Bryan Fischer: Theocratic Creationist

Vomit

Creationism rarely exists as a stand-alone issue in the brains of its followers. There’s almost always a vast collection of craziness swirling around in the minds of such people. We’ve previously discussed the connection between creationism and climate change denial, and there’s no avoiding the larger topic of science denial, which is almost always indistinguishable from full-blown reality denial.

And then there’s sex. Gasp! Yes, dear reader, sex seems to be part of the package, as today’s post about Bryan Fischer will demonstrate. We’ve written about him before. The last time was Lifetime Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer. You already know he’s a hard-core creationist.

If you’re not familiar with Fischer 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 that one. For more of his creationist views, see Vomit Opportunity: Bryan Fischer & Georgia Purdom.

We found him this morning at the RenewAmerica website, which is far more extreme than even WorldNetDaily, and is therefore the natural home for Fischer’s article: Let’s NOT get government out of marriage. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

A number of well-meaning and well-intentioned Christians have begun to argue it’s time to just get government out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage ought, they say, to be a religious matter only with no role whatsoever for the state.

Interesting issue. What is the proper function of a government? Jefferson, who understood such things, was very clear in his acceptance of John Locke’s description of our individual rights — life, liberty, and property — and he wrote in the Declaration that it was “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … .” (But as we all know, Jefferson rephrased the last of those rights as the “pursuit of happiness.”) What does Fischer think government’s role should be, and where does that role come from? His thinking is very different from Jefferson’s. Brace yourself, because you’re about to find out how different it is:

There are two profound problems with this view. The first is that recognizing, affirming and defending natural marriage is in fact a proper role for the state. Let’s not forget that, according to Romans 13, civil government is God’s idea, not man’s. The authority civil government possesses, every last bit of it, has been delegated to it by God himself. “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1).

That theocratic pronouncement, dear reader, is utterly alien to the Founders’ concept of government, and it deserves a triple Aaaargh!! Let’s read on:

Government, then, by God’s design and intention, is not to be neutral on matters of morality. It is not designed by God to be a bystander in the culture wars, but to take sides. And the side it has been instructed to take is the side of what is right and good. It has a divine responsibility to know the difference between good and evil and to reward the former while punishing the latter.

Scary, isn’t it? He continues:

We know that natural marriage, one-man, one-woman marriage, is a good and right thing. It was designed by God from the dawn of time for our benefit. It meets man’s need for companionship, sexual intimacy and procreation. It is the state’s job, according to Scripture, to recognize the immense value of this institution, and to affirm it and protect it.

So when government defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and prohibits recognition of immoral and unnatural same-sex counterfeits, it is doing a good thing, a divinely-ordained thing. It is fulfilling its role as a “minister of God” (Romans 13:6). It is doing what God designed it to do. No Christian should retreat from supporting the government’s role in defining marriage even one little bit.

According to Fischer, it is the proper — even essential — function of government to decide not only what you may do with your genitalia, but also when, how, and with whom.

Here we shall digress for a moment to tell you your Curmudgeon’s view of such things, which is essentially libertarian: If you’re an adult and you can find another adult who consents, we don’t care if you play Tornado in a Junkyard with each other. Just do it in private, and don’t demand that everyone else should help you with whatever expenses you may incur. And don’t forget that freedom of association is a two-way street — it also means freedom not to associate.

But let’s return to Fischer. Skipping some stuff about divorce, division of marital property, and determining custody of children, which can be determined by contract and therefore are legitimate state functions (not federal), he expands on that exponentially and tells us:

It is altogether right for the state to grant natural marriage special protections in law, to identify it as the relationship in which sex may be legitimately enjoyed and as the optimal nurturing environment for children to be brought into the world and raised to become responsible members of civil society.

Did you get that? No state-sanctioned marriage, no legitimate enjoyment of sex. Here’s the final paragraph:

Let’s not keep the state out of marriage. Instead, let’s work to see that it uses its God-given authority to define and defend the institution that is the bedrock of any healthy civilization. Our future as a nation depends on it.

Fischer probably thinks of himself as a true conservative, and a Republican. Alas, he’s not alone. However, we don’t think there’s any place in any American government, state or federal, for even a trace of theocracy. But then, your Curmudgeon is a relic of the past. We became a Republican back in the Goldwater days, when people like Fischer were seen but not heard, and were mostly in the other party where they had a long tradition of fervently supporting people like William Jennings Bryan. Times change, and so do political parties, but your Curmudgeon doesn’t.

