Bryan Fischer leap to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s defense last Friday, after Perry was indicted by a grand jury for trying to forcing out Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg.
Fischer is not concerned about Perry’s alleged criminal behavior. He is concerned that Lehmberg is a lesbian. Perry is not disqualified from public office because of his thuggishly unethical behavior, but Lehmberg is because she prefers the intimate company of women to the intimate company of men. For Fischer, this is “sexually deviant behavior.”
Watch courtesy of Right Wing Watch:
My view of public service is that somebody who is engaged in a sexually deviant behavior is not qualified to hold public office. That’s why if you get a conviction for rape, you can’t hold public office. You get a conviction for pedophilia, you can’t hold public office. You might even get run out of office on a prostitution charge because it’s sexually deviant behavior. Now lesbianism is sexually deviant behavior because it deviates from God’s plan and design for human sexuality. So I believe that this is a person who, because she’s involved in sexually deviant behavior, should be, ought to be disqualified from public service.
This is not a surprising stance. After all, being under investigation, indictment, or actually charged in a crime seems to be a prerequisite for holding public office in the Republican Party. By comparison, and from a common sense perspective, it seems wholly immaterial who you sleep with.
But just how bad is lesbianism from a Christian perspective, since Fischer wishes to pretend his own view is Christian?
You don’t find it condemned in the Bible, which, after all, barely wastes any breath on so-called homosexuality. It’s not a violation of the Ten Commandments or of any other Jewish law. Jesus didn’t condemn it. Neither did Paul of Tarsus. Evidently, ancient Jews and Christians just didn’t think it was a big deal if women hooked up with women.
According to the Mishnah, Martin Goodman tells us, “Lesbian sex, not specifically outlawed in the Bible, unconnected to the prohibition of ‘wasting seed,’ and rarely mentioned, was treated as deplorable licentiousness but not as wicked on the level of male homosexuality or female prostitution” (Rome and Jerusalem, 2007:295).
Of course, that’s how Jews felt about lesbianism. The Jews didn’t speak for the whole ancient world any more than Christians (let alone fake Christians) speak for the whole world today. As Ray Laurence tells us, far from being seen as deplorable, the ancient images in the Suburban Baths in Pompeii reveal women having sex with women for all to see (Roman Passions, 2009).
Sexuality was more fluid in the Pagan world. The Romans did not share the moralistic horror of their monotheistic neighbors. For the Romans, the objection, relates Marilyn B. Skinner, was to women wasting sexual energy on each other when it should properly be directed at men (Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, 2005:189). “A waste of a good looking woman,” is how it is often jokingly viewed today.
Men will always view it from a male perspective, of course. This is often condemned but what other perspective would a male have? The real problem here is not the male perspective but that the male perspective is the only perspective in history.
We don’t know much about how women felt about these things, and if people like Fischer have their way, it won’t matter how women feel about them today.
The point, however, is that female homoeroticism was not illegal for the Jews because no seed was wasted on the exercise, or for the Romans, because, as Goodman also points out, The “Romans did have very clear notions of sexual boundaries, but these were boundaries that could be transgressed, particularly for sexual pleasure” (Goodman, 275).
A man might demean himself (in Roman eyes) by allowing himself to be penetrated, but he could still do it. Caesar was said to have so demeaned himself but his men still followed him from victory to victory. The slurs that Octavian “put out” for his uncle Caesar in order to attain first place in his will did not keep Octavian from becoming an object of veneration, Augustus, Rome’s First Citizen, ruler of the Roman world, father of his country (pater patriae), messiah, and even a god.
What are missing from ancient views of sexuality are religious hangups. Archaeologist Joan Breton Connelly writes that,
[T]he Greek pantheon acknowledged the complexities of what it means to be male and female, allowing for sexual ambiguity and plurality, that is, the ‘maleness’ in the female and the ‘femaleness’ in the male…The Greeks developed a religious system based on the human experience and so it both reflected and sustained the human condition in its fullest realization of sexuality, gender, and the life cycle (Portrait of a Priestess, 2007:30).
Brian Fischer and the other patriarchs on the so-called Religious Right wish to deny the human experience. They certainly reject the “fullest realization of sexuality, gender, and the life cycle” by their insistence it be channeled it down the narrow path assigned it for all these long centuries by angry old white men.
They seem to share a common hatred for humanity itself, evidenced every day in their pronouncements against this and that, all the while extolling the complete lack of civic virtue found in their own candidates for public office, male and female, like Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Michele Bachmann, Chris Christie, and Rick Scott, to name just a few candidates for incarceration.
