian Communist Chinese. Our leaders must cut spending, cut the debt, and end fiscal obligations to oppressive regimes.”

The group opposes an increase in tax revenues, especially allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. The group has repeatedly decried “government waste.” And earlier this week in a “memo the movement,” the group launched an effort to pressure the “Super Committee,” a group of Congress members charged with reducing the federal deficit to cut programs instead of enacting “job-killing tax increases.”

But the group’s affiliates have raked in government funds for controversial programs such as abstinence-only until marriage and healthy-marriage initiatives over the past decade, state and federal records show...."

August 31, 2011 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Most of us are very happy in this "lifestyle". Some like myself often literally jump for joy we're so happy, yet you do everything you can to make our lives miserable,"

a nice description of the goings on at the nuthouse

if you go to those places, there's a lot of baseless laughing and jumping

I'm assuming by "us", you mean lbgt

I don't really see why trans are grouped in with gays

totally different animal

so, you're "literally jumping for joy" because you're "so happy"?

and there are some people, and we know who you are, who want to make you miserable?

but since their attempts are completely ineffective, what's the problem?

could it be that you think it should be against the law to not wish you well?

"send us to jail, deny us housing and employment, marriage and the right to adopt children"

so, tell when you were sent to jail

do you housing?

employment?

btw, adopting children is not a right

the focus is finding the situation that is best for the children being adopted

gays and trans, by definition, don't meet that standard

"Peter, you've bastardized the meaning of the word "love" beyond all recognition"

really?

show us when he did that

"that's unmitigated hate you're passing out"

you think anyone says something you're doing is wrong "hates" you

babies always say that

"Yes, Anon, Peter was nominated by PFOX for an MCPS award. Anyone can nominate anyone."

and, yet, no one ever nominates the TTFers on the gay ed committee

"Not surprisingly, the nomination went nowhere."

that's true the liberal lunatics shot that down fast

"Peter and his allies, like the American Family Association, have determined that their calling is to make life as difficult as possible for gay people,"

they must be doing better than the Canadian Family Association

up there, the LBGTs are jumping for joy

literally!!

"in order to vindicate their vision of what society ought to be."

kinda like gays who really don't have any commitment to social conventions like marriage but want to change the definition, in order to vindicate their vision of what society ought to be

August 31, 2011 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But that vision is not one of love."

oh, if Peter feels you are hurting yourself and wants to help you, sounds like he's showing compassion

the opposite of love is not hate, it's apathy, which kind of sums up my feeling

I could care less what gays do to themselves, just stop trying to impose your beliefs on normal people

"It is a vision of conformity that marginalizes anyone who cannot or will not conform to what they believe should be how everyone ought to be"

actually, pro-family groups are pretty diverse

it's gay hipsters who can't tolerate those different from themselves

August 31, 2011 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They justify their vision by saying that this is what God wants"

they didn't justify their vision that way

they got their vision by seeking what God wants

"That other people, who also believe in God, disagree is of no moment to them"

that's a moment to them

they are very concerned for such confused people

but they also generally don't believe those people are being honest about what God wants

they see these people rejecting scripture when they don't understand it

"Their definition of God's will is a narrow one,"

it's that another term for precise?

"that simply ignores the greatest teaching of religion: The Golden Rule"

this is illogical, David

if they believe these people have fallen into a trap of being in rebellion to God, should they turn their head and look the other way?

as Elvis put it: well, the world turns

"My children do not need their "love""

a matter of opinion

"Love as defined by Dr. King has far more credence than the love posited by Peter and his allies"

Jiminy Cricket, with the MLK already

this kind of idol worship is also unscriptural

could you give us that definition, David?

