Bryan Fischer — One More Time


It’s been a while since we wrote about Bryan Fischer. The last time was more than five years ago — Bryan Fischer: Theocratic Creationist. That links to a few of our earlier posts about him.

As you may know, Bryan used to be a director of 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. Now he’s just a radio talk show host.

We found Bryan’s latest column at a website called OneNewsNow, which says it’s the website of the American Family News Network (AFN), a national Christian news service. His column is titled In defense of Christian nationalism. They have a comments feature, with no comments yet. Here are some excerpts from Bryan’s column, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

I am a Christian nationalist because the Founders were. [What?] The Founders established a nation grounded and rooted in Christianity, Christian principles, and a Christian worldview. They enshrined their view of what a Christian nation looks like in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Balderdash! First, the Declaration isn’t the law of the United States –it’s a political declaration. Second, Jefferson (the Declaration’s author) 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, the Constitution isn’t a theocratic document — not in the slightest. We’ve discussed all of this before — see Is America a “Christian Nation”? Bryan is off to a great start. Then he says:

I use the term “constitutionalist” synonymously with “Christian nationalist,” because our constitution is the constitution of a Christian nation, and could only be the constitution of a Christian nation. Our Constitution is shot through, warp and woof, with the thinking of Christian statesmen who shared a deep-dyed view of the world, soaked deeply in the Bible.

If you want to see what the constitution of a Christian nation looks like, read one or two of the colonial charters we linked to in Is America a “Christian Nation”? In contrast to those, the US Constitution is flamingly secular.

Bryan goes on and on, but we’ve been there before so we won’t bother with any more excerpts and rebuttals. He finishes with this:

So, my friend, whether you know it or not, if you believe in a God who is the Creator of all men who are made in the image and likeness of God, you are a Christian nationalist. If you believe that our rights come from Him and not from our government, you are a constitutionalist. And you may stand proudly in the lineage of the men who founded our nation and our Constitution upon the Rock. Welcome to the club.

It’s always interesting to see what creationists are like in their political views. And it’s also a bit frightening. Fortunately, theirs isn’t a majority view.

Copyright © 2020. 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

13 responses to “Bryan Fischer — One More Time

  1. Nasty. He equivocates on the denotation of “Christian nationalist” as someone who believes themselves to belong to a Christian nation, and the connotation of “nationalist” as someone who believes in the nation’s (here assumed to be the US) exceptionalism.

    To say nothing of the implicit threat to the legitimacy of all those Americans who don’t happen to be Christian, which obviously includes a number and and of people here

  2. Michael Fugate

    So, my friend, whether you know it or not, if you believe in a God who is the Creator of all men who are made in the image and likeness of God, you are a Christian nationalist.

    Anyone want to parse that sentence?

    Our Constitution is shot through, warp and woof, with the thinking of Christian statesmen who shared a deep-dyed view of the world, soaked deeply in the Bible.


  3. He seems to forget that part of the Declaration of Independence which goes ‘. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’. The just powers come, not from any God, but from the consent of the governed.

  4. Dave Luckett

    There are loons even further out in the shrubbery than this one. At least this clown actually recognises that there are “just powers” wielded by governments.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Frightening. Yes. DJT has made it a cult. I’m truly disturbed by his recent rants about toilets, he’s just testing how nutty he can go and they still cheer. Bryan used to be scary, now here just one of many. Seriously, things are getting F’d up and I’m afraid to talk to my friends about it.

  6. Our dear SC misses Bryan’s biggest gaffe:

    “I am a Christian nationalist because ….”
    Jesus wasn’t. Neither was Paulus of Tarsus.

  7. Brian voted for Trump.

  8. @FrankB
    Paul was a Roman citizen.

  9. Romans weren’t nationalists at all.

  10. Civis romanus sum!
    — Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Civis Tractatus Romae sum!…
    …Sed non multo longiore
    — Megalonyx

  11. Thanks, Byran. Now I know for sure I’m not a Christian nationalist. What a relief!

  12. @Megalonyx, eheu, mehercule

  13. Charley Horse X

    From the closing argument in the Kitzmiller v. Dover:
    The law requires that government not impose its religious beliefs on citizens, not because religion is disfavored or unimportant, because it is so important to so many of us and because we hold a wide variety of religious beliefs, not just one.

    The Supreme Court explained in McCreary that one of the major concerns that prompted adoption of the religion clauses was that the framers and the citizens of their time intended to guard against the civil divisiveness that follows when the government weighs in on one side of a religious debate.

    We’ve seen that divisiveness in Dover: School board member pitted against school board member. Administrators and board members no longer on common ground with the schoolteachers. Julie Smith’s daughter asking “what kind of Christian are you?” because her mother believes in evolution. Casey Brown and Bryan Rehm being called atheists.

    It even spilled over into this courtroom where Jack Haught, a prominent theologian and practicing Catholic, had his religious beliefs questioned, not as they relate to the subject of evolution, but on basic Christian tenets like the virgin birth of Christ. That was impeachment by the defendants’ lawyers in this case.

    It’s ironic that this case is being decided in Pennsylvania in a case brought by a plaintiff named Kitzmiller, a good Pennsylvania Dutch name. This colony was founded on religious liberty. For much of the 18th Century, Pennsylvania was the only place under British rule where Catholics could legally worship in public.

    In his declaration of rights, William Penn stated, “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or modes of worship.”

    In defiance of these principles which have served this state and this country so well, this board imposed their religious views on the students in Dover High School and the Dover community. You have met the parents who have brought this lawsuit. The love and respect they have for their children spilled out of that witness stand and filled this courtroom.