The God of fake Christians doesn’t mind if you lie, cheat and steal, but he does care who you sleep with. This alone ought to tell you all you need to know about the culture of corruption that is the Republican Party.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy. His interests include, besides history and philosophy, human rights issues, freedom of choice, religion, and the precarious dichotomy of freedom of speech and intolerance. He brings a slightly different perspective to his writing, being that he is neither a follower of an Abrahamic faith nor an atheist but a polytheist, a modern-day Heathen who follows the customs and traditions of his Norse ancestors. He maintains his own blog, A Heathen’s Day, which deals with Heathen and Pagan matters, and Mos Maiorum Foundation www.mosmaiorum.org, dedicated to ethnic religion. He has also contributed to NewsJunkiePost, GodsOwnParty and Pagan+Politics.
29 Replies to “Bryan Fischer: Sexual Deviance But Not Criminal Behavior Disqualify You From Public Office”
I remember what Carl Sagan once said. If the Greek way of thinking was still prevalent today, we would be flying starships.
Isn’t it funny how Fischer can excuse criminal behavior? I bet because were he in power, it would be rampant especially on his part.
So much for fundamentalist christian thinking.
Awe, Idn’t he sweet? What a hateful little Christian heart. So, God’s o.k. with criminal behavior or killing, but loving someone that YOU don’t approve of? I’ll search 4 Bobby Fischer, but not Bryan! GOD LOVES. It’s YOU that hates! We come in peace…
You have to suspect that someone as obsessed with homosexuality as Fischer is must have some interesting skeletons in that closet with him.
If the Rethuglicans prevented criminals from running for office they would not have any candidates to run.
There was a time 2000 years ago,
when Christianity witnessed Love. But too soon, it organize itself into a State-supported thuggery, divided itself from Humanity, substituted Orthodoxy for Love, then tortured and slaughtered its way to near-absolute power. That power, challenged by an Enlightenment, hissed, snarled, slithered, and in the end morphed itself into today’s ChristoHate Machine.
a hallelujah chorus of smarmy religious zealots conspires to impose its tribal passions upon an otherwise Enlightened Nation. As they would have it, Science yields to Scripture, Reason to Rapture, and Decency to a bible school orthodoxy of lies, distortions and self-serving flim flam. These carnies sit in House and Senate, infest our State Houses and school boards, and would trash our Constitution for ancient scrolls of depraved blood lust and Bronze Age cruelty.
Let these Lizards burn in Hell.
What I read in Scripture is that God hates ALL sin which alone let’s not a single person off the hook. Ps 53:2 “…God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were [any] that did understand, that did seek God. They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one…” 1John 1:10 “…If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us…” Further more a passage I will not quote here lumps all the sins in together as things that disqualify a person from ever seeing glory. Indicating rather clearly I think, when understood all at once, that there is no salvation in a person repenting of all their sins because it won’t change anyone, they will be sinning as long as they breathe. I’m more and more convinced that any changes a person makes for the better is at the very best only evidence for the person them self AFTER salvation. I read that Judgment belongs to God not man.
Considering that most on the Right are crooks, I can see why this Neanderthal (for lack of a better term) would pardon them under the guise of ‘Faux Jesus’.
In reality, all crimes would be looked down upon and therefore, you’d be judged in his eyes. Then again, their reality and our reality don’t mix.
What a fucking moron.
Aww Bryan Fischer is just being taught to hate through the love of Jesus.
Speaking of jail birds
I guess gay activists are all closet heterosexuals, anti-theists are all closet theists, etc.,.
Only if you buy into Brian Fischers world.
And if you are a real christian, you wouldnt do that
The NT says nothing about lesbianism?
It calls lesbianism an instance of the judgment of God on humans for failing to honor God–a giving of the human over to dishonorable passions to dishonor themselves in the like manner they dishonored God.
It calls lesbianism unnatural.
This is Romans 1.
Jesus says “from the beginning marriage was between man and woman–what God put together let no man take apart.”
Not sure where you get the notion the NT never speaks about lesbianism.
Also, if you want to argue that because the OT Law never specifically mentioned lesbianism was wrong (only mentioning another form of homosexuality was abominable to God–and grounds for destroying the Canaanites in judgment [Lv 18]), could someone not make the same argument for pedophilia (since the Law never condemns it)?
The fact that there isn’t a singular homosexual relationship celebrated in the Bible–either gay or lesbian–should be a clue as to the sort of morality the Bible teaches is acceptable to G…
Though I would probably disagree with you on many other topics, I would agree that it is wrong to “pick a side” (Rep or Dem) and then defend everything your “side” does. It just puts you in a precarious position. It makes you have to put blinders on–setting aside everything that is true in order to defend your “side”. Each “side” should be held to account for what they do.
It really doesn’t matter what the bible says. That has nothing to do with the law or the equality that the constitution gives us, and the bible would take away.
People like Brian Fischer are all about one thing. And that is everyone living by his interpretation of the bible. And that is not a good thing, nor how our country operates
Check up on Noah and his sons that supposedly slept with him while he was sleeping.
“It really doesn’t matter what the bible says.”
Actually, when someone makes a statement about what the Bible says it does matter what the Bible says.
“That has nothing to do with the law or the equality that the constitution gives us”
I wasn’t commenting on Lehmberg.
“People like Brian Fischer are all about one thing.”
