Bryan Fischer: 1st Amendment Religious Freedom only for Christianity

a reply to: ketsuko

He also called for revoking the passports of those who go to fight for ISIS too which I think is only fair.

Passports and citizenship should be revoked for any American that goes to fight for a foreign army.

a reply to: buster2010

There were also free blacks that fought in it (one of the men who died at Concord was a free black and the of the men in the Washington Crossing the Delaware portrait is black), but of course, we never hear about that because all the Revolutionaries were old white men who owned slaves, right?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: ketsuko

He also called for revoking the passports of those who go to fight for ISIS too which I think is only fair.

Passports and citizenship should be revoked for any American that goes to fight for a foreign army.

Yes, and given certain circumstances, if a mosque is found to have been the base of operations of a terrorist cell that either attacks or was planning an attack, then it should perhaps be shut down like we shut down churches where horrific things happened.

Any bets on whether or not Word of Life church in New York is still open after they beat one of their congregants to death?

a reply to: ketsuko

I think that you're missing the point. Brian Fischer's logic has nothing to do with proven crimes emanating from one specific church, cult or mosque. He's insinuating that the founding fathers never intended to protect any religion other than Christianity. That, and that alone, is his justification for shutting down the free expression of religion in mosques, Wiccan covens, temples, etc.

Can you justify his logic in light of his opinion of the 1st Amendment?

originally posted by: odinsway
a reply to: mOjOm
Ok....so lets just get one fact straight. Our forefathers never ever could have imagined Muslims living within our boarders. There were no Muslims on the Mayflower....there were no Muslim signers of the Constitution....Why cant humans realize that keeping some ideologies seperate from others is a good thing?

What our forefathers had fresh in their mind was the persecution of the Quakers, by the Christian Puritans. In the mid-1600's, the Massachusetts Colony was a Puritan Theocracy. They were known to persecute, brutalize, and banish outsiders, especially those with opposing beliefs. The Quakers suffered their wrath on more than one occasion, and a handful were executed under that theocracy. You can read more here, if you're so inclined.

My point being, it was not only the problems in England that influenced the founding fathers. It was religious persecution, and even a Christian Theocracy right here in America, that influenced "religious freedom" in the constitution. So to say, that the founders couldn't have envisaged Islam(or any other religion) in America is an erroneous assumption, I would think. Given that, it would also be in error to think that "religious freedom" was for Christians only.

a reply to: windword

I was talking about what Trump said. All that I've been able to find is that he was talking about shutting down some mosques in terms of terrorism, so I said I would need to see specifics of what he means.

But his words do not make me thinks he intends a wholesale shutdown of mosques simply for being Islamic.

a reply to: ketsuko

Would Trump also close down Westboro Baptist? Scientology? Satanic Temples?

Personally, I think Trump is just catering to the Christian right, carrying a Bible around (really?), flipping his views on abortion and is suddenly "pro-life", citing those PP sting videos (please!), and now he's offering to cater the to fear and bigotry of rightest wing nuts, like Brian Fischer, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, who want to establish Christianity as a the only protected religion.

Trump can pander and run his mouth about anything he wants. He doesn't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination.
He isn't a Neocon, but the RNC is.

It's just more of Trumps theater of the absurd; to what end...ego gratification perhaps.

a reply to: mOjOm

Who is this and why is he important enough to care?

Is this another Alex Jones type? I had never heard of him until this thread.

a reply to: infolurker

Me either honestly.

It's like Dominionism, something that is supposedly widespread in Christianity, but that I've never heard anything about in any of the Christian sources, some of them way out there and way fundie, I peruse on a semi-regular basis. I've only heard about that one from lefties and leftie sources accusing Christian fundies of it.

originally posted by: infolurker

Who is this and why is he important enough to care?

Is this another Alex Jones type? I had never heard of him until this thread.

Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics. Described by the New York Times as a "talk-radio natural," he hosts the "Focal Point" radio program on AFR Talk,which airs live on weekdays from 1-3 p.m. Central on American Family Radio's nationwide talk network of 125 stations.

A graduate of Stanford University and Dallas Theological Seminary, Bryan pastored in Idaho for 25 years, during which time he served for one session as the chaplain of the Idaho state senate. He founded the Idaho Values Alliance in 2005, and is a co-author of Idaho's marriage amendment. He has been with AFA since 2009.

In his role as a spokesman for AFA, he has been featured on media outlets such as Fox News, CBS News, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the BBC, Russia Today television and the Associated Press, has been a frequent guest on talk radio to discuss cultural and religious issues. He has been profiled in publications such as the New York Times, Newsweek, the New Yorker, and BuzzFeed. He has been married to his bride, Debbie, since 1976, and they have two grown children.

a reply to: ketsuko

Ah, sweet blinkered OBLIVION.

