Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Bryan Fischer Says First Amendment Not Written to Protect Islam
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
I shouldn’t have to fish out that famous quote every few posts as a reminder to conservative bigots that religious freedom applies to all people, not just Christians, but I do. Maybe it is only because I am a religious minority myself, one of those who says “there are twenty gods”, that they stick so well in my mind.
Bryan Fischer says that Islam is not covered by the First Amendment because “it was not written to protect the religion of Islam.”
Are you kidding me? Let’s look at what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That’s the First Amendment. Congress shall not only make no law respecting the establishment of religion (in other words, no state-sponsored religion) and it shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Sorry, Bryan, but the First Amendment covers ALL religions. There are no exceptions made.
What is ironic is that the AFA (American Family Association) claims that one of its founding objectives is to “defends the rights of conscience and religious liberty from infringement by government.”
Yeah, we’re just not seeing that….
Bryan Fischer, the AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis, hates Islam. As Right Wing Watch points out, he wants to:
His most recent argument is an attempt to reconcile his position on Islam and the AFA’s avowed goals. Clearly, one contradicts the other and all Fischer has accomplished is to make clear his unreasoning hatred:
Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.
Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America, but this is exactly what the Democrats are trying to do right now with Islam.
From a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked if, as is in fact the case, Islam is a totalitarian ideology dedicated to the destruction of the United States. The Constitution, it bears repeating, is not a suicide pact. For Muslims, patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the First Amendment is.
We’ve already seen Jefferson’s words above, which embody the spirit under which both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written. We can also take a look at George Washington’s letter to the Jewish community of Danbury, Rhode Island:
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.
“All possess alike…” just like the Constitution says. Everybody. Not just protestants, but Jews too – and Muslims.
In an article published by Salon, Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg, professors of history at Louisiana State University, and co-authors of Madison and Jefferson, argue that Madison would be horrified by what Peter King is doing with his anti-Islamic hearings. He would doubtless by the words of Bryan Fischer.
Conservatives like to downplay the significance of the Treat of Tripoli, which states in unequivocal terms that “the Government of he United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen [Muslims].” The important point here is no who put those words into the treaty but that it was signed by the president, John Adams, in those words and more important yet, ratified by Congress in those words and without a single complaint being uttered.
And it wasn’t only the Treaty of Tripoli. As Burstein and Isenberg point out, during the Tripolitan War (1801-1805) – ironically enough against what is now modern Libya – “Madison instructed the U.S. consul in Algiers to exhibit “universal toleration in matters of religion.”
So you can see where the wording in the Treaty of Tripoli come from: That spirit of universal tolerance which is embodied by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that universal spirit of tolerance now under attack by American Christofascists like Bryan Fischer and Peter King and others.
Islam is protected, Bryan, and so, sometimes unfortunately I think, is your Christofascism. But to turn Fischer’s words against him, when he says “Our government has no obligation to allow a treasonous ideology to receive special protections in America” these words might equally be said to apply to Christian fundamentalism, or Christofascism, as I here refer to it, “but this is exactly what the Republicans are trying to do right now with Christian fundamentalism.”
Bryan Fischer has a good time publicly masturbating. Seriously. It's hard to consider what he does to be any ...
We met General and Christian crusader Jerry Boykin, the former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Inte ...
Watch the video from Right Wing Watch: I will not disabuse you - if you think there is a parallel betwe ...
Bryan Fischer, the most reprehensible human being on the planet and the man in charge of bigotry at the ...
I looked yesterday at Bryan Fischer's bigoted and religion-based intolerance. Bad as his recent outbursts ha ...
Reynardine
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 8:07 am
There was a book called “Holy Terror!” published around 1980, which talked about those we would now call Dominionists planning to “change Democracy”, and to change it in exactly the way we are seeing them change it. If there is anyone whose unbridled speech and action constitute a First Amendment suicide pact, it’s them. They hate this country; they wear its flag on the seat of their pants; they detest the Constitution they invoke… but they won’t leave. They won’t leave until they destroy everything we are and then ascend to the Rapture. I suspect penetration into their inner circles would uncover treason and sedition both, yet that is a third rail.
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Your last paragraph was going to be my response. One might what is the evidence other than Fishers own hatred and utter bigotry that “muslims” are out to destroy America and why do they not have the same rights as “Americans”?
The day any law is [allowed to be] passed that a mosque cannot be built is the day this country burns its constitution
english saddle
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 10:14 am
They’re coming for us. And I mean the fundie
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 10:41 am
Welcome back English, have missed your posts
Sally
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Good Lord…the right is attacking this country on all fronts…freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom to work and earn a living, and freedom from religion…these people are the ones that should be deported….to some vacant island where they can set up their own utopia and wait for the Rapture.
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 10:43 am
You missed one item. Probably the sickest
bit.ly/fnIO4Y
Phantom
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
But,that wasn’t “bringing back Segregation”, it wasn’t REQUIRING separation; it was just removing the law of forced integration.
Oldsun
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Really and to that’s a good thing, have segregated school due to white flight and trying to reintergrate them so the youth of this country are not as racist as you is a bad thing. What a jackass.
Phantom
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
The problem is kids end up traveling far away just to satisfy a social engineering goal. Look, I don’t like the idea of people leaving an area because of another people’s percieved predilections, but that’s freedom.
So feel free to continue assuming about others and the name-calling.
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
and lets follow that to its obvious conclusion in the south.
