Month: February 2011

Bryan Fischer explains why the AFA pulled his column on Native Americans

I don’t know where the hole is going that Bryan Fischer is digging but it got a little deeper this afternoon.

As of mid-afternoon today, no decision had been made by AFA leaders to address the controversy over the column about Native Americans (you can read it here) according to Cindy Roberts, Director of Media and Public Relations.  Then late today, Mr. Fischer posted his explanation:

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down. 

But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held. 

The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence. 

So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations and history. 

A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world and to make a career out of apologizing for her very existence. 

If, however, there is a moral and ethical basis for our displacement of native American tribes, and if our westward expansion and settlement are in fact consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations, then Americans have much to be proud of.

Someone at the AFA must have determined that attacking Native Americans was out of sync with the AFA mission but that finding fault with the Medal of Honor and opining that Jesus would have allowed a home to burn down over failure to pay a fee is a part of their mission.

On the substance, it appears that shades of gray are missing from Mr. Fischer’s palette. I reject this reductionism and appeal to naturalism (“laws of nature and nature’s God?!).  In his column, Mr. Fischer tries to frame obviously evil acts as noble ones. However, evil does not become noble because the evil served an outcome that cannot now be undone.  

I disagree with the President on many issues but I don’t believe Fischer is correct in his assessment that Obama blames America for “all evil in the world.” Fischer expresses no regret for his offensive and supremacist generalizations about Native Americans and only makes things worse by engaging in all or nothing argumentation.

Would the GOP nominate Ronald Reagan today?

Reading today’s Politico made me doubt that Reagan would make the cut in 2012.

Indeed, by the end of the weekend, a dozen potential presidential hopefuls will have auditioned for the role of activist hero at CPAC, which is organized by Cardenas’s group.

So far, though, every leading contender seems to have a potentially fatal flaw.

Mitt Romney has a reputation for flip-flopping, which he acquired during the 2008 campaign and for his record on health care as governor of Massachusetts. Meanwhile, there are doubts about former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s readiness for the national arena. And while Pawlenty remains a cipher to most Republicans, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is entirely too well-known.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, meanwhile, alienated the GOP’s social conservative wing by calling for a “truce” on cultural issues. And Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is an admitted creature of the Washington establishment who has called ideological purity a “dead-dog loser.”

In the wake of the Republican Party’s sweeping victory in 2010, conservatives have less patience than ever for that message. They’re hoping for a nominee who’s a “full conservative,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins — someone who can completely satisfy the economic, social and foreign policy wings, all at the same time.

By “full conservative” Perkins means someone who is sufficiently anti-gay. The Family Research Council pulled out of the CPAC convention, going on now, because a conservative gay group, GOProud, was allowed to take part.

Now consider that former CA Governor Ronald Reagan publicly opposed the 1978 Briggs Initiative which would have allowed school districts to fire and refuse to hire gays teachers and those straight teachers who spoke favorably about homosexuals. The measure failed and Reagan was given some credit for the defeat by gay groups. He had nothing to gain politically and a lot to lose in that he was gearing up for a run at the White House – which of course he won.

What if Reagan approached the GOP race today opposing discrimination against gays as a point in his resume? Can you imagine how he would be treated by the social conservative camp?  I suspect the social conservative establishment would see it as a disqualification.

Three cases in point; for several years former MN Governor, Tim Pawlenty, has been distancing himself from a gay rights employment  measure he supported in 1992.  Some social conservatives will not forgive Mitt Romney for his stance on gay issues when he was MA’s chief executive. And Mitch Daniels is a non-starter for some social conservatives because he has called for a truce on social issues.

Clearly, the bar is high. Out of reach, in my view because the country is moving toward a more moderate position on gay issues, while tilting right on matters that get people elected to Congress. Conceivably, Reagan would play about right in today’s electoral environment but he might be rejected by the current crop of social conservative advocates. Back to Politico:

Calling the 112th Congress the “most conservative” in memory, Perkins argued that there’s now a tougher standard for self-described conservative candidates: “Folks are going to be looking for what we just saw elected to Congress.”

Club for Growth President Chris Chocola, whose group is vetting presidential candidates based on their records on economic issues, agreed that the 2012 crowd has a “higher hurdle to clear.”

“There’s a heightened level of scrutiny that began during the 2010 cycle that’s carrying over into 2012,” he said. “There’s not an obvious choice right now that would be energized by our membership — not to say they couldn’t get energized.”

I submit that Reagan’s role opposing the Briggs Initiative would place him in similar company as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels today. With that in mind, I applaud CPAC for keeping the conservative tent a Reagan-friendly one. Now what will the GOP do?

AFA removes article at odds with Bryan Fischer on Native Americans; Update: Original article also removed

I have written a couple of posts about Bryan Fischer’s supremacist views relating to Native Americans. As far as I can tell, I am only one of two conservatives to respond negatively to it. The other one, however, is noteworthy in that he did so on the website of the American Family Association.

