Tag: Bryan Fischer

Bryan Fischer hearts Scott Lively; repeats Holocaust revision

Bryan Fischer gets his gay nazi on with this glowing tribute to Scott Lively and the Pink Swastika.

Two things: One, the motives behind David Kato’s death are not clear as yet but that does not stop Bryan Fischer from providing his audience with one-sided analysis. It may be awhile before we can sort through all of the competing theories.

And two, and perhaps more dangerous, Fischer recommends to his large audience a book which has been rejected by Campus Crusade, NARTH, Exodus International and virtually all historians I know who have looked at it. Even the historian Fischer advances to support his theory of the Holocaust said Fischer and Lively are wrong (see Lothar Machtan’s statement).

Hitler’s atrocities primarily do NOT derive from his homosexuality. Of course you CANNOT blame Hitler’s homosexuality for the Holocaust. (Machtan supplied the emphasis)

Machtan thinks Hitler was gay. Having read his book, I would say he did not succeed in proving his thesis. Machtan’s book is not well received among historians. However, even someone who thinks Hitler might have been gay says that his sexuality had nothing to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities. The only ones who think that are…, well, you know.

Bryan Fischer to the right of Jerry Falwell on GLBT housing

Just about 5 years ago, Tucker Carlson hosted Jerry Falwell and Rachel Maddow (which pretty much makes it a party) on his show when the topic of the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court came up. At the time, some conservatives were upset that Roberts had done some pro-bono legal work arguing against a Colorado law which allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing. Carlson asked Rev. Falwell about Roberts’ activities but seemed surprised by Falwell’s reply:

CARLSON: Jerry Falwell, I notice you wrote a piece supporting Mr. Roberts.  Are you rethinking that? 

FALWELL:  Oh, not at all. 

You know, I—if I were an attorney, I‘d certainly fight for the right of gays or anyone else to be employed or be housed wherever they wished to be housed.  I may not agree with the lifestyle.  And I don‘t.  But that has nothing do with the civil rights of that member of our—that part of our constituency. 

John Roberts would probably have been not a very good lawyer if he had not been willing, when asked by his partners in the law firm to assist in guaranteeing the civil rights of employment and housing to any and all Americans. 

CARLSON:  But wait a second.  I thought conservatives are always arguing against special rights for gays.  And the idea is that…

FALWELL:  Well, housing and employment are not special rights.  I think—I think the right to live somewhere and to live where you please or to work where you please, as long as you‘re not bothering anybody else, is a basic right, not a—not a special right. 

MADDOW:  I think—I‘m happy to agree with you on this.

And I am also happy to agree….which I did in this Christian Post article out today about proposed rules from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, coming out in the Federal Register on Monday, which add sexual orientation and gender identity to existing regulations which bar discrimination in housing decisions

However, if you read the article, you will find that Bryan Fischer does not agree any of us.

However, some Christians are apprehensive of the proposed housing rule. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for American Family Association said, “This really isn’t about housing, this is about government endorsement of homosexuality.”

He contended that “homosexuals, on average, have higher levels of education and wealth than anyone else.” By that rationale, Fischer stated that alleged discrimination against homosexuality is not the true reason for the proposed rule.

The CP reporter, Stephanie Samuels then properly notes the field research from Michigan which confirms actual discrimination.

According to research cited in the HUD proposal, a 2007 study of housing discrimination found disparate treatment based on homosexuality in 32 out of 120 fair housing tests it conducted.

The study was conducted by Michigan fair housing centers. Testers posed as gay or lesbian home seekers. “Homosexual” testers received more unfavorable treatment on issues such as whether housing was available, the amount of rent, application fees, and levels of encouragement as compared to testers posing as heterosexual home seekers.

However, research really doesn’t matter to Mr. Fischer because he has it all figured out.

Fischer contested the need for this federal legislation. He asserted that homosexuals do have the same rights as everyone but this policy and others were based on “imaginary” fears.

Even if concerns of sexuality-based discrimination were true, Fischer stated, such issues within the homosexual community did not qualify as civil rights issues.