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

27 responses to “Bryan Fischer: Theocratic Creationist

  1. I believe in traditional biblical marriage:

    One man and his sister
    One man and his dead brother’s wife
    One man and one woman and her slaves.
    One man and his rape victim
    One man and many women
    One man and 700 women and 300 concubines
    One man and his virgin prisoners
    One man and his….

  2. “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God” – Yes, Bryan, we understand that that is what you think. Your type has been around for quite some time now. And that is why the U.S. constitution was crafted in a manner that protects normal people from people like you.

  3. Damn, John. Quit reading the bible and bringing in what it actually says. You’re a trouble maker for sure, and you ruin Bryan’s argument.

  4. The most amazing thing about Bryan Fischer and the dozens of other braying donkeys on this subject is the degree of passion they can work up about an issue which has zero effect on them, or any of their friends.

  5. Gotta love a theocrat that thinks the Founder’s were a bunch of godless liberals.

  6. So according to Bryan Wischer, Ol’ Grandy designed government and marriage for our benefit. Of course, the megalomaniacal heathens who run Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, UAE, Pakistan and Mauritania (and possibly Vatican City, too) are working off a garbled crib sheet of Ol’ Grandy’s Divine Directives…

    There is something squalidly prurient about cretinists. Their obsession with what consenting adults might get up to in the absence of their oversight of such, er, affairs reveals a good part of their true concern: They can’t abide others having fun without their knowledge or approval. And it has [edited out]-all to do with any moral imperatives, divine or otherwise.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Vomit generating pundits and religious fundamentalists never really get why Jesus dissed the Pharisees so much. The Pharisees were by definition those who wanted religion to run public law, and saw their impractical rules as sacrosanct. Its almost like an inside joke to those of us reading the same bible as Fisher and seeing a totally different point Jesus was trying to make.

  8. Our Curmudgeon reveals

    Any outfit with the word “Family” in its title, but not “Planning,” is either creationist or it’s connected with Charles Manson.

    Man, I will never shop at ‘Family Dollar’ again!

  9. Interesting that you should mention Barry Goldwater in a post about such a religious fanatic as Bryan Fischer, Curmy. You are most likely aware of what Goldwater thought of the Religious Right, but for the benefit of others who might not know Goldwater so well, I suggest a look at this site:
    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

    Here are a few of his quotes on the subject, according to Wikiquote:

    “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”
    — Said in November 1994, as quoted in John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience (2006)

    “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”
    Said in July 1981 in response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned.” as quoted in Ed Magnuson, “The Brethren’s First Sister,” Time Magazine, (20 July, 1981)
    According to John Dean, Goldwater actually suggested that good Christians ought to kick Falwell in the “nuts”, but the news media “changed the anatomical reference.”
    — Dean, John (2008). Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. Penguin Group. “I know because I was there when he said it.” — John Dean

    On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
    I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
    And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

    — Speech in the US Senate (16 September 1981)

  10. What do purple monkeys do when you talk about them, they will curse you for doubting their words, oh sad one of the internets

  11. Charles Deetz ;)

    Theocrat thinking from Fisher, posted today at RWW. His logic that local/state governments aren’t bound by church/state separation:

    First, the amendment applies only to Congress. “Congress shall make no law…” No other entity is restrained by the First Amendment. Since the amendment applies only to Congress, it is legally, historically and constitutionally impossible for a state, a county commission, a city council, a school board, a school principal, a school teacher or a student to violate the First Amendment. This is for one simple reason: none of them is Congress. Violating the First Amendment is something only Congress can do.

  12. Its going to take a lot of JD to wash the taste of that away.

  13. @john zande don’t forget one Muslim and his 77,17,7 or WTF ever virgins. LOL

  14. I’ve wondered when “Family” became a dog-whistle word for “true Christian”?
    A quick look at some Christian creeds shows no mention of family as being an important topic. As John zande points out, a Biblical role model for “traditional family values” is rare – the Book of Ruth meriting mention. The Ten Commandment’s grouping of wives along with other property (cattle, slaves and such) is not encouraging. And dare I mention that one of the sorts of Christians most on the “pro-family” front has a notorious not-so-long-ago insistence on polygamy.