One of AFA’s other columnists, 17 year old Elijah Friedeman posted a column criticizing Fischer’s views.  However, you’ll have to read it on Friedeman’s blog since it has been removed from AFA’s. Here is how he started it:

Native Americans were so immoral that they deserved what happened to them? I find the idea repulsive.

Yesterday, Bryan Fischer posted a blog about how American indians disqualified themselves from any claim to land in America by their sexual immorality and violence. I want to officially reject and distance myself from that viewpoint.

His other columns are still available and you can find the link to his rebuttal in the search engine but when you click the link, it fails to appear.

UPDATE: Bryan Fischer’s article has now been removed from the AFA website. However, you can read it in the Google cache for now and here permanently. I wonder if he will explain why it was taken down.

Native American group: Bryan Fischer’s article “not worth dignifying”

Curious to learn how some Native American groups viewed the anti-Native American article penned Tuesday (now here) by the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, I contacted the Native American Rights Fund.  NARF advocates for Native American interests and is described on their website as

…the oldest and largest nonprofit law firm dedicated to asserting and defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals nationwide.

In his article, Fischer suggested that Native Americans were “morally disqualified” from maintaining their land due to depravity and failure to convert to Christianity. After reviewing the article, NARF’s spokesman, Ray Ramirez, sent this response.

NARF declines to comment because the article is not worth dignifying with a reply.

Of course, this is more than a “no comment.” On one hand it is not worth dignifying with a reply. Fischer’s article is historically challenged and uber-offensive. One of AFA’s other columnists, 17 year old Elijah Friedeman posted a column criticizing Fischer’s views (you’ll have to read it on Friedeman’s blog since it has been removed from AFA’s).

Native Americans were so immoral that they deserved what happened to them? I find the idea repulsive.

Yesterday, Bryan Fischer posted a blog about how American indians disqualified themselves from any claim to land in America by their sexual immorality and violence. I want to officially reject and distance myself from that viewpoint.

On the other hand, the source of these views is what has raised the profile. Another Native American leader who did not want to be quoted expressed hope that Mr. Fischer’s views are not true of most Christians. However, what is stunning is that we are here dealing with an organization in the AFA that is considered mainstream by so many GOP politicians and which is making a serious bid to split the conservative world.

…

You can watch Fischer in action here appealing to Jefferson, Washington and the Old Testament for his supremacist views. Obviously, the Founders got a lot right, but they were fallible men and were wrong at times.

UPDATE: Fischer’s article has been removed from the AFA website (2/10) and another website where he blogs. However, you can read it in the Google cache for now and here permanently. I wonder if he will explain why it was taken down.

The response even on the AFA website was intense and negative. I did not get a copy of all of the comments, but this blogger did. AFA must have taken the column down quietly with hope it would all go away. Taking it down just looks like damage control unless they actually say something about it.

1984 Press Conference: Ronald Reagan opposed discrimination against gays

In a post earlier today, I referenced a Baltimore Sun article where Democrat Presidential nominee Walter Mondale said he heard President Ronald Reagan speak against discrimination against gays. I found a transcript of that June 14, 1984 press conference in the Reagan archives which supports Mondale’s statement. Here is the brief answer to a reporter’s question about gay rights in employment:

Employment Rights for Homosexuals

Q. Mr. President, there is a move afoot in the Congress that has the support of many of the Democratic Presidential candidates to change the Federal civil rights law to prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor?

The President. Now, I was so — you’re going to have to start again here for — first few words. I missed them. I was so confused about three of you — —

Q. There’s a measure before the Congress to change the Federal civil rights law to specifically prohibit job discrimination against homosexuals. Is that something that you would favor?

The President. Well, I just have to say I am opposed to discrimination, period. Now — —

Q. Well, would you support the measure, Mr. President?

The President. What?

Q. Will you support that measure, putting it into — —

The President. I want to see — I want to see what else they have there.

A few months later, Mondale told a Tupelo, MS crowd that he held essentially the same position as Reagan.

But the issue arose last Thursday when Mondale was asked at a Tupelo, Miss., appearance, why he supported “perversions” such as “gay rights.”

He answered: “I saw Reagan on a news conference a couple of months ago and someone said that about homosexuals.

He said, I wouldn’t discriminate against them.

That’s my position.

Does that draw a distinction between us?”

Reagan’s words in 1984 are consistent with his actions in 1978, opposing discrimination in CA by campaigning against the Briggs Initiative. When Reagan said that he wanted to see what else was in the bill referenced by the reporter, it seems clear that he was unfamiliar with the specific piece of legislation. However, on the broader question, Reagan expressed opposition to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Will those who now seek congruence with Reagan’s policies follow his lead?