August 31, 2011 10:00 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"Peter, you've bastardized the meaning of the word "love" beyond all recognition"

really?

show us when he did that

MY RESPONSE:

WHEN PETER ADVOCATES POLICIES THAT DISCRIMINATE IN TANGIBLE WAYS THAT TREAT MY SON AND HIS PARTNER AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY JUST BOUGHT A HOUSE TOGETHER, YET BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FILE A JOINT FEDERAL TAX RETURN, THEY WILL END UP PAYING MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES BECAUSE THEY CANNOT FILE A JOINT RETURN, AND IF ONE DIES BEFORE THE OTHER, THEY MAY HAVE TO PAY ESTATE TAXES IN WAYS THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO IF THEY WERE MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SIMILARLY, WHEN THEY ARE A BIT OLDER THAN I, THERE WILL BE NO SPOUSAL SURVIVAL BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY BECAUSE (IF THE LAW DOES NOT CHANGE) THEY CANNOT BE SPOUSES IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

IF ONE THEM EVER WORKS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE OTHER CANNOT BE ON THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE'S HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE MY WIFE CAN BE ON MINE), THUS CREATING GREATER EXPENSES. [THIS CREATES ANOTHER ANOMALY: I KNOW COUPLES WHERE ONE OF THEM WAS SOUGHT BY A FEDERAL EMPLOYER, BUT TURNED DOWN THE FEDS BECAUSE SHE COULD NOT INCLUDE HER SELF-EMPLOYED SPOUSE ON HER HEALTH INSURANCE; INSTEAD SHE TOOK A JOB IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, WHERE HER SPOUSE COULD BE COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE -- IN OTHER WORDS, IN ADDITION TO THE INJUSTICE TO GAY PEOPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN GETTING THE BEST PEOPLE TO WORK FOR THE PUBLIC.]

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: MY SON'S PARTNER IS A CANADIAN CITIZEN, AND JUST CHANGED HIS EMPLOYER. IF THEY COULD BE MARRIED IN THE EYES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SUCH A CHANGE OF JOBS WOULD BE SIMPLE. BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE, MY SON'S PARTNER HAD TO GO TO THE EXPENSE OF TRAVELING TO CANADA IN ORDER TO FILL OUT PAPER WORK, AND THEN REENTER THE UNITED STATES. FOR COUPLES WHERE THE NON-CITIZEN HAS CITIZENSHIP OTHER THAN CANADIAN, THE PROCESS IS EVEN MORE LABORIOUS AND EXPENSIVE.

"Yes, Anon, Peter was nominated by PFOX for an MCPS award. Anyone can nominate anyone."

and, yet, no one ever nominates the TTFers on the gay ed committee

YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, BUT ACTUALLY THAT IS NOT TRUE. SEVERAL YEARS BACK, THE PEDIATRICIAN WHO WAS CO-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE WHEN I WAS CHAIR NOMINATED ME FOR THE SAME AWARD. GIVEN THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING THE CURRICULUM -- THIS WAS BEFORE THE REVISED, MORE COMPREHENSIVE CURRICULUM WAS DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED -- IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT I WAS NOT SELECTED. BUT, UNLIKE WITH RESPECT TO PETER, NO ONE TRIED TO MAKE THE "NOMINATION" INTO SOMETHING IT WAS NOT. PFOX TRIED TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THE NOMINATION SOMEHOW CAME FROM THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, NOT FROM THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP THAT WAS FIGHTING THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.


"Not surprisingly, the nomination went nowhere."

that's true the liberal lunatics shot that down fast

WELL, THIS STATEMENT IS ONLY TRUE IF ONE BELIEVES THAT THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION WERE "LIBERAL LUNATICS." NEARLY ALL THOSE ON THE BOARD IN 2004 AND 2005 WERE REELECTED ON PLATFORMS IN WHICH THEY ENDORSED THE CHANGES THAT I AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COMMITTEE ENDORSED. THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WHO DID NOT CHOOSE TO RUN FOR REELECTION WERE REPLACED BY OTHERS WHO ALSO ENDORSED THOSE CHANGES. AND WHEN, IN 2010, IT WAS REVEALED THAT A WELL-FUNDED AND WELL-CONNECTED CHALLENGER TO A BOARD MEMBER (WHO HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM) WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE FAMILY LEADER NETWORK, WHICH UNSUCCESSFULLY SUED THE SCHOOL SYSTEM OVER THE 2007 CURRICULUM CHANGES, SHE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY DEFEATED. SO IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A MAJORITY OF VOTERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE LAST SEVERAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS ARE "LUNATICS," PLEASE DEFEND YOUR VIEW.

