When I passed along an observation sent to me from one of our members a few weeks ago, it appears it was taken offensively by one or more of our members. For this, I am completely sorry. The intent was to only share a members observation and that observation, in no way, reflects the thoughts of this office or the members of the association. This is a country built on individual freedoms and I understand if someone has an obeservation to share, they should have the opportunity. However, I can no longer justify sending any such statements or observations if they may do harm to the quality and professional standings of this association.So, when he sent along a message that said "This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty," and "If 'God' offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home," there was no intent to show a lack of respect? I guess that's just a nasty side effect, then, of telling people who don't follow a certain political, religious and cultural ideology that they should leave the country.
Although our emails are intended soley for the eyes of the members of the [association] [editor's note: ooooops], I must understand that not everyone in this association has the same beliefs or views. I do not promote any agenda, nor do I as an individual try to use my position as commissioner, to promote any personal ideals or beliefs. As stated above, if the statement which was sent out on July 16, was offensive to you then please accept my humble apologies. There was no intent to harm or show a lack of respect to any one person, nationality, sect or denomination.
Whatever, it's the usual non-apology apology... "I'm sorry if anyone was offended, but I'm not sorry about what I said," or in this case, "any damage I've done to the association's image." Jeremy Shockey gave a similar "apology" after he called Bill Parcells a "homo." Maybe he and the commish should hang out together.
c.f. The original message.