Bryan Fischer Thinks People Who Accept Evolution Should Be ‘Disqualified From Holding Political Office’

Ah, Bryan Fischer, we meet again.

In the past, we’ve sparred (rather one-sidedly, I must admit) about gay people, NBA players, abortion rights and tax law, and I think it can be agreed upon that at least a couple of those topics are ones that neither of us are actually qualified to discuss.

And yet here we are to discuss another area of mutual expertise: Politics.

Today, Sir Fischer decided that those of us who believe in evolution should be “disqualified from holding public office in the United States of America.”

Our founders obviously believed in a creator. They believed that the universe was created. They believed that man was a created being, not an evolved being, didn’t rise out of the swamp somewhere, didn’t emerge out of the slime. We don’t share ancestors with apes and baboons.

In fact, I would suggest to you that if a politician, if somebody wants to exercise political power and he is an evolutionist, he is disqualified from holding political office in the United States of America because he does not share the political world view that established the United States of America and made it he greatest country in the history of the planet.

So… there’s that.

You know, one of my favorite things is to write snarky things that make fun of morons like Fischer, but he kind of take all of the fun out of it. There’s a reason baseball is more fun to play than T-ball. I mean, his jingoism at the end of that sound bite alone is tap dancing around self-parody.

So,  if Fischer has his way, we would not only have to impeach our current two-term president along with the vast majority of the Democrats currently holding office, we would never have President Neil deGrasse Tyson, and there would never be the much-anticipated Mehta/Bluemke ticket that you all were so looking forward to in 2016.

Not that Fischer is losing any sleep over that.

Oh, but guys, Fischer doesn’t think that there should be laws against us “evolutionists” or anything bananas like that:

 Now I’m not saying that we ought to have a law prohibiting them from public office, I’m not saying that, I’m saying that the American people shouldn’t vote for him because that guy, if he does not believe that we are created beings, and that our rights come with us from God, that man cannot be trusted to protect your civil rights.

Which… I mean… it seems that the majority of people who don’t accept evolution tend to vote for other people who don’t accept evolution, so I guess I’m not sure what his general point is.

Ugh, this was not as fun as I thought it would be. Just depressing, because a whole lot of people totally buy this and want to see a Congress that talks this way all the time:

That guy, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), is on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, by the way.

"Wait, is there a fake India somewhere? Where is it? Is it over the rainbow? ..."

If Atheists Don’t Believe in God, ..."
"I'd say it makes Jeebus cry, but we'd have to change his name to Niobe ..."

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Controversial Case ..."
"Just in case anyone's interested and for the purposes of this discussion, the Biblical definition ..."

If Atheists Don’t Believe in God, ..."
"Beets are best handled raw in a white t-shirt. When you cut them and they ..."

If Atheists Don’t Believe in God, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    The most influential of our founding fathers did believe in a creator- but they did not believe in anything resembling the creator that Fischer believes in. Why did these early thinkers believe in a creator? Because they were operating a hundred years before Darwin, and 150 years before modern cosmology. Nobody had yet provided a reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of nature. Belief in an impersonal creator was pretty rational… then.

    If Fischer believes that Jefferson or Franklin or Paine or Adams or Madison or Washington would reject evolution had they the benefit of today’s knowledge, he’s living deep in historical delusion.

  • Randay

    I guess we shouldn’t use antibiotics or vaccines and whatever because our founding fathers didn’t know about them. So it would be unamerican to use them.

  • iamgog

    Somebody should tell Fischer that since the founding fathers didn’t have the transistor, the vacuum tube, or any other electrical/electronic gizmos, that he should abstain from using those as well. The only permitted technology is the printing press. An old-style kind that operated with a screw and movable type. All kerning must be done with files and shims!

  • Coel

    Someone could acquaint Fisher with the US constitution, Article 6: ” … but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

  • UWIR

    Yeah, but there’s also Article 22, Section 5:
    “No provision of this Constitution, neither the original nor any Amendments thereof, shall be in effect in any case in which the ignoring of the plain meaning shall be determined to be in necessary to effect the greater purpose of this Union, in which case the judiciary shall be charged with the noble task of employing the most erudite language in explaining how, in the case at hand, there exists some consideration more pressing than concerning oneself with such trivial matters as what the foundational document of our Republic actually says.”