August 31, 2011 10:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

David, I'm surprised you'd resort to shouting.

I can see by your ranting that you believe true compassion would be to allow those deluded into thinking they belong to a certain class to have all the same privileges of that class.

Homosexual relationships are not marriage and particpation in them shouldn't receive the support given to marriage.

Society has long believe that relationships that include the all genders lead to the health, harmony and stability of that society so they encourage and enable these relationships.

There is no reason to enable and encourage homosexual relationships.

That would be like giving heroin to an addict.

Is that compassion?

Those Board members who have been re-elected have also been reappointing Peter repeatedly.

They like to think they see something special in him.

Asking one to repeat is the real award!

August 31, 2011 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

humorous story out of the Obama era yesterday

Obama sends a message that he's coming over to give a speech to Congress on Sept 7

John Boehner says no you're not, you can come the next day

after an afternoon of bluster and threats, Obama gives in last night and said he'll do the speech when Boehner wants him to

right in the middle of the first NFl game of the year, Packers and Saints

wonder who will watch and who will be irritated if it's on TV?

Obama's re-election strategy: bluster and blunder

September 01, 2011 7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I bet we could pressure into naming Peter Sprigg to some post in the White House

he'd resist and then give in

September 01, 2011 7:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

update on gay charitable work:

"A convicted drug dealer is being sued for allegedly erecting a strip club with funds that were supposed to help HIV and AIDS patients find work.

Cornell Jones, of Miracle Hands, allegedly used a quarter of a million dollars of the organization’s money to build The Stadium Club, a strip club in Northeast Washington, WUSA9.com reports. According to Washington, DC Attorney General Irv Nathan, Jones received the money back in 2006, which was slated to build a job training center for people with AIDS."

September 01, 2011 7:16 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

I did not mean to shout. I am technologically challenged, and I thought the easiest way to juxtapose your statements and my response was to use caps, since the blog doesn't permit the use of italics or yellow highlight. Sorry I hurt your visual ears.

Peter was first appointed to the Committee as part of the settlement of the 2005 lawsuit, which required a PFOX representative while the curriculum was being revised and initially implemented. Of course, then PFOX turned around and unsuccessfully sued MCPS.

Peter was reappointed for a single term because the Board wanted a range of voices on the Committee, and, unlike social conservatives in the past, Peter did not attempt to disrupt the work of the Committee. He was not reappointed last June.

Finally, so you believe that my son and his partner are like heroin addicts?

September 01, 2011 7:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

update on heterosexual parenting:

Jonathan James, 10, Dies From Dehydration After Dallas Parents Deprive Him Of Water For 5 Days

September 01, 2011 9:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, "Anonymous" it is impolite to attempt to be two or more different persons. Following one comment, followed by another comment, using the pseudo "Anonymous" fools nobody. You, "Anonymous" are schizophrenic.

Secondly, your comment: "btw, adopting children is not a right...
the focus is finding the situation that is best for the children being adopted...gays and trans, by definition, don't meet that standard."

Are you equating GLBT with the destructive-to-heterosexual "family values" practices of child abuse,spousal abuse, wife/husband swapping,violation of marriage vows of monogomy and an outrageous divorce rate?

Thirdly, "Not surprisingly, the nomination went nowhere...that's true the liberal lunatics shot that down fast." Allow me to quote your own words: "babies always say that". You are so insightful of your own failings.

Lastly, "kinda like gays who really don't have any commitment to social conventions like marriage but want to change the definition, in order to vindicate their vision of what society ought to be." Could it be that there are millions upon millions of people who do NOT subscribe to your narrow-minded "vision of what society ought to be"?

Whether you believe it or not, quite a number of the world's population do not accept your interpretation of "what God wants"
("they got their vision by seeking what God wants"). There are some people who believe that God wants love, tolerance ("Judge not, lest ye be judged"), and acceptance of all of His children.

"if they believe these people have fallen into a trap of being in rebellion to God, should they turn their head and look the other way?"
In short, YES!

