The current issue of the New Yorker carries a long feature article titled Bully Pulpit: An Evangelist Talk-Show Host’s Campaign to Control the Republican Party. The article profiles Bryan Fischer, the Tupelo, Mississippi based host of the Christian radio show "Focal Point." The program is broadcast on 200 stations of the American Family Association radio network. The article's author Jane Mayer writes of Fischer:
He is one of the country’s most vocal opponents of what he calls “the homosexual-rights movement.” As he puts it, “A rational culture that cares about its people will, in fact, discriminate against adultery, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.” His goal is to make this view the official stance of the Republican Party.It was Fischer who began the attacks that led to the resignation in April of openly-gay Richard Grenell as Mitt Romney's national security spokesman.
Fischer is also virulently anti-Muslim, believing that Muslims should be barred from immigrating to the U.S. and serving in the U.S. military. He argues that the U.S. was a Christian nation when the 1st Amendment was drafted, and so non-Christians should have no 1st Amendment free exercise rights.
.jpg)
Posts
1 comments:
Not knowing anything about Mr. Fischer apart from what is recorded in this post, I can see a reasonable point to his argument regarding a "rational culture". A "rational culture" would be inclined to cultivate those ideas which enhance its perpetuation & weed out those which detract or divert from the root purposes. However, his argument presumes a correlation between various unrestrained sexual conduct which needs stronger proofs if one is going to move from the sphere of religious conduct to the sphere of political influence.
Regarding his stance on Muslims, the more I study the history & doctrines of Islam, the more I would tend to agree. There is no compatibility between Islam & any other system of governance (for it is primarily a parasitic political system & only secondarily a religious system). I am certain the denial of visas on the basis of religious affiliation would be strongly contested, however it might be a fight worth having (the courts generally being less bloody than the battlefield).
The final argument, re: 1st amendment rights extended to non-Christians is refuted by the historic record. While the USofA was principally Christian, it was not exclusively so nor were all those who were called Christian in agreement regarding who outside their congregation were also Christian. As it is not the role or right of the government to define who is or is not a Christian, the rights of the 1st amendment must be extended to all who are subject to the jurisdiction of the USofA.
Post a Comment