  • Fred

    That same political worldview didn’t see women as people and slaves counted as only 1 fifth of a person.

    No Thanks.

  • Jessica

    Come on now, give them some credit… it was three-fifths.
    After all, they weren’t monsters!

  • UWIR

    It’s a bit odd how people talk about this as if the fair thing would be for slaves to count as a full person. This provision was about counting slaves with regard to congressional representation. The South wanted slaves to count as people when it came to apportioning congressional representatives, but not as far as being allowed to vote was concerned. The 14th Amendment had a clause renouncing this idea, stating (rough summary) that people who aren’t allowed to vote don’t count towards representation.

  • invivoMark

    I’m sure that Fischer doesn’t notice, but the theory of evolution didn’t even exist at the time of the Constitution’s writing. So if we’re to take Fischer’s declaration at face value, I’m pretty sure that means that we shouldn’t elect people who believe in radioactivity, the germ theory of disease, relativity, the Civil War, or horseless carriages.

  • Black Leaf

    Yeah, that was kind of my biggest objection as well. Does he really want to throw away over 200 years of scientific knowledge?

  • Moi

    Add to that- no internet, no television, no video cameras… his ability to reach his flock with his personal brand of idiocy would be sharply reduced.

  • Miss_Beara

    What are these “horseless carriages” you speak of young man? I say, you are speaking of demonry and hocus pocus.

  • Neko

    I had forgotten about the hair-raising Rep. Paul Broun. Is he serious or just a shameless hussy? Regardless, he is running in the midterms for Saxby Chambliss’s seat. Can’t wait to write a check to his opponent.

  • John

    Unfortunately, the journey to Idiocracy will continue.

  • katiehippie

    I still can’t believe that “Saxby Chambliss” is a real name.

  • Pofarmer

    Somebody needs to explain to this moron that “the Founders” were 70 or 80 years before Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. .

    arrrrggggghhhhhhh.

    Ignorance.

  • Kengi

    So, to hold office you need to have the political worldviews of the founding fathers. Acceptance, or even promotion, of slavery. Voting rights for only white male land holders. And, apparently, an 18th century understanding of science.

    Why didn’t he just come out and say that only Republicans should be able to hold office?

  • Jeff

    Ba-zing!

  • WallofSleep

    Founding Father sez wot:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

    Emphasis mine.

  • Derrik Pates

    But the fact that the Senate unanimously ratified the Treaty of Tripoli doesn’t mean they actually *agreed* with that… </sarcasm>

  • Ross Gibson

    You know he would be all for that.

  • Sam Black

  • Jeff

    “All men are created equal” is a phrase found not in the constitution, but the declaration of independence. The declaration is as legally binding as a newspaper editorial.

    Also, I don’t give a used fig what the founders believed, or wanted, or thought was a good idea. They’re dead. They’ve been dead for hundreds of years. Their opinions don’t mean crap anymore, and we certainly shouldn’t structure our society to suck up to people who are too dead to care what we do. America is neither a theocracy nor a necrocracy.

  • Bill

    “Their opinions don’t mean crap anymore”

    Cool, so that means Christians can do away with the Establishment Clause and turn America into a Christian theocracy. Thanks.

  • Jeff

    That’s a written law, not just an opinion.

  • Bill

    Doesn’t matter. Don’t mean crap anymore. Besides, laws can be changed. Nothing is set in stone.

  • Jeff

    … the only way those first two sentences could make any sense is if you think there’s no practical difference between an established written law and someone’s personal opinion. Or maybe if you think that’s what *I* think (spoiler: I don’t).

    And of course laws can be changed. Sometimes we change them, sometimes we don’t. But whatever we decide our laws should be, we should make that decision based on what we want, not what we think dead people *would* want if they weren’t so dead.

  • Bill

    So if millions of Americans vote in Christian-based laws because that’s what they *want* then Christians will have the right to do so, right? If enough Americans vote to amend certain aspects of the Constitution in favor or Christian values that’s cool, right?

  • Jeff

    They certainly have the right to try. And it’d be hilarious to see the attempt, considering how in 2000 years there has not been a coherent idea of what constitutes “christian values.” If the past is any indication, christians would rather go to war over their differences then try to figure out their points of agreement. And considering how difficult it is to actually ratify an amendment to the US constitution, I find it very doubtful that such an effort would succeed. One workaround would be to try changing the rules for what it would take to change the rules (totally allowed, because why wouldn’t it be).