I don’t know him.
“Check up on Noah and his sons that supposedly slept with him while he was sleeping.”
You would be talking about Ham, and that would just be speculation. Not sure where this fits in to your rebuttal, since Ham was actually cursed for that act (what ever it was).
If you dont know him, why are you here posting on a forum about him?
“If you dont know him, why are you here posting on a forum about him?”
1. You’re changing the subject.
2. The forum isn’t solely about Fischer, and I am not posting about him–but if it were true that he was blindly defending Perry I would (for what ever it is worth) denounce that. There is no defending the indefensible. That being said, I do not know that Fischer is doing that, nor do I know the details of what ever situation Perry has gotten himself into or that he has done anything indefensible. I am not for or against Perry.
As I thought I’d made clear, my reply was simply to prove that the Bible did in fact have things to say about lesbianism.
The forum is pretty much about Fischer and his line of christianity
You said there was no singular occurrence of homosexuality in the bible, I said there was.
You know nothing of Perry or Fischer, what is your point?
“The forum is pretty much about Fischer”
It is what you make it: the author made statements which were misleading and I was here to inform people of the reality of the matter because I actually care.
“You said there was no singular occurrence of homosexuality in the bible”
Actually, I didn’t say that; I said there wasn’t an instance of a homosexual relationship CELEBRATED in Scripture. Of course homosexuality is mentioned many times–and never once is it connected with anything positive.
“You know nothing of Perry or Fischer, what is your point?”
I never said I knew nothing about Perry but that I knew nothing of the predicament he has gotten himself into. My point was that I wasn’t commenting on Perry of Fischer. I don’t care about Perry or Fischer.
I don’t think I will be replying again as you are wasting my time with strawmen and/or an unwillingness to pay close enough attention to reply to what I am saying.
Good, as you know nothing of the subject matter. Thank you and have a good evening. Remember tomorrow to pick on the 1000 sky gods to pray to
You’d better Read Romans 1 again, especially verses 28-32. Paul calls them greedy among other things. Given the Roman slave-based economy that thrived on prostitution including same sex activities, Paul is condemning the exploitation of people for sexual purposes.
Elsewhere he condemns pederastry, with men putting teenage boys in the sex service for money. They boys were called catamites.
Much of Paul’s New Testament writings deal with the unjust Roman slave-based economic system. That got him in trouble with the Roman authorities who eventually killed him for criticizing their economic system. Paul tried his best to conceal his motives, but the Romans were on to him.
God’s plan and design for human sexuality.”? Then why are there gays, lesbians, transponders and hermaphrodites?
These variations can be found in the animal kingdom as well as the plant kingdom. What was Bryan Fisher’s “god” thinking of? Did Fisher’s god not know that the Religious Right, Catholic bishops and others would consider these as deviant behaviors and contrary to god’s plan? Fisher’s theology is somewhat deficient.
The deviates promote their own weaknesses. The so called religious right is filled with anger,deceit and deception. All these problems have existed but we all just went about living our lives. Focus was not put on others weaknesses or life styles until this bunch of harps came about. I do not care what others do in their bedroom or who they sleep with as long as they are decent people in society. Since when did man usurp the judging of God? They are as mortal as you and I and have no power over God. They should not be proselytising when they are guilty of so many sins themselves. To spread hate and dissension is far from Christian. People like him, Franklin Graham,the Duggers, Osteens and Warrens of the world are only after money. They are truly the evil on this earth. Jesus spoke of love,peace and sharing and taking care of each other. He did not shame the less fortunate or people with mental illness. He embraced lepers and the fallen. Those mentioned above do not.
Homosexual behavior was described, in Romans 1, as a divine judgment on humans who dishonored God: since they dishonored God, He gave them up to dishonorable passions to dishonor themselves as well.
Romans 1 also calls homosexual behavior “unnatural”.
1 Timothy 1:9,10 describes homosexual behavior as “lawless… disobedient… ungodly… [sinful]… unholy… profane”; the context of that condemnation in the NT was one and the same as that condemnation found in the Law of Moses (since the verses were describing those behaviors the Law of Moses condemned).
I know what Scripture says.
Why don’t you tell me why there isn’t a singular homosexual relationship celebrated in Scripture? If your theories were correct, then we ought to see some evidence; the lack of evidence for your theories is enough of a rebuttal. You don’t know Scripture; you’re just parroting some other self-serving “scholar” who doesn’t know Scripture himself.
Ahh what evidence do you have that your so called scripture that was passed down by a bunch of goat herders was written by the beaded one in the sky?
The discussion is about *what the Bible says*–the defense of Scripture as trustworthy is another discussion altogether.
By your logic, divorce is also a prohibition, and should also be judged as sinful as homosexuality. The man and woman portion was never in the original text.
So you don’t dispute my reading of the text right?
Jesus actually DID prohibit divorce (so you’re not saying anything new), except in the case of immorality.
8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9″And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Comments are closed.