Ted Cruz. He's a mainstreamer. Ben Carson. Mike Huckabee.
ALL OF THEM want to implement theo-judicial principles IN THE U.S.A. LOOK UP THEIR PLATFORMS. Or don't. Just keep spewing your lies and misrepresentations all over the place. You've been given viable sources, and links, and extexted FACTS. If you still refuse to believe it, then frankly, ketsuko, it's willful ignorance and denial. Quite a concerted effort at sustaining it, too.

a reply to: ketsuko

Bryan Fischer is the mouthpiece for the AFA. You've heard of them corrrect???

Today, American Family Association is led by AFA President Tim Wildmon and one of the largest and most effective pro-family organizations in the country with hundreds of thousands of online supporters.

Just like the FRC (Family Research Council) they hold major influence and political power.

The fact that you guys haven't heard of the guy is kinda scary. It's him and others like him who are the Media Arm of the Christian Establishment and are out there spreading BS in the name of your Religion. You might want to find out what they're saying.

In fact speaking of the Family Research Council, here is Tony Perkins from a month ago saying basically the same thing as Fischer is saying now while commenting on Ben Carson saying that no Muslim should be President in the U.S.

Don't tell me you don't know who Tony Perkins is or the FRC.

Tony Perkins: No Religious Liberty For Muslims; Islam 'Incompatible With Constitution'

“Religious freedom and our liberty is ordered liberty under the Constitution,” Perkins said. “And as Dr. Carson pointed out, and I know this is driving the left crazy, that Islam is not just a religion, Islam is an economic system, it is a judicial system, it is a compressive system which is incompatible with the Constitution. That’s what Dr. Carson said and he happens to be correct.”

originally posted by: ketsuko

I was talking about what Trump said. All that I've been able to find is that he was talking about shutting down some mosques in terms of terrorism, so I said I would need to see specifics of what he means.

But his words do not make me thinks he intends a wholesale shutdown of mosques simply for being Islamic.

You're right about Trump though. The reason I mentioned Trump is simply because it was his comments that got this conversation rolling. But all he was technically saying is that he would shut down any Mosques that were actually Radical ISIS centers or whatever. That and he'd pull the passports of anyone going to fight for ISIS. He didn't say he wanted to shut all mosques down though. Not yet anyway.

But he's not the main focus of this thread either. My point was focusing on what these other Organizations were saying because they are trying to support Trump and his ideas. Trump himself could be a whole topic of it's own on this issue actually.

a reply to: mOjOm

Those folks over there sound like they would just want to deport anyone that is Muslim, regardless if they were born in the states.

a reply to: mOjOm

Which Isalm are you addressing? Those who want to worship leaving others alone or those who support the subjugation of the world under Islam. If the latter, I would hope to neither allow them into the nation or deport them as they are neither compatible with Western Civilization or the Constitution of the United States.

Omar M. Ahmad founder of CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations, the Hamas-affiliated Muslim Brotherhood front group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the famous Holy Land foundation terror financing trial.) said:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,"


Muslim Institutions, schools, and economic power should be strengthened in America. Those Who stay in America should be "Open" to society WITHOUT melting into it.

originally posted by: infolurker
Which Isalm are you addressing?

You mean me personally??? Or who Trump is talking about or the Muslims Fischer is talking about??? I'll answer all three.

For me, I have no problem with Moderate Muslims or any Muslims who do their own thing and don't push their Religious ways on others or use them to harm others. Same as I feel about all other Religions. We all should have the right to do our own thing without it restricting others from doing their own thing too. But when it comes to Radical Muslims that want to "Dominate" everyone else or Boko Haram or ISIS I say "Hell No!!" You want to shut them down or kick them out go for it. Just make sure that's who they are first before you go do it.

Trump seems to also be talking only about ISIS or those who want to join ISIS and any Mosques that are either recruiting for ISIS or are secretly a Radical Militant organization pretending to be something else. I've haven't heard him say anything about moderate peaceful Muslims as being a problem as of yet.

Fischer I think would like nothing more than to round up everyone who isn't a Christian and have them either Converted, Banished or Destroyed. His extreme ideology simply cannot accept and will not allow for other Faiths to hold any validity so that puts him in a position of opposing any and all other faiths or lack there of. Anyone who tries to say that "Religious Freedom" really means "Religious Freedom for Christians only" and says that is how the founders meant it is IMO no different than the Radicals who should be stopped when they from the Muslim side. Fischer to me is only slightly different in that his desire for dominance is the same yet he has not yet become openly violent about it like ISIS has. Though I'm sure given more time and power it would be sure to follow.

a reply to: mOjOm

Sounds like it. Luckily there are very few of these "Westboro" types.

originally posted by: infolurker
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth,"

In fact this quote right here is exactly how Fischer thinks only change the Religion to Christian and the book to the Bible. It is this kind of position which is obviously in direct opposition to the meaning of "Religious Freedom" and actually to the meaning of "Freedom" itself. I personally do not and will not ever support such a position as that regardless of what group it comes from, Religious or Not. It is the polar opposite to Personal Freedom, Liberty and a life of Self Determination.