Lifetime Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer

This has to be the lead story for new year. It popped up at the flamingly far-right website, RenewAmerica: No evolutionist can be trusted with political power, by Bryan Fischer.

We’ve written about Fischer before. If you’re not familiar with him or his organization — the American Family Association — you may want to read our earlier post: Meet the American Family Association. Any outfit with the word “Family” in its title, but not “Planning,” is either creationist or it’s connected with Charles Manson. We also wrote about him here: Bryan Fischer: Flaming Creationist Theocrat, and our title today was inspired by this one: Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.

Fischer’s article today is beyond wrong — it’s insane, from the first word to the last. Normal people should keep a copy as a warning. Creationists undoubtedly will keep a copy as an inspiration. Here are some of the crazier parts, with bold font added by us:

Pew Research recently conducted a poll, examining the mindset of the American people with regard to the evolution/creation issue. One finding in particular stands out: despite 100 years of relentless brainwashing and indoctrination, just 32% of the American people believe that man evolved through entirely natural processes, with no direction or assistance from God.

We know about the poll. We wrote about it here: Pew Research Poll on Evolution. We didn’t know about the “100 years of relentless brainwashing and indoctrination.” But that’s why we’re reading Fischer — because he’s an excellent source of things like that. Stay with us, there’s more to come:

The United States was founded on a profoundly religious concept, that there is a Creator – with a capital “C” – who is the source of every one of our “unalienable rights.” An “unalienable” right is one from which we cannot be alienated by any human authority, because it is a gift to us from God.

Balderdash! First, the Declaration isn’t the law of the United States –it’s a political declaration. Second, Jefferson was no fundie theocrat, and his reference to the Creator was defined in the sentence that immediately preceded its use: ” … the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them … .” Third, we’ve discussed all of this before — see Is America a “Christian Nation”?

Wow — we’re all worked up and this thing is just getting started. Let’s read on:

According to the Founders, man is not an evolved being, he is a “created” being, and as such the recipient of certain fundamental, unalterable, unchangeable human and civil rights.

We can’t decide whether to laugh at the insanity or to scream at the cosmos for tolerating the existence of idiocy like this. We’ll do both: Aaaargh! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ah, that’s better. Okay, we continue:

The Founders made it clear that the purpose of government is to “secure” these fundamental rights, not to grant them. It’s [sic] role is not to bestow rights but to guarantee them.

We’re shocked — shocked! Fischer said something that makes sense. But then he uses that as the foundation for further madness:

Now whether a candidate for public office believes in naturalistic evolution or in creation is of enormous importance in regard to his fitness to wield political power. This is simply because if a man does not believe our rights come to us from a creator God, the only other place they can come from is government.

False dichotomy alert!! God and government aren’t the only possibilities. Jefferson — whom Fischer quote-mined — said that our rights come from our nature. Anyway, brace yourself for a wildly illogical conclusion:

I would submit that no man who is an evolutionist is fit to hold public office in the United States. This is for the simple and straightforward reason that he does not believe in the most basic and fundamental American political principle, that rights come from God. A man who does not understand that and does not believe that as a matter of conviction cannot be trusted with political power.

After briefly invoking the usual Hitler-Stalin-Mao stuff, and claiming that such horrors are the consequence of governments that don’t think as he does, Fischer finishes with this:

Am I suggesting a law prohibiting evolutionists from running for office? Of course not. Am I urging the American people never to put political power in the hands of someone who thinks we are the descendants of apes and baboons? Absolutely.

So there you are, dear reader. Does creationism ever get any crazier than that? Yes, definitely — but first the theocrats need to achieve political power.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “Lifetime Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer

  1. Anyone else notice that the name “Bryan” is common among evolution-deniers? There’s also Bryan Leonard, who at the 2005 Kansas Kangaroo Court refused to answer the question about the age of the earth without the “I teach my students…” qualifier. Possibly named after their patron saint?

  2. I would submit that no man who is an evolutionist is fit to hold public office in the United States.”

    If he’s consistent (and yes I know that anti-evolution activists never are) he would not be a fan of George W. Bush. While GWB did fall for the “its fair to teach both sides” nonsense (even I did briefly), he also appointed Judge Jones, who ruled against ID at Dover, and even had the foresight to link it to the ID-free “replacement scams” (e.g. academic “freedom”). The trial began just after his “teach both sides” statement. A few years later, after having the opportunity to give it 5 minutes’ thought, he told an interviewer that he had no problem with evolution, and indirectly giving his approval to Jones’ decision. One that anti-evolution activists still whine about in horror.

  3. Doesn’t Splischer’s dictum that “no man who is an evolutionist [sic] is fit to hold public office in the United States” rule out a good-sized portion of educated US citizens from occupying public office?

    [D]escendants of apes and baboons” kinda clinches the inveterate ignorance, dunnit?

  4. I tried to watch this video but it said the video was private.

  5. I guess this guy never heard of the actual mention of religion in the Constitution: that there can be no religious test for elected office? These people cherry-pick the Constitution, the D of I, and their own scripture. They made war upon science for 500 years and lost and now they whine and complain and science didn’t even fight back! Amazing.

  6. stephenpruis observes—

    “They made war upon science for 500 years and lost … and science didn’t even fight back! Amazing.”

    Yes, that’s a very good point. That’s because the one thing they cannot fathom is being ignored for being irrelevant, or being ridiculed when they stray too far off the range. There’s a vital lesson about passive resistance, quiet defiance and the value of the horselaugh neatly tucked away in there somewhere.

  7. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, 33 years before Charles Darwin was born. Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” was not published until 1859. The fact that the Declaration assumes a “Creator” simply reflects the way most people thought at the time, before Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published their observations.

