Fischer: Government Can’t Be Secular Because God Created It

Bryan Fischer once again proves his theocrat bona fides with a blog post declaring that the state can’t possibly be secular because God created it and intended it to be his “servant” and do his bidding. Why? Because the Bible says so. And the fact that the Bible is wrong about nearly everything is, of course, irrelevant.

One of the enduring myths both inside the church and outside the church is that civil government is a secular institution. It most decidedly is not.

Regardless of what we may think about the separation of church and state, it is not possible for there to be any separation between God and government. This is because God created it.

The state is every bit as much God’s creation as the church. We are told quite explicitly in Romans 13:1 that not only is the state God’s idea, every last bit of authority exercised by civil government anywhere in any place at any level comes from him.

As Paul puts it, “There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

“No authority” means none. Zip, nada, zilch. It would be hard for the apostle to be any clearer than that. All political authority, every last bit of it, has been delegated by God to the state. Its authority is an entirely derived authority.

For Fischer, it’s a given that if the Bible says it, it must be true. But he also believes in a young earth and a global flood based upon the Bible and those two claims are incontrovertibly false. If those things are false — and they are — then there’s really no reason to take these verses he quotes seriously either.

Governments are created by human beings who hold a wide variety of religious viewpoints and thus should remain entirely secular in order to leave religion up to the individual.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StevoR

    If God created everything didn’t he then create secularism and also call it good?

  • StevoR

    Absolute authority corrupts absolutely.

    (Hit by lightning giant voice from sky Cheeky bastard!)

    – Some long ago vaguely half recalled comedians skit.

    Also whose god, gods or goddesses and where’s your proper authorisation badge or identification papers from said Divinity eh? Even cops and gods need ID these days ..

  • theguy

    By this logic, his “God” created Nazi Germany. We non-believers may be accused of believing (among other things) in a “might makes right” philosophy, but I see, over and over again, that might makes right is the unspoken basis of fundamentalist religion.

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

    He’s right. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to one of the Roman temples to one of the Roman gods to worship one of the Roman gods, lest the God-instituted Roman government feed me to the lions.

  • Mr Ed

    DPRK, ISIS and Florida God created these holy ordained governments too he just doesn’t brag about it.

  • daved

    Modus, lions gotta eat too, you know.

  • gshelley

    So the American Revolution was immoral because God had given authority to the king?

  • John Pieret

    So the American Revolution was immoral because God had given authority to the king?

    People like Fischer never and/or are incapable of thinking things like this through. It always goes “Government is doing stuff I don’t like. Stop it government … because GOD!” They never get further than that.

  • busterggi

    jesus voted for Obama and Fischer is always criticising him, why does Fischer hate Jesus?

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Mr Ed (#5), please tell me more about this Florida God. He sounds interesting and incompetent and awful…

  • theDukedog7 .

    Ed said:

    [Governments are created by human beings who hold a wide variety of religious viewpoints and thus should remain entirely secular…]

    Nice opinion Ed, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution or with American government.

    The Declaration of course attributes our basic rights to our Creator, and the Constitution references the Declaration as our founding document.

    The Constitution places only one constraint on religious expression by government– Congress shall make no law recognizing an Establishment of religion. Congress (the federal government) shall not establish a national church (like the Anglican Church). Otherwise, religion is to be freely exercised, and it makes no distinction whatsoever between private and civic (government) expression. After all, We the People are the government.

    ‘Separation of church and state’ has nothing to do with the Constitution. Despite the fact that the phrase was well known at the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was never mentioned once in the recorded debates (over a period of several months) and obviously never made it into the Constitution in any way.

    If you like secular (aka atheist) government, Ed, start a petition to amend the Constitution. That’s the only way it will ever be valid constitutional doctrine.

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

    /quietly steps clear of theDukedog7

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Hmm… Let us see,

    Eridu,

    Uruk,

    Sumeria,

    Akkadia,

    Persia,

    Assyria,

    Babylon,

    Hittites

    This is just an incomplete list of “governments” (quotes to emphasize Fisher’s BS), established in the Near-East before 1500, BCE. Most of them never having heard of this god Fisher speaks of; some of them before there was even such a thing as Judaism. And it completely ignores the empires, nations, and city-states of Africa, and even the Western (gasp) Hemisphere. (Well, except for the Mormon delusion that some Flood survivors ended up in Salt Lake City, or some such.)