“There is no validity to the civil rights issue. Race is immovable, but homosexuality is a choice,” asserted Fischer.

Mr. Fischer has suggested that one cannot support gays and be a conservative.  If John Roberts and Jerry Falwell cannot be considered conservative then we need new terms. Or, perhaps just one for someone to the right of Roberts and Falwell. 

….

Just a note about the article, when Ms. Samuels quotes me as saying, “…Christians can use the Bible to legislate those who don’t believe in it,” she probably intended to write “Christians can’t (or shouldn’t) use the Bible to legislate those who don’t believe in it.” Also, I did not say that one may “go against the Constitution” due to a compelling state interest. I did say that the limitation of personal rights may be considered if there is a compelling state interest.

Is Bryan Fischer the new kingmaker?

Yesterday, Newsweek’s Ben Adler posted an article featuring Bryan Fischer, Issues Analyst for the American Family Association. In it, Adler portrayed Fischer as a provocative imp who has crafted a media shtick filled with offensive and outrageous positions designed to get ratings and offend liberals. He may or may not mean what he says, according to Adler, but it doesn’t matter because the Christian political business rolls with outrage – requiring a sanctified shock jock to shake things up. Fischer is just doing his job.

To support the tone of his column, Adler referred to Fischer’s protests (oh, the horror!) that “President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords.” Adler also picked up on some anti-gay, anti-Muslim and yes, the anti-bear comments (you’ll have to click the link for more on that one) but he left out the worst and least entertaining, to wit:

Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it’s time for Congress to learn a lesson from history.

Adler said Fischer was both threatening and entertaining – I call it “hatertainment” – but Fischer’s reference to the Holocaust doesn’t seem very entertaining to me. Neither do disparaging remarks about Catholic Latinos and Muslim inbreeding (click the links to be hatertained).

To me, Adler’s article points to a new low in the culture war. Is the AFA cynically putting out shocking positions in a manipulative effort to entertain an audience? If that’s true, that is scandalous. If it is not true, then he and the AFA really mean all of those things and deserve the scrutiny given to them recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Either way, the audience is clearly there. According to Newsweek, right wing politicians have taken notice:

Fischer’s program, “Focal Point,” reaches about two million listeners and has featured guest appearances from a number of prominent Republicans such as Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, and Mike Huckabee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who on Wednesday told Fischer he would be in favor of reinstating Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

All of those guys are or have been at various stages of positioning for a run at the GOP nomination. Herman Cain, who just declared his intent to run for the nomination, was just on the show as well. Does this mean that the road to the GOP nomination runs through Bryan Fischer’s radio show?

I hope not.

It is certainly possible that none of Fischer’s GOP guests know of the outrageous positions he promotes. However, that was little defense for John McCain when he was endorsed by megachurch pastor John Hagee in 2008. Catholic groups were outraged. Why? On one occasion, Hagee accused Catholicism of being “a godless theology of hate” which during the Nazi’s reign, promoted “a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.” Over time, reporters dug up more statements by Hagee which embarrassed McCain. McCain said he didn’t know Hagee’s views and if he had known, he would not sought his endorsement. After months of being dogged by the matter, McCain explicitly rejected association with him.

To date, Fischer has given his stamp of approval to Herman Cain and Mike Pence. However, those not inclined to support these candidates are already questioning the wisdom of even appearing on Fischer’s program. For instance, Andrew Sullivan asked about Fischer yesterday:

More to the point: is embracing a man who believes this kind of bile now essential to being viable as a primary candidate for president in the current GOP? If a Democrat had gone on a radio show with anyone as far out on the left as Fischer is on the far right, his or her career would be over.

Talk about burying the lead: Now I have come to the question which is the title of this post and which echos Sullivan’s question – is Bryan Fischer the new GOP kingmaker? Let me add some questions for discussion – is it fair to evaluate candidates based on friendly appearances with people who express incendiary views? Is Sullivan correct about a Democratic candidate who made a comparable appearance?

