Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Of course it is. The interview was either one of two things—an attempt to examine/understand the Salvation Army's position or an attempt to embarrass the Salvation Army. The former is the usual purpose of an interview, but the latter seems to be what was going here.
My problem is that this seems to be an incompetent interview (or a set-up) of an incompetent media director who either can't articulate the Salvation Army's actual position or can't recognize when words are being put in his mouth, all followed by news reports that mischaracterize what was actually said. No where does the (stupid) SA representative say gays "need to be put to death."
Like I said, I'm not defending the Sally Army's position on homosexuality. I just prefer to see it taken on honestly.
|
I agree with what interviews are typically after. The words did not come out of his mouth, but he agreed with what they said and said those were their beliefs. That is not the same as getting into a "So when did you stop beating your wife?" situation. He said what he said and didn't defend their beliefs or deny some pretty heinous accusations. I call BS on this being a misrepresentation of this guy's understanding of the Salvation Army's position. If he didn't hear them, wow, he needs to pay better attention. Either way, he did say all of that when asked those questions, so I stand by my statement that it sounds like the Salvation Army is trying to walk back a highly inflammatory statement made by one of their minions. You have to own it when you make a mistake.
Threaded Mode