    But, then, what good fundagelical ever let facts stand in the way of a terrible story?

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Duke (#11), oh, so THAT’s how the Constitution works?!

    Thank you for that. For some reason, I assumed it would be complicated and take several books to explain. Turns out a couple of paragraphs clears it right up. Thanks!

  • cptdoom

    Fischer better be pretty clear on which “god” he’s talking about there. Pick the wrong one and you end up burning on a pile of sticks.

    Oh, and to the troll @11, the Constitution, which is the governing document of the United States, unlike the Declaration of Independence, also mentions religion in at least one other place – when it forbids religious tests for public office. IOW, Fischer can worship any perversion of god he wants, but he can’t force anyone else, much less a government official to worship it with him.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 11:

    Nice opinion Ed, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution or with American government.

    Except, of course, for the bit where the Constitution laid out how laws should be interpreted, amended, and enforced, and separation of church and state is a well-understood basic principle of US law.

    In other words, the force behind the legal separation of church and state in the US is, in fact, the Constitution.

    The Declaration of course attributes our basic rights to our Creator, and the Constitution references the Declaration as our founding document.

    Well, my creators are old and retired now, but I still call them on the weekends. They granted my the rights I have by giving birth to me as a US citizen. Unless you can demonstrate that Odin Allfather had something to do with my birth, I won’t give him any credit. And that goes for any other miscellaneous sky-pappy you care to name.

    The Constitution places only one constraint on religious expression by government– Congress shall make no law recognizing an Establishment of religion. Congress (the federal government) shall not establish a national church (like the Anglican Church). Otherwise, religion is to be freely exercised, and it makes no distinction whatsoever between private and civic (government) expression. After all, We the People are the government.

    And for rather a number of years, the government has interpreted that lack of establishment to mean that church and state are separate. Clearly, none of these people know as much about the Constitution as you do, but they somehow managed to end up in positions of power anyway. Go figure.

    ‘Separation of church and state’ has nothing to do with the Constitution. Despite the fact that the phrase was well known at the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was never mentioned once in the recorded debates (over a period of several months) and obviously never made it into the Constitution in any way.

    Except in the actual, real-world enforcement of the document as the law of the land.

    The founders understood that times and situations changed, which is why they allowed for expansion and modification of the founding documents.

    Most people get this. You can too, if you try.

    If you like secular (aka atheist) government, Ed, start a petition to amend the Constitution. That’s the only way it will ever be valid constitutional doctrine.

    Either that, or, y’know, bring a legal case before the body that has been empowered to rule on what the Constitution has to say about any specific issue. Any idea what that body might be called, or if they’ve ever had a case like that?

    I wonder…

  • colnago80

    Re Egnorance

    Gee, things must be quiet in the operating room today as Egnorance has time to come on this blog and make a jackass of himself. Well, at least he’s not leaving brain dead patients in the table.

  • gshelley

    @Dukedog7

    You should try reading the constitution. It also forbids religious test for office

  • moarscienceplz

    All right. Who left this steaming pile of Dukedog7 on the floor?

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

    Are you all idiots? The Constitution doesn’t forbid religious tests for office, it demands them! It’s not the “No Religious Test Clause”, it’s the “No Religious Test Clause”! Checkmate, Athiests!

  • eric

    @11:

    the Constitution references the Declaration as our founding document.

    It does? Here is a link to its text. Do a search for the words “Declaration” or “Independence” and let me know what you find. Then come back here and admit you are wrong.

  • sinned34

    If you like secular (aka atheist) government…

    Aww, how cute. The little doggy can’t even tell the difference between “secular” and “atheist”. Oh well, that’s what trusting theocrats like David Barton will do to someone.

  • John Pieret

    eric:

    It’s in the date of the signing by the Constitutional Convention:

    Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names

    Just as some religious wingnuts claim that ” in the Year of our Lord” shows that the Constitution incorporated the Christian God, other wingnuts, like Egnorance, claim that the Declaration was somehow incorporated into the Constitution because it was dated as being in the twelfth year of US independence.

    It’s nonsense, of course.

  • eric

    @23: that is not a reference to the document. The DOI was written in 1776 and if you do the math you will see they are referencing the year the revolutionary war started (1775), not 1776.

