The Best Demonstration I Have Ever Seen Of How The Religious Right Is Genuinely Insane

[filkertom]

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association:

The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam....

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.

Well, isn't that just special.

Comments

[wednes]

I...I don't even know where to begin pointing out the factual inaccuracies, the logical fallacies, and the outright jackassery of this.

[jcbemis.livejournal.com]

just because eastern religions weren't on the founding fathers' radars really doesn't mean they weren't excluded :( how special of that special interest group, but not surprising unfortunately

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Ascyoos pliss.

As the Government of the 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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This from the Treaty of Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli), signed 1796, ratified 1797.

Maybe they *didn't* have *Eastern* religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) on the brain, but they most definitely knew from Islam... OTOH, Islam is a *Western* religion, founded in the same Torah Judaism and Christianity is. The difference in the three is what their second book is (Koran, Talmud/midrashim, and New Testament, respectively).

For Muslims, patriotism is not the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the First Amendment is.

Oh, too funny. He's definitely got that right. He's a scoundrel, using patriotism as a refuge.

[sdelmonte]

I guess it wasn't written for Jews, either.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

It occurs to me that for Some People, only Christianity is a religion. All those others are just paganism and superstition, y'know. The logical conclusion from that premise is that the First Amendment protects only Christianity. Logical, but completely wrong, because the premise is completely wrong.

Basing one's reality on arbitrary definitions and complete falsehoods is a pretty good definition of insanity, actually.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Kant would say that one is stuck inside one's own head, and thus deciding what's "really real" is a value judgment.

OTOH, it's a fairly well-defined consensus that the Treaty of Tripoli exists (see above), and failing to take that into account when saying what the Constitution and the Founding Fathers really intended.....

I don't have much patience with *deliberate* stupidity.

[ororo.livejournal.com]

Your icon says it all, Tom.

and after reading this, I have to wonder, "Who's next?" Wiccans? Buddhists? B'Hai?

[nimitzbrood.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder, "Who's next?" Wiccans? Buddhists? B'Hai?

Yes.

And probably anybody else that isn't a Dominionist or at least a Christian.

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

Most of these Islameys are black ain't they?

(Wasn't the Constituion determinedly NON religious? as opposed to irreligious, I mean....)

[arensb.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the bit between Article 7 and the signatures says, "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". Therefore, the Constitution is an explicitly Christian document establishing the Republic of Gilead.

(Pay no attention to that "no religious test" in the Section 6 behind the curtain.)

And, of course, the fact that the exact phrase "wall of separation between church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution means that there is no such separation. (And yet, the Bible somehow manages to talk about the Trinity, Easter, etc. despite the fact tha those words don't appear in it. How? It's a Divine Mystery.)

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Wow. I don't even. I mean. WTF?

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Epic take down is here:

http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2011/03/23/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-constitution-for-me-but-not-for-thee-edition.html

Turns out the founders were explicitly concerned about the religious rights of Jews, Muslims, and even pagans and atheists long before the debate on the Bill of Rights.

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this strongly worded response to Bryan Fischer's foolishness. It makes me feel good to see that clear heads are still out there, and that they are fighting back.

My response on the AFA website (which will probably not be put up there):

Mr. Fischer, I am truly stunned at the lack of scholarship and the lack of humanity in this post. Even setting aside the excellent comments that have come before pointing out the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, there's the fact that the Constitution explicitly and quite deliberately (as backed by reams of documents, particularly most of The Federalist Papers) did not specify Christianity or any other religion. There's a reason. They knew somebody like you would come along and try to impose his own view of religion on others.

Please, close down the AFA. All it seems to know how to do is use Christianity as a bludgeon.

[archiver-tim.livejournal.com]

I thought that our Founding Fathers only intened that land owning males over 21 would be eligible to vote for their Congressional Representatives (but not their Senators--only state Govenors would be wise enough to appoint men that powerfull)?

[scifantasy.livejournal.com]

Whatever the Founding Fathers intended regarding voting and representation in the national Congress, which rules/methods have been changed through amendment to the Constitution, their concept of the First Amendment is well recorded, and 200 years of history, Constitutional interpretation, and justice reinforce said concept.