  15. SC, Oh Mighty Hand from Above, I beseech thee to edit my flub above: [Blunder description removed.] Thanks. (Changed where I was going with that thought in mid-sentence and didn’t proof-read.)

    [*Voice from above*] Lo, I am with you always.

  16. I’d love to talk to this guy about his stance on slavery. Particularly taking captives of conquered nations back as slaves.

  17. We became a Republican back in the Goldwater days, when people like Fischer were seen but not heard, and were mostly in the other party where they had a long tradition of fervently supporting people like William Jennings Bryan.

    I’m afraid I have to disagree, at least somewhat. In the “Goldwater days” (I assume you mean the early 1960s), such people were both seen and heard in the GOP, though not yet much listened to. And by then, the Bryan-worshippers of the Democratic Party were well into a mad scramble toward the GOP, which had begun when Harry Truman sinned before the Lord by desegregating the U.S. military. (Also, all these folks who pound the drums for Bryan because of his involvement, in his last years, with the anti-evolution crusade would probably be shocked to learn how liberal some of his other views were, especially for his era.)

  18. Eric Lipps says: “the Bryan-worshippers of the Democratic Party were well into a mad scramble toward the GOP, which had begun when Harry Truman sinned before the Lord by desegregating the U.S. military.”

    The stampede followed Johnson’s Civil Rights Act. And Nixon welcomed them with his Southern Strategy. It was his worst deed, and that’s what Goldwater opposed.

  19. If I am properly informed, the real reason government regulates marriage is so it can be taxed. I’m with the Libertarians on this one; government doesn’t need to be regulating marriage.
    I would allow exceptions where the liberty of the bride is at stake (forced marriage, child brides, human trafficking). Those exceptions might be a human right issue, more than a marriage issue.

  20. Tomato Addict opines: “If I am properly informed, the real reason government regulates marriage is so it can be taxed.”

    I’m not sure. My guess is that it was for the protection of widows and children, who had certain protections if there was a marriage. After divorce became more common, it got more complicated, deciding on the ownership of property and the duty of providing for children. Those are reasonable concerns. But the business of controlling who does what to whom is a whole different matter.

  21. Um … Did Fischer note that Paul was writing to the Romans? You know, the people living under the (God appointed?) Roman Empire that was, about that time crucifying and burning alive Christians, when not feeding them to the lions. That’s the government that had a divine responsibility to know the difference between good and evil? Does that mean our government gets to do the same?

  22. Regarding the fact that Fischer and his ilk are such incredible killjoys, remember what Thomas Macaulay said. The Puritans banned bear-baiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.

  23. Is there any evidence for that observation of Macaulay?

  24. Doctor Stochastic

    The government is involved in marriage (whether rightly or wrongly) because marriage is a merger of two families and their estates (which may be rather meager). There’s lots of connections. The government feels it necessary to regulate how estates are plundered should one or both of the married couple (or n-tuple in some cases) die. The government also decides on the disposition of the offspring in many cases. Of course, should more than one government entity try to exert oversight, things get interesting (as in state-to-state conflicts when I was younger and nation-to-nation conflicts now.)

  25. Hmmm … Wikipedia makes no mention of taxes, though there were sometimes fees involve. I seem to be ill-informed. Carry on.

  26. Dave Luckett

    Basically, the idea here is that it is the duty of government to enforce Fischer’s religious precepts upon everyone. Nothing further from the written and spoken intentions of the Founders can possibly be imagined.

    Fischer is also either completely ignorant or absolutely uncaring of the idea that the government of a State ruled by laws can do only what the law allows; that Congress alone may make laws; and that, in the words of the Fourteenth Amendment “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.

    That means that no State legislature can legislate to establish a religion. Congress cannot legislate to establish a religion. There is therefore no power of government at any level, anywhere, to establish a religion. No State or Federal agency can do anything that would differentially protect, subsidise, foster, support or approve the interests of any religion over those of any other religion or of no religion. By telling us that same-sex marriage is prohibited because of what is written in his sect’s holy book, Fischer has established instantly that the prohibition is unConstitutional. He has merely torpedoed his own canoe.

  27. @Dave Luckett: Well-said. If I were president (instead of merely the pope [it’s a long story] ), I’d nominate you for the Supreme Court. That is, if there were two seats open. The Curmudgeon needs to be there as well.