  8. Once again, we have the fallacy of composition/division. One should distinguish between the collective and the individual. Evolution is about populations – origins of species; while the DoI tells us about the individual.

  9. Our Curmudgeon understandably deplores as “wildly illogical” the conclusion reached by Bryan Fischer:

    I would submit that no man who is an evolutionist is fit to hold public office in the United States.

    Yep, agreed, Fischer is barking mad. But in fairness: he is only stating in clear and simple words the identical view of the Discoveroids when they run (as oft they do) their “No Darwin, No Hitler” schtick.

  10. …despite 100 years of relentless brainwashing and indoctrination, just 32% of the American people believe that man evolved through entirely natural processes…”

    Man, you “Darwinists” can’t do anything right. First you restrict that “brainwashing and indoctrination” to only ~0.1% of the waking hours that students (an only public school students at that) spend learning evolution. Leaving them a much higher % of their time to be “straightened out.” Then you only allow in class those findings which have been thoroughly validated by painstaking testing and peer-review, rejecting countless opportunities to truly brainwash and indoctrinate them. You know, like the ID peddlers seek to do by replacing much of what has earned the right to be taught, with their misleading long-refuted falsehoods; censoring the refutations of them of course.

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    What Fischer says is really not any better than your typical ‘Creationist’s Wisdom’ Curmie posts. But whipped up with a bunch of theocratic thinking, it is pretty out there. Unfortunately I’ve watched enough video clips of him to read these quotes in his voice. Creepy.

    So the logic he has going: Creationism proves true believers, which are the only ones who are fit to run the government as it was designed. ‘Pretty out there’ is an understatement now that I think of it.

  12. Ceteris Paribus

    Fischer says: “An “unalienable” right is one from which we cannot be alienated by any human authority, because it is a gift to us from God.

    I think Fischer has a valid point there. In fact every morning after my house maid clears away the breakfast tray and empties the chamber pot, I command my overseer to go out and survey my field workers.

    It is my Biblical sacred duty to keep an accurate count of the runaways and newly born replacements. Otherwise, how should the enterprise that a benevolent and all-knowing God trusted to my hands provide sufficient food and housing to allow those poor wretches with the free time to attend the Sabbath Day lectures that bring them to salvation?

  13. One wonders if Fischer is really clinically insane, or if he’s an opportunist who is finely tuned in to his target audience, who ARE insane. I live in Texas, and am surrounded by people who would consider Fischer, along with Glenn Beck, to be a thoughtful and informative commentator. It curdles the blood.

  14. For those who wonder about the motivation behind creationism: thinks we are the descendants of apes and baboons

  15. Megalonyx: “But in fairness: he is only stating in clear and simple words the identical view of the Discoveroids when they run (as oft they do) their ‘No Darwin, No Hitler’ schtick.”

    Charles Deetz: “What Fischer says is really not any better than your typical ‘Creationist’s Wisdom’ Curmie posts.”

    So a Biblical anti-evolution activist has something in common with a non-Biblical ID peddler and an amateur activist-in-training. Something that clearly displays their extreme paranoid authoritarian ideology. Next thing you know we’ll find out that it gets dark at night.

    The rest of you may like hearing “the same song on the radio” over and over, but I find a variety of “lost hits” far more interesting, and revealing.
    I can imagine a debate between Fischer and a Discoveroid (especially Behe), with the amateur (“letter to the editor” writer) in the audience, along with a random sampling of people (i.e. not a hand-picked fundamentalist congregation). The moderator says:

    “Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that, not only is acceptance of evolution the cause of all sorts of evil, but that evolution itself is contradicted by the evidence. First, do you agree that neither of those claims follows from the other? Second, given that ‘some designer did something other than (macro)evolution,’ please state exactly what that designer did, where, when and how, and support it only on its own positive evidence, not on your perceived ‘weaknesses’ of evolution. You may, however, refute your opponent’s answers.”

    Behe, of course would never agree to those terms, but Fischer seems “out there” enough that he might.

  16. TomS: “For those who wonder about the motivation behind creationism: thinks we are the descendants of apes and baboons.

    For readers who might not get it, the joke is that we are apes, not their “descendants,” and we are not descendants of baboons, but their cousins. As you know, I’m not a big fan of ridiculing evolution-deniers, but sometimes it’s impossible to resist. One of my favorite quotes was in 2009 when I saw a Ken Miller talk. He mentioned Mike Huckabee’s campaign speech where he indicated that he was not descended from primates, and quipped (as if speaking to Huckabee, who was not in the audience): “Governor Huckabee, you are a primate.”

  17. I think folks here would find the book “The Myth of American Religious Freedom” by David Sehat very interesting.

  18. I wonder why he thinks it’s preferable that a politician believe bronze age myths. And my personal favorite mythological creature is Ganesha. Can I run for office?

  19. I recall when Pat Buchanan was running for president in 1996, and he was asked about evolution, to which he replied that you may think you are descended from monkeys, but I believe that you are a creature of God.

  20. @DavidK,

    A Google search also reveals that this could be an interesting read. Thanks for the tip.

  21. @TomS:

    It would have been nice had someone replied: “I believe both. I also believe that your implication that they’re mutually exclusive shows that you are too ignorant of science to be president. Unless you’re faking that ignorance, in which case you’re too dishonest to be president.”

  22. @FrankJ: As I recall, I made a comment on the talk.origins newsgroup about chimps also being creatures of God.

  23. Thanks for the warning, Curmy. Since I absolutely HATE to vomit, I refrained from reading this post. I did, however, read the comments, and from them I can see I made the right choice.

  24. Is this idiot aware that the most influential of the Founding Fathers were Deists?

    Is this idiot aware that the Constitution clearly states there shall be no religious tests for any political office?

    Is this idiot aware of the Treaty of Tripoli? Can I be the one to tell him if he’s not?