There can be no doubt that “God, Guns, and Gays” is the central theme for the Theocon wing of the Republican party and for a large part of the InsaniTEA wing as well. To pander to these people, candidates that represent primarily the Neocon, Plutocon and Corporocon wings pretend to be Theocons and try to goose-step with them, with varying degrees of success. But what will happen when a pretender meets up with a Theocon who believes that the pretender has no rights under the First Amendment?
Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney next weekend will be the opening act for shock jock Bryan Fischer, who recently said that the First Amendment should not apply to Mormons.
Both Romney and Fischer are featured speakers at the Values Voter Summit [pseudo-Christians delinked] in Washington, D.C. next weekend, a conference aimed at social conservatives and underwritten by groups such as the American Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council.
Another sponsor of the summit, the American Family Association, also features Fischer’s inflammatory writings on a weekly basis.
Earlier this week on his radio show, Fischer said that the First Amendment was created to "protect the free exercise of the Christian religion," and because "Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith," the First Amendment should not apply… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Raw Story>
Here’s video of Fischer.
He used policies that was enacted 100 years after the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment as evidence for the founding fathers’ intent. Horse feathers! Fischer also believes that Catholics are not Christians. I suppose that, according to Supply-side Jesus (not the real Jesus), the Constitution only applies to Theocons.
Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer discuss this in light of the Republican culture war against religious freedom.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
He certainly has his finger on the pulse of Republican supply-side pseudo-Christianity!
Frankly, the only time a candidate’s religion is an issue for me is if that candidate seeks to impose their religious views under cover of the law. When these hypocrites meet, it could be interesting.
11 Responses to “A culture war collision?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Fischer is a great example of “Evil done in the name of God , is still Evil ” ..It is easy to dismiss these agitators and what they say–but make no mistake they will impose a Christian Taliban—A Theocracy –It rejects every thing Jesus preached and practiced during his ministry ;
The Republican Party as such is no longer a real party ; It is under the control of fanatics , who say “Christian” but practice Evil-
Very well put, Phyllis!
shock jock Bryan Fischer, who recently said that the First Amendment should not apply to Mormons
And this is why everyone, not just non-religious people, should be worried about the Republican theocratic agenda. If they get what they want, then being religious, or even being Christian, won’t protect you. You’ll come under suspicion if you’re the wrong kind of Christian, or don’t act in accordance with their definition of it.
Most of the people murdered by the thugs of al-Qâ’idah and the Iranian theocracy have been Muslims who belonged to the wrong sect or didn’t behave quite Muslim enough. Under a Christian Right theocracy, numerous Christians would be persecuted too.
Infidel, I fully agree. I oppose theocracy, because I am a Christian.
Is this guy off his rocker or his meds?
He’s stoned on pseudo-Christian hate.
Why is it that these “values voters” are so ignorant? Could it be they are extremely narrow-minded, prejudiced, stupid, intolerant, and way too wedded to the far-religious right? Guess I’ve answered my own question…
Jack, I disagree. “Values voters” are those who value jobs, a safety net, equal opportunity, and the other things that made America great. They are not Republicans. That claim is just another GOP lie.
Most folks are too young to remember the “under god” addition to the “pledge” in 1954 (if I remember correctly) – that was the beginning of theocracy in amerikan politiks – there was at the time a vigorous outcry against it – I being about 8 yrs of age at the time only recall the fights about it within my own household – never knowing one way or another – but I do recall in the house the ominous foreboding statement by my father, that this was the beginnings of theocracy in american government (my father, a staunch repulicon}, and it’s one of very few statements of his that I agree with – I am an atheist now, and appalled by the popularity of the drift of jesus into the voting booth – jesus must have been quite a conervative nut job if you follow his voting contingency – I guess jesus is pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, pro-war, and anti-taxation (even though he said to “render unto Caesar—“) oh well! I should be more involved in this line of theo-politics, but it sickens me – otherwise it might be entertaining to be a fly on the wall!
Lee, you are mistaken. Republican attempts to force piety through law have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
Ok, listening to this dangerous yahoo, isn’t there some part of the US Constitution that specifies the ‘separation of church and state’? While it doesn’t exist by that title, the 1st amendment which is part of The Bill of Rights does spell out some freedoms, one of which is religion.
When people like Bryan Fischer claim to know that the intentions of the Founding Fathers were for a Christian state, the cheeky side of me wants to say, “oh so you were there.” and be done with it. But my serious side checks a few things out. Not only does the first amendment spell things out clearly, but Madison and Thomas Jefferson in other correspondence were clear also. To me, they clearly wanted the separation of church and state.
From Wikipedia on “separation of church and state”
Madison contended “Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.” Several years later he wrote of “total separation of the church from the state.” Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States”, Madison wrote, and he declared, “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
. . . attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.
… no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Another thing occurred to me. At an Inauguration, the President designate takes the Oath of Office on a Bible. But what would happen if an atheist or a Jew or a Muslim were being sworn into office? What then would be done acknowledging that some aspects are legal and others tradition?
I found it interesting that Frank Schaeffer referred to Bachmann and Scary Perry as not being Republicans but being Theocrats. That is dangerous for the US and should one of them become president, that would put the US, at least in government style, on par with Iran, a theocracy that the US has criticised in the past.
Personally, I don’t care what religion, if any, a candidate professes as long as that religion is not forced down my throat nor that of any other individual in the guise of law.