.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Friday, October 06, 2006

 

NARTH regrets the Schoenewolf "comments...misconstrued"

NARTH today issued the following apology today in relation to the Schoenewolf article...


NARTH Apologizes For Article

NARTH regrets the comments made by Dr. Schoenwolf about slavery which have been misconstrued by some of our readers. It should go without saying that we do not wish to minimize the suffering of those who have been mistreated because of race, sex, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

UPDATE: An article by Brentin Mock of the Southern Poverty Law Center provides additional comment from Gerald Schoenewolf, David Blakeslee and your humble host regarding the article about which NARTH today made comment.

Comments:
Well goodness gracious. How on earth did you find that?

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see a link to it on NARTH's main page, nor on the blog's main page.

Oh, wait. My mistake. There it is. A tiny little link on the main page. Don't blink; you'll miss it.
 
How foolish of me to "miscontrue" the the idea that slaves were "better off". However, I have to admit I'm somewhat at loss as to the proper way to construe such a sentiment, if it isn't with abhorence and revulsion.

But then they go on to describe slavery is the same as "the suffering of those who have been mistreated because of race". No, NARTH, that would describe the Jim Crow laws, employment discrimination, segregation, and the like (incidentally, Schoenewolf also suggested that opposing this mistreatment was Marxist). Slavery is in a whole other category.

If anything, this apology made things worse. ughhh
 
Why would they regret the comments if they were simply misconstrued? Wouldn't you regret the misconstrual instead?

And obviously it doesn't go without saying...

Wow. What an apology.
 
Based on what he's said since, I'm not seeing how the essay was "misconstrued"

When interviewed last week for this article, Schoenewolf stood by his comments on the intellectual inferiority of civil rights movement supporters. "The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil," he said.

During the interview, Schoenewolf lambasted civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. "All such movements are destructive," he said. He also claimed the American Psychological Association, of which he is a member, "has been taken over by extremist gays."


Do you think they get that it's precisely defamatory comments like this that got people mad at him?

PS Dr. Throckmorton- thank you for not equivocating on where you stand in the SPLC article.
 
And this was an interesting comment at the end:

"This stuff about political correctness and slavery is very far outfield," he said. "I'm appalled by it, and a lot of people within NARTH are as well, but they don't have the authority to speak out on it. And those who do have the authority aren't."

Schoenewolf and other NARTH members are still in the APA, yet no one in the APA is stopping them from dissenting from the APA's position on homosexuality. NARTH, if I'm reading you correctly, doesn't quite play that way. Ironic, considering what Nicolosi said in his open letter to the APA:

Today, at the 2006 APA Annual Convention, we ask APA to uphold the spirit of true liberalism. Tolerance and diversity includes those men and women who seek sexual orientation change.

Tolerance and diversity and true liberalism means the right to be in agreement with NARTH's official positions, but not much else, apparently.
 
The chronology is way off on this disclosure see if you agree (from the article):

Schoenewolf's essay first appeared on NARTH's website in the fall of 2005, but apparently went unnoticed by critics until mid-September, around the time the executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay and lesbian advocacy organization, delivered to NARTH a formal letter of protest.

"In the name of propriety, respect, common decency and professional integrity, the National Black Justice Coalition strongly urges NARTH to issue a public apology on the front page of its website for publishing such an outrageous and offensive article," wrote H. Alexander Robinson. "We also hope that you reevaluate your relationship with Dr. Schoenewolf, whose peculiar views have no place in civilized discourse."

Then, in late September, the gay rights group Truth Wins Out called on Focus on the Family to cancel a speaking appearance by NARTH executive director Joseph Nicolosi scheduled for a Focus on the Family conference held September 23 in Palm Springs, Calif.

I think the proper chronology is Ex-Gay watch to Throckmorton to Truth Wins Out to National Black Justice Coalition.

Why would he do this bass ackwards? Or do I have it wrong?

David Blakeslee
 
The proper chronology is:

Exgaywatch posted about some problematic statements by NARTH advisory board members, including the infamous "bullying is good for kids!" article, put up the NARTH advisory board member list, and suggested readers look into the rest of them.

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/09/post_7.html

Then I pulled Schoenewolf's name off the list at random, put it in NARTH's search engine, found the slavery article, and brought to to the attention of exgaywatch (same thread, 7th comment down) and Wayne Besen:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/09/great-church-marketing.html#comments

(4th comment)

Wayne put out a press release:

http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/09/truth-wins-out-condemns-ex-gay-group.html

and exgaywatch started posting about it:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/09/narths_justific.html

The weirdness on NARTH's blog started:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/09/narth_responds_1.html

And Dr. Throckmorton condemned the article:

http://wthrockmorton.blogspot.com/2006/09/political-correctness-and-schoenewolf.html

Then the National Black Justice Coalition got involved:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/09/national_black.html

I would guess he mistook the NBJC for the instigator cause they're the most impressive sounding organization, maybe. Who knows? I don't really care who gets the credit.




Who am I kidding?! It was ME!!! ME!!! ME!!! ME!!!
 
The way I read it, Shoenwolf if still defending the article: "The civil rights movement has from the beginning and today seen itself as good and others are evil, like slaveowners are evil."

Yeah, Schoenewolf, what's "evil" about buying human beings and using them to pick your cotton?. The exercise probaly did them some good, eh?

Nicolosi is still silent.
 
Notice that NARTH does not say that there is anything wrong with the article. They (whoever they are) just imply that some of us are not smart enough to "construe" it properly. This is hardly an apology.
 
Here's how to tell if NARTH is truly sorry, if they have truly "REPENTED": I call it the Four "R's":

1: RESPONSIBILITY: I did "X': and it was wrong. No excuses. Just, "I did someonetins wrong".

2: REMORSE: "I feel badly that I did wrong." "I recognixe that my actions hurt another child of God."

3: REPAIR: "I am committed to doimg something ELSE to make sure this does not happen again."

5: no REPEATs: "I have donw "X" to be sure this does not happen again."

So far, NARTH has done NONE of these things. Therefore, they have not apologized.

To apologize that some one may have "misconstrued" one's words or actions is NO apology.
 
The SPL Center article does not make it appear the Dr. Schoenewolf's meanings were misconstrued. He doesn't change anything. Perhaps, I misconstrued the SPL Center article. Then again, maybe I didn't.
 
From NARTH's "apology":

"It should go without saying that we do not wish to minimize the suffering of those who have been mistreated because of race, sex, religious beliefs or sexual orientation."

Yeah, it SHOULD go without saying, but NARTH keeps advsiors on their "expert panel" who continue to minimize these very things.
 
The SPLC has the posting date of the article wrong also: "Schoenewolf's essay first appeared on NARTH's website in the fall of 2005"

Unless I'm miscontruing the date at the bottom of the NARTH page, the Schoenewolf article was posted (or most recently revised) on April 5, 2005.
 
Maybe Alan Chambers will soon be claiming that his recent claim on NPR's Fresh Air that most gay people don't want equal rights was also misconstrued.
 
Oh, Lord. Alan said THAT on NPR? Guess I'll put my EXODUS ex-president hat on and go over there and give him a little consult.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?