These questions are political but I am also interested in reader feedback on the religious matters involved. Applying Bryan Fischer’s evaluation of the President (“either he means what he says or he is a bald-faced liar”), how should we evaluate the positions promoted by the AFA? Is being shocking as a means to an end good practice for a Christian ministry?

Oh, so that’s why Bryan Fischer says the darndest things!

Newsweek has it all figured out. The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has been getting in touch with his inner imp. Zany? Wacky? Outrageous? Nah, it is all a ploy to get ratings and irritate the opponents.  According to Newsweek:

You might think that attention in the form of mockery is not what a public-policy organization would want. But when your business is waging a culture war, there is no such thing as bad publicity for ideological or rhetorical extremism. Being criticized by liberals in the media raises the profile of a socially conservative organization, and burnishes its credibility among the base. Just ask Sarah Palin, or her fans. Fischer’s critics also benefit from the twofer of his being both entertaining and threatening.

Call it “hatertainment.”

But he doesn’t really mean it, does he? Here is Newsweek’s take on that question.

Getting attention from a perch so far off the mainstream media radar screen requires ingenuity. And Fischer is able to shock even jaded journalists and pundits. But does he really believe his most widely circulated statements? Yes and no. A Dec. 21 blog post earned Jon Stewart’s mockery on The Daily Show when Fischer asserted, “President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords.” All Obama had done is express approval for the nonbinding U.N. Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples which contains one passage affirming land rights. Does Fischer honestly believe that Obama is going to turn your home over to a Native American tribe? Not really, but by pretending he does—which he defends as “taking Obama at his word,”—he gets to make a ludicrous claim. “Either Obama meant what he said or he’s a bald-faced liar,” says Fischer. “I don’t think Obama meant what he said.”

Clever. Since Fischer is just pretending, let’s try that in reverse.

When Fischer says things, either he means what he says or he’s a bald-faced liar. You pick.

Maybe President Obama could be a talk show host on the AFA radio network. According to Fischer, the President has got the formula down.

According to Newsweek and Newsweek’s experts, the whole shtick is more business than conviction. 

“Like all Christian political groups [AFA] has leaders who are entrepreneurial,” says Green. “In the past [Christian conservatives] have sometimes been controversial on purpose, to get attention from the rest of us and to raise money for their organizations. It’s not that they are insincere, but there are organizational motives.” So if Fischer shocks or horrifies coastal media elites by expressing views that they consider bigoted or simply baffling, he is just doing his job.

So if there are “organizational motives,” then saying goofy, offensive stuff you don’t really mean is not insincere but just part of the biz. Glad that’s all cleared up.

After reading the Newsweek piece, I am not sure which more offensive – what Fischer does with his platform or Newsweek’s cynical regard for what they portray as business as usual for Christian ministry.

Who not to vote for in 2012

Bryan Fischer is doing people like me an enormous favor. He is handicapping the 2012 GOP field and will apparently in his next column tell us who he thinks would a great GOP candidate for President. Knowing what I know thus far, this should be a pretty good sign of not to vote for in 2012.

First, he claims evangelicals are key to the next election. This could be true if they voted as a group. However, as Fischer points out, 2008 saw erosion in this demographic with seven million evangelicals preferring Obama over McCain. Two years from now, a case could made that evangelicals will continue to fragment with moderates and social justice evangelicals going one way and social conservatives another.  Fischer’s prescription seems to be an inspiring candidate that is even more socially conservative than McCain.  I doubt evangelicals who were attracted to Obama in 2008 (and to be clear, I was not one of them) will rally around someone who is farther to the right than McCain.

Fischer then rules out Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich for various reasons, some of which are on target, some of which are questionable. For instance, for the same reasons Fischer rejects Mitt Romney, I suspect the party as a whole might make him the nominee. He will almost certainly look reasonable and mainstream next to the far right candidate preferred by Fischer.  

He promises to reveal who he thinks the GOP should select soon. I suspect it will be Mike Pence or Jim Demint. I know it won’t be Mitch Daniels (someone I believe is a compelling figure). In any case, the revelation will likely help my process of elimination.