“Are there not laws?”

yes, in fact there is a constitutional amendment that allows Fischer to spout whatever nonsense he wants. However, there are no laws that require Fischer to be truthful, correct or inoffensive. I doubt there is anything the FCC or any other government agency could do to stop Fischer from spouting his nonsense, nor would I be comfortable with any trying.

“I think it’s about time the FCC pays this imp’s radio program a visit.”

Why? what is it you think the FCC should do?

Why would you be be afraid of the FCC trying to shut him down, what is there to fear from the devil’s imp.

This is the furthest from the Christianity that I have been taught.

Is it correct to place Fischer in the Reconstructionist tent, or does he belong to a separate tradition despite possibly having some views that happen to overlap with the Reconstructionists? And for that matter, are Christian “theocrats” who purportedly want to see homosexuals hanged from lampposts properly described with the term Reconstructionist, or should they be called Dominionists, or what?

I realize that American Protestant history is vexingly complicated and that there may not be a simple two-sentence answer to my question, but I’m just trying to avoid blatant misuse of terminology!

P.S. I do understand that “Evangelical” is not an exact synonym for terms like “born-again Christian” or “Pentecostal”, and that none of these terms are freely interchangeable with “Christian Fundamentalist.” For that matter, I know that “Christian Fundamentalism” has a complex history — some of the early “Fundamentalists” were primarily concerned with re-affirming such utterly central doctrines as the literal physical Resurrection of Christ, but other “Fundamentalists” were obsessed with seemingly secondary matters, such as attacking the hypothesis that multiple authors had contributed to the “Five Books of Moses.”

“This is a perfect example of when politicians and religious leaders try to use each other, both of them end up getting hurt,” said the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal religious group. “The reason that many of us talk about separating religion and politics is that they are two different parts of life, and they operate with different values and methods.”

Hagee said that his sermon had been “mischaracterized” and that he had always spoken harshly about Hitler and the Holocaust.

Hagee, 68, is not as well known as other evangelical leaders, but he is powerful among strongly conservative evangelical Christians, thanks to a vast media reach.

The impulse to reach the audience of religious media people must seem hard to resist. The only way I saw it work well in 2008 was the Rick Warren hosted debate where both McCain and Obama answered the same questions.

I certainly am watching to see who else, if anyone, goes on the AFA network in a friendly, good ol’ boy way. What I would like to see is for more religious conservatives to say enough is enough.

Thanks for shining a spotlight on Fischer’s antics. On the McCain/Hagee rift, I’d have to note that it was not until I posted an audio clip from a late 2005 sermon in which John Hagee declared “God sent a hunter. Hitler was a hunter” that John McCain renounced his long-sought endorsement from Hagee. See that post at: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/15/141520/281

A number of mainstream media outlets (such as the NYT) credited the website I co-founded with Frederick Clarkson with precipitating the McCain/Hagee break, and some even credited me personally (you can read a list at my bio, here). In any event, Catholic outrage was insufficient, it would seem, to pry McCain away from Hagee.

Best,

Bruce Wilson

Crickets.