In other words: what's your point?

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

Fremdscham. That's what I feel for this moron: embarrassment for someone who doesn't have the brains to be embarrassed for himself.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin are rolling over (in sync) in their graves right now.

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

This is my new word of the day. The way political discourse is going, it's pretty likely to be my word of the day for the foreseeable future.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

For clarity just in case, I will state up front that I am excerpting the quote in the OP, then addressing only the writer of the quoted passage:

"...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...."

Then bring them up on treason charges -- under RICO even -- and see how far that gets you, you #&$%=!@ ?$+@*%!. Until then, STFU.

[kengr]

Actually, he's doing a better job of describing his own group (and the rest of the dominionists) than Islam.

Somebody needs to point out to him (sand many others) that deciding that the First Amendment applies to only *some* religions is a suicidal stance for any religious group because if it is allowed as a precedent, sooner or later it'll be *their* turn to be excluded.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

"If this goes on--"

[ruisseau.livejournal.com]

Yep, the Crazy Years. I keep looking at politics and shuddering that we may yet vote ourselves a theocracy and ten years ago when I first encountered RAH, I didn't think it could happen!

[sffilk.livejournal.com]

Tom, you're just discovering this NOW?

I could've told you that the Irreligious Wrong is "Genuinely Insane" over 30 years ago!

Just to remind you: "G-D does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

[cscottd.livejournal.com]

Bizarro History 101

Step 1: Start with a fixed, unshakable world view.
Step 2: Pick an event in history.
Step 3: Work out how that event should have happened, in order to validate/fit your world view.
Step 4: Seek out, and carefully cherry-pick, "evidence" that supports your modified version of events.
Step 5: Disregard, and discredit when possible, any data that contradicts or otherwise does not support you.

Congratulations! You've created your very own Bizarro History!

And remember, for more fun, these steps can be adapted for use with Science, Economics, Politics and more!

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,"

Nature's God, not the Christian God, not Islam, but a generic Creator. All, not some, not Christians only, but all [and by men it means all humans too]

Those rights being the ones defined in the Constitution and Amendments, of which the 1st reads...
"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. "

i.e no one religion gets special treatment, but you get to do what you like freely.

Although, given how many of those other rights that have been tramped on of late... such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly or petition for redress of grievances [ie protest] I suppose it's only a matter of time before the whole laundry list is compromised to hell and back.

But given how these religious nutters cherry pick the Bible in order to ack up their bigotry I suppose it's no real surprise they do the same to the Constitution.

[zibblsnrt.livejournal.com]

Nature's God, not the Christian God, not Islam, but a generic Creator. All, not some, not Christians only, but all [and by men it means all humans too]

It's the AFA; they make a point of not recognizing large swathes of the population as real people.

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

As usual with most of these people, I have to wonder -- is he genuinely this fundamentally ignorant, or is he cynically and knowingly lying to manipulate those who are?

[maiac.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[ashnistrike.livejournal.com]

I forget who suggested this, but a lot of these groups make more sense if you substitute "patriarchy" for "family" in their names.

[alverant.livejournal.com]

PZ Myers does it. I don't know if he started the meme, but always refers to the AFA as the American Patriarchal Association.

[lariss.livejournal.com]

There's so much crazy and non-logic in that statement, I'm struggling to take it seriously.


But take it seriously I must, because so many people agree with these schmucks and follow them lock-step.

[wildcard9.livejournal.com]

Actually, it was written by Protestants as a protection from Christians. So can we *please* silence the Christians who keep giving their religion a bad name??

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

My, that is an interesting theory.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

There can be only one word:

Asshole.

Okay, two:

Bullshit.

'Nuff said.

[batyatoon]

"There is a nation scattered and separated among the nations throughout your empire. Their laws are different than everyone else's, they do not obey the king's laws, and it does not pay for the king to tolerate their existence."

-- The Book of Esther, 3:8.

This keeps coming to mind every time I read one of these yahoos.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

Politifact would classify this as Pants on Fire.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

I wonder if he would agree with the political party that declared its support for positive Christianity.

[greenjack1533.livejournal.com]

Please Stop picking on Bryan Fischer.

He is obviously off his medications.