  • naturalcynic

    Uh, eric, the first year started on 7/4/76 and ended 7/4/77, so the 12th year started 7/4/87 when the nation was eleven years old.

    Doesn’t the Constitution start with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, …” mean the the people formed the government, not Allah, Baal JWH, Odin or Isis.

  • Al Dente

    The Declaration of Independence is a political and propaganda document. The Constitution is a legal document. The two have nothing to do with each other.

  • https://plus.google.com/101060696320014364594 Darren VanDusen

    Zounds, Modus!! I was about to take your knight thingy with my small castle piece. Or some such…………….I don’t know chess! (sob)

    So god created government? And he’s infallible? Does that mean that there is now possible way for anyone of us to screw it up?? But what if he screwed it up himself? But he can’t cuz he’s infallible. This cycle is giving me a headache

  • theDukedog7 .

    @23:

    [other wingnuts, like Egnorance, claim that the Declaration was somehow incorporated into the Constitution because it was dated as being in the twelfth year of US independence.]

    In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court:

    “The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.”

    “Other wingnuts”: the Supreme Court.

  • Al Dente

    Hey Egnor, did you read my post @26? Did you understand it? No, I didn’t think so.

  • Michael Heath

    theguy @ 3:

    By this logic, his “God” created Nazi Germany.

    Well, that government was far more representative of the nature of the biblical gods described in the Bible than the U.S.A.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com tommykey

    Of course, PukeDog has the wrong case. The quote above in the Cotting v. Godard decision was a citation from an earlier case Yick Wo v. Hopkins involving a case where the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that prohibited persons from operating a laundry in a wooden building without a permit. Interestingly, it is an early example of the Court declaring that the administration of a supposedly race neutral statute could be discriminatory in practice. In other words, laws that had a disparate impact on a minority group were discriminatory. The “all men are created equal” citation from the Declaration in this case made sense in the context of the case. The Cotting case concerned a law suit to have declared invalid a certain act of the Kansas legislature regarding “What shall constitute public stock yards, Defining the Duties of the Person or Persons Operating the Same, and Regulating All Charges thereof, and Removing Restrictions in the Trade of Dead Animals, and Providing Penalties for Violations of This Act.”

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 28:

    “Other wingnuts”: the Supreme Court.

    Now, that’s not the Supreme Court that has repeatedly upheld the concept of the separation of church and state, right?

    That’s a totes diff Supreme Court.

    Really.

    Not the same thing at all.

  • dan4

    “…it is not possible for there to be any separation between God and government. This is because God created it.”

    Uh, “it?” Is Fischer here advocating for a global government (something I thought conservatives were supposed to be against)? It sure sounds like it.

  • John Pieret

    Dukedog @ 28:

    Carefully stepping around what you just left on the sidewalk …

    In Cotting v. Godard …

    Ah, so the Supreme Court is always right about the Constitution? We’ll remember that when they decide Obergefell v. Hodges later this month!

    Of course the “creator” they were talking about was “Nature” and “Nature’s God.” Nature … as in the scientific evidence for evolution? Oh, then you, like Phillip Johnson suddenly find nature and naturalism anathema.

    Of course, Jefferson and the rest were arguing against the “divine right of kings” and included something (very vague) to argue that George III didn’t have a God-given right to rule the colonies. On the other hand, the right for God-given rights to rule is something you recently endorsed on this very blog … the ability of any temporary religious majority to force its religion on all minorities.

    My father told me about the signs he saw in his lifetime that said “No Irish Need Apply” … and they had nothing to do with their ability but everything to do with their being “Papists” … just like you Egnor!

    If you don’t think it can happen again Egnore, you are a bigger fool than I already take you for! But we secularists will go on trying to defend you and every religious, ethnic, racial and sexual/gender minority in America!

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Nice opinion Ed, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution or with American government.

    And the US constitution has nothing to do with the constitutions or governments of 99% of the countries on this planet.

  • caseloweraz

    Fischer: Regardless of what we may think about the separation of church and state, it is not possible for there to be any separation between God and government. This is because God created [government].

    It sure is strange how this government thing, that God created, so often leads to dictatorship followed by violent revolt, or to massive political and economic inequality with a privileged elite lording it over the masses. One might almost believe that God did a bad job of creation. But that’s impossible, innit?