Fischer: Only Christians Get Religious Freedom

Bryan Fischer says that the government of Oklahoma is completely free to promote and endorse only the Christian religion and reject any non-Christian monuments because the Constitution only provides protection for Christianity and not for any other religion. This is not the first time he’s said this, of course.

“If by ‘religion,'” Fischer said, “the founders, and the founders of the state of Oklahoma, meant Christianity, then you can ban a monument to Satan because that’s not Christianity … You can say ‘no, we’re not going to let you do it. Our Constitution protects the free exercise of the Christian religion; yours is not a Christian expression, we’re not going to have that monument.’ If we don’t understand the word ‘religion’ to mean Christianity as the founders intended it, then we have no way to stop Islam, we have no way to stop Satanism, we have no way to stop any other sort of sinister religion practice that might creep onto the fruited plains.”

If his position were true, Thomas Jefferson himself would have no religious freedom. Surely Bryan Fischer would not consider Jefferson, who rejected the divinity of Jesus, called the gospel writers a “band of dupes and impostors,” dismissed Paul and his letters as fraudulent and called the God of the Old Testament “cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust,” to be a Christian.

"And still the justifications roll in...First, although Franken is acting like a 7th grader in ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"If you’re wondering why Trump has remained silent on the allegations against Roy Moore but ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"If told, Trump supporters would probably take one of three positions on this:1) fake news!11!1!!1or,2) ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."
"Slow enough to give him time to come up with a witty remark."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    If his position were true, Thomas Jefferson himself would have no religious freedom.

    Wrong. Dead wrong. Jefferson would have Religious Freedom™, the same Religious Freedom™ that all Americans have; the Religious Freedom™ to worship as Bryan Fischer pleases.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    * Religious Freedom™ copyright Big Jesus, Inc. Big Jesus, a Family of Companies. “When you think religion, think Jesus. Big Jesus.”

  • sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d

    If by ‘religion’ the founders, and the founders of the state of Oklahoma, meant Christianity, why didn’t they say so?

  • Chiroptera

    This is not the first time he’s said this, of course.

    I was about to day, doesn’t he say that, like, all the time?

    Bryan Fischer says that the government of Oklahoma is completely free to promote and endorse only the Christian religion and reject any non-Christian monuments because the Constitution only provides protection for Christianity and not for any other religion.

    I disagree with Fischer’s opinion, and I know at least as much about history and law as he does.

    How can we resolve this disagreement? If only there were a panel of impartial legal experts we could take our disagreements and before whom we could explain the reasons for our opinions, who then would have the authority to make a determination on whose opinion was the correct one. Hmm….

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d “If by ‘religion’ the founders, and the founders of the state of Oklahoma, meant Christianity, why didn’t they say so?”

    They didn’t have to. Only Christianity is religion. The rest are just cults.

  • Trebuchet

    Once you accept Fischer’s premise, you then have to start defining what’s “Christian”. Catholicism? Mormonism? Orthodox? “Liberal” mainstream protestantism? Unitarianism? I’m sure you’d have no trouble at all finding some of Fischer’s followers who’d deny that any of those are Christian.

  • robnyny

    So the First Amendment says that Congress can pass no law relating to the establishment of “religion.” If “religion means “Christianity” that means that Congress could establish Islam as the state faith.

  • John Pieret

    If we don’t understand the word ‘religion’ to mean Christianity as the founders intended it, then we have no way to stop Islam, we have no way to stop Satanism, we have no way to stop any other sort of sinister religion practice that might creep onto the fruited plains.

    by Jove, he’s almost got it!

    But James Madison got it better. From Madison’s “A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments”:

    Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? …

    [E]xperience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

    An amusing postscript to this is that Fischer has declared that his God-given role in life is as “the truth detector.” In a way, he may be right. Take anything Fischer says and the opposite is likely to be the truth.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    robnyny, nails it.

  • Sastra

    If his position were true, Thomas Jefferson himself would have no religious freedom. Surely Bryan Fischer would not consider Jefferson, who rejected the divinity of Jesus, called the gospel writers a “band of dupes and impostors,” dismissed Paul and his letters as fraudulent and called the God of the Old Testament “cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust,” to be a Christian.

    No, you’re wrong. According to the Standard Principles Regarding Making An Apologetic Point, under the circumstances you describe Thomas Jefferson would technically qualify as a “False Christian” — and thus a type of Christian after all. It being a Founding Father we’re talking about here, he might even be upgraded to “Deluded Christian” or even “Misled Christian.”

  • Michael Heath

    Trebuchet writes:

    Once you accept Fischer’s premise, you then have to start defining what’s “Christian”. Catholicism? Mormonism? Orthodox? “Liberal” mainstream protestantism? Unitarianism? I’m sure you’d have no trouble at all finding some of Fischer’s followers who’d deny that any of those are Christian.

    I think fundamentalists like Fischer see this as a feature and not a bug. It’s just part of Revision 2, after they’ve established the exclusion of those of don’t identify as a Christian. Then they can go after the, ‘no true Christians’. This is analogous to conservative Christians primarily focusing in reducing abortion rights, where the next phase is to re-attack contraception rights.

    Fundamentalism is a slippery slope, though one many seem oblivious exists.

  • John Pieret

    Michael Heath @ 11:

    This is nothing new; the Intelligent Design creationists have been practicing this for some time. Essentially, they argue that they should eliminate “materialism” first and then and only then have a knock-down-drag-out between YECs, OECs, theistic evolutionists, etc. It is just more serious in the push for theocracy. If our skewed Supreme court lets theocracy in the door, they could then spend their time making it hard to be a Catholic or Jew in Oklahoma and <vice versa in, say, Maryland and New York City. Then, our society could really begin to break down.

  • felidae

    So, Bryan’s model for religious freedom is Saudi Arabia?

  • jnorris

    How much would you bet that Bryan Fischer pays for Oklahoma’s legal bills over this out of his own pocket? That is if Mr Fischer honestly believes what he says.

  • gertzedek

    “…we have no way to stop Islam, we have no way to stop Satanism, we have no way to stop any other sort of sinister religion practice that might creep onto the fruited plains.”

    Exactly as the Founders intended it.

  • gertzedek

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

    –George Washington, Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport

  • laurentweppe

    Once you accept Fischer’s premise, you then have to start defining what’s “Christian”

    Easy: a Fischer-style Christians is a dude who’s white, rich and callous toward the plebs.

  • lofgren

    If only there were a panel of impartial legal experts we could take our disagreements and before whom we could explain the reasons for our opinions, who then would have the authority to make a determination on whose opinion was the correct one.

    OK, but to be safe we should probably ask any judges with names like “Ginsburg” or “Kagan” to recuse themselves for a conflict of interest.

  • Ichthyic

    “When you think religion, think Jesus. Big Jesus.”

    ok… I’m thinking Big Jesus…