Drumroll please
“bringing back Segregation”
Phil Perspective
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am
We keep telling them they should go to Somalia. You figure the Glibertarians would love it but I don’t see anyone going Galt. That tells me that they are all a bunch of frauds.
Michelle Par.
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I keep nominating the garbage island in the Pacific….
Reynardine
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 11:24 am
That has been shaping up for some time. Note that Brown v. Board did not actually overrule Plessy v. Ferguson: it simply held that the evidence presented showed that separation was inherently unequal. A showing that, conversely, separation does not create inequality, or perhaps even “promotes equality”, would reinstate Plessy as practice. Note that under the Bush administration, the idea was promoted that, because boys and girls allegedly mature differently and learn differently, classes and even schools should be segregated by sex. Many liberals and even some feminists ate it up, even though the gist was that girls were now doing “too” well and boys (but not girls) needed special, enriched, interesting techniques to enable them to resume their pre-eminence. Well, if this sort of thing gets the imprimature of the Supreme Court, the door is open for Plessy to walk back in- and it will. Only you can bet that the disadvantaged groups will not be getting special, enriched, interesting techniques to enable them to assume pre-eminence. What they’ll get is the back of the bus.
Conservative Heart
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 11:57 am
God hates Islam, that is clear.
God also hates religious fundamentalism. That’s why there is only one true religion, and that is Christianity. Live only by the word of God for it is what rules your life. Do not deviate or you shall burn in hell, heathen Liberals!
God is also kind, nonjudgmental and loving. Don’t any of you retarded liberals ever forget that.
Reynardine
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Tw-a-a-a-ng, goes my poor, pulled leg! Have an Onion.
Boscoe
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Depending on who you ask, God hates everything he ever created, except Westboro Baptist Church…
Oldsun
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
How does he (Bryan Fischer)explain then that Thomas Jefferson had a qur’an.
Phantom
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
He kept it in the out-house,but not for reading.
Oldsun
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Wow troll harder. Back in my day tolling was an art.
Boscoe
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
He was just extending it a revokable courtesy because he was so magnanimous.
Phantom
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Or maybe he needed a good laugh.
Oldsun
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Wow that is it the best you got, damn son you sux at life and trolling
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Off Topic but good to know:
The Associated Press reported this week that Newt Gingrich — the morality god of the Republican party who broke the news to his first wife that he was leaving her for another woman while she lay in a hospital bed recovering — funneled $125,000 dollars to an organization classified as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center.
The group called American Family Association — whose director Bryan Fischer have demonstrated a documented bias against gays, lesbians and American Indians — used the funds to successfully oust three supreme court judges in Iowa in the 2010 elections. The supreme court judges had previously voted to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.
Reporting from Southern Poverty Law Center:
The story of Gingrich’s below-the-radar assistance to Iowa for Freedom started to dribble out on March 3, when The Los Angeles Times reported that Gingrich helped the organization get its start, offering strategic advice and arranging a $200,000 gift from an anonymous donor. The remaining $150,000, the AP reported, was raised in the form of donations to Renewing American Leadership (ReAL), a nonprofit group Gingrich founded that promotes his books, TV appearances, and films. It was ReAL Action, an arm of ReAL, that reportedly gave $125,000 of that $150,000 to AFA Action, the political wing of AFA. The final $25,000 was given by ReAL Action to Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. Both AFA Action and Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition then supported Iowa for Freedom’s efforts, the AP said
Newt is just keeping in line with what seems to be accepted behavior of today’s Republican party. More to come…
Read the rest of the report here.
ezkool.com/2011/03/republ...
John
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
The united states of America was founded on the principals of free masonry by masons such as Washington, Monroe, Jackson, Polk, Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, many of whom where marginal Christians at best. www.freemasons.ab.ca/abou... // www.mastermason.com/wilme...
Karen
Mar. 24th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Does he realize his argument is unsupportable because of his complicity with Dominionism? His very words can be turned against Dominionism..
SpeakEnglish
Mar. 27th, 2011 at 10:03 am
True Conservatives do not embrace what Fischer says about Islam and religious freedom.
Conservatives are proponents of Founding Father mentality and a return to Constitutional principles; limited government and individual liberties.
Both the Left and the Right have wackos in their ranks, but they don’t change the the ideology espoused by either.
Shiva (Moderator)
Mar. 27th, 2011 at 10:06 am
While I agree with you, there is this:
“proponents of Founding Father mentality and a return to Constitutional principles”
Not until the tea party showed up.
“individual liberties”
Only the individual liberties they want you to have. Do not be gay, do not think if you are a woman you know whats best for your body. etc
Gary Stein
Mar. 27th, 2011 at 10:21 am
If the Tea Party wants to return to “Constitutional principals” I have one for them, relating to the Second Amendment: The only arms they have the right to bear are single-shot muzzle-loaders.
Gary Stein
Mar. 27th, 2011 at 10:30 am
My favorite Jefferson quote is what he wrote in 1820, congratulating the consecration of the new synagogue in Savannah, Georgia: “religious freedom is the most effectual anodyne against religious dissension: the maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where its true form is ‘divided we stand, united, we fall.’”
Gary Stein
Mar. 27th, 2011 at 10:57 am
I just clicked on one of the links above regarding Fischer’s desire to deport Muslims, where he says “In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.” As a Jew, I can tell you that there is very little that is “Judeo” in today’s fundamentalist Christianity.