September 01, 2011 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Whether you believe it or not, quite a number of the world's population do not accept your interpretation of "what God wants""

actually, surprisingly enough in these times, the vast majority of the world's 7 billion do agree with the idea that homosexuality is rebellion against God

you see, Western Europe comprises a tiny portion of the world's population and that portion declines daily

their population is probably declining due to their embrace of homosexuality

September 01, 2011 3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it is impolite to attempt to be two or more different persons"

oh yeah, that's classic rudeness, right there

tell it to your "bi" buddies

September 01, 2011 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We're so glad you could finally cop to what brings you here day after day, Binonymous.

September 01, 2011 5:14 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon,

This morning I asked you a very important question in response to your post:

"Finally, so you believe that my son and his partner are like heroin addicts?"

I hope you have thought about that question. Do you have an answer?

September 01, 2011 8:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We're so glad you could finally cop to what brings you here day after day, Binonymous."

amazing that someone with half a brain could have such an imagination

are you on hallucinogenics?

wouldn't be surprised

September 01, 2011 9:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "I don't really see why trans are grouped in with gays totally different animal".
Because we are both socially oppressed because we don't fit into traditional sex/gender roles.

Bad anonymous said "so, you're "literally jumping for joy" because you're "so happy"? and there are some people, and we know who you are, who want to make you miserable? but since their attempts are completely ineffective, what's the problem?".
I've explained this to you multiple times but of course you're too willfully stupid to get it. You see, unlike yourself I have empathy and concern for people other than me. Many LGBTs are bullied, abused, driven to suicide, I care about them, and of course you don't care about anyone other than yourself and trying to feel better about yourself by attacking others.

Bad anonymous said "could it be that you think it should be against the law to not wish you well?

I said "send us to jail, deny us housing and employment, marriage and the right to adopt children"

Bad anonymous said "so, tell when you were sent to jail do [sic] you housing? employment?".
I said Peter is trying to do those things you idiot, I never said they've happened to me personally although they have certainly happened to huge numbers of the LGBT group I belong to.

Bad anonymous said "btw, adopting children is not a right".
Irrelevant. Whether you consider it a right or a privilege LGBTs deserve the same opportunity to do it that everyone else has.

Bad anonymous said "the focus is finding the situation that is best for the children being adopted gays and trans, by definition, don't meet that standard".
That's a lie of which you're well aware. Dozens and dozens of studies have shown children of lesbians and gays do just as well, if not better than children of heterosexuals. The tragic part is that people like you would sooner see them remain in orphanages than go to parents who really want them - clearly you don't give a damn about what's best for children seeing as you'd prefer to leave them in a very poor situation over giving them to LGBTs

I said "Peter, you've bastardized the meaning of the word "love" beyond all recognition"

Bad anonymous said "really? show us when he did that".
Oh, come on, even you are not that stupid (on second thought you're often willfully stupid, maybe you are). It begins with him saying "On the contrary, everything we do is motivated by love for the people who are hurt by this lifestyle.". None of us are hurt by being LGBT, we are hurt by the bigots who demand that we not be LGBT. Trying to place the blame for hurt on who we are is not an act of love it is an act of hate. Peter has advocated criminalizing gayness, exporting gays from the U.S., and has incited violence against LGBTs by promoting the idea that we are destructive to society. Love doesn't seek to lie about a person, to punish them and make life miserable for them. Love is feeling thrilled to be around another person, love is getting genuine pleasure out of a person's company - you and Sprigg don't feel anything like that for LGBTs, what you feel about us is obviously hate.

Bad anonymous said "you think anyone says something you're doing is wrong "hates" you".
Don't be stupid. My husband often says I'm doing this or that wrong and his love for me is higher than the highest mountain and deeper than the deepest river.


Bad anonymous said "kinda like gays who really don't have any commitment to social conventions like marriage but want to change the definition, in order to vindicate their vision of what society ought to be".
With 50% of heterosexuals divorcing gays and lesbians are more committed to marriage than them. People like you stand against marriage while gays and lesbians seek it - obviously its you who seeks to destroy marriage.

September 02, 2011 12:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home