    Unlikely as it is, yes, it could happen. I wouldn’t like it, and I’d do everything I could to stop it if I thought there was any chance of that sort of takeover happening, but I also understand that these are the rules we all live under and that such a change is a possibility.

  • Jeff

    Completely cool. It is exactly how this government was founded, that the people did have a method for changing the government that was not violent (though many argue that is always an option). So yes, feel free to begin the process to re-write the Constitution so that it favors Christian values. I think it would be interesting to see the wars between the different Christians (Great Lakes council of 1879 or 1912?). You cannot view ANY voting block as monolithic, not all women are for or against abortion, not all Christians will lock step into a Constitution that bans those of different faiths.

  • http://confessionsfromthepeanutgallery.blogspot.com/ YankeeCynic

    The Framers ideas* must stand alone on their merits. If they’re found to be wanting based on the merits of the ideas vying to replace them, then so be it. We’ve done this before; slavery, voter suppression (land owning white men are enfranchised only), and the glaring oversight of not holding the states to the Bill of Rights were confronted by ideas that challenged them (owning people is repugnant, all people should have equal access to the political forum, universal rights aren’t just constrained to the Federal level).

    I would oppose instituting a Christian theocracy because it’s a genuinely bad idea, no matter how many ill-lettered people want it. Just like I would say the same thing for slavery, voter suppression, and exempting states from the Bill of Rights. Just like I would have said the same thing about the Adoption of Prohibition. After all, that’s an idea contrary to the jurisprudence of the Framers. Yet he majority wanted to ignore this to adopt an idea that was flawed on it’s very merits.

    *Also, let’s stop pretending that The Framers had any one cohesive vision for America. They didn’t. That’s why the convention was so contentious, and why the document it created was one of compromise. The idea that they had a singular vision harks more to the buzzard vision the Tea Party has of the Constitution, where framers were given the Constitution by god directly and had no thoughts of their own in the process.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    I think what Jeff is getting at is this idea that some conservatives (and liberals too) have that the Founding Fathers’ opinions are something we are bound by. If the Founding Fathers believed it, then that alone is a good enough reason to keep doing it today. Bryan Fisher seems to be operating under this logic in this blog post.

    The Establishment Clause is a good idea not just because the Founding Fathers liked it. It is a good idea because religious freedom promotes good society. We keep the Establishment clause because it’s a good idea and continues to be a good idea, not because
    George Washington liked it. His opinion “don’t mean crap” but the fact that it’s a useful law that most everybody today wants does.

  • WallofSleep

    “America is neither a theocracy nor a necrocracy.”

    Yeah, but how fucking cool would that be?

    http://media.egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/washington-zombie-20110318-115343-500×293.jpg?41ed4f

  • Jeff

    Very cool. I personally feel like “mortocracy” is more conversational; “necrocracy” has a bit of a tongue-twister element to it, but I also understand that mixing Greek with Latin is a good way to get one’s head bitten off.

  • WallofSleep

    My zombie survival plan? Hide in a tree fort for a week while weather, rigor mortis, and giant roving packs of starving dogs do their jobs.

    In fact, if I am being perfectly honest, fuck zombies. It’s those goddamn dogs that worry me. What will they eat when the zombies are all gone and their new-found taste for human flesh goes unquenched? Dogs are way fucking better at climbing trees than zombies are. Think about that tonight.

  • Jeff

    Darn right about the hiding! Our biggest liability in the event of a zombie outbreak will be the idiot fanboys who think they can grab a baseball bat and take on the horde single-handedly. The whole thing can be over before it starts if people just, you know, stay away from the zombies.

  • WallofSleep

    “Our biggest liability in the event of a zombie outbreak will be the idiot fanboys who think they can grab a baseball bat and take on the horde single-handedly.”

    Jeff, Jeff, Jeff… :shakes head: that’s not a liability, my friend. That’s an asset we in the business call “bait”. It’s great for diversions.

  • katiehippie
  • NotThatGreg

    I think Hitchens used the word ‘necrocracy’ to describe North Korea, which is still, in theory, led by Kim Il-Sung.
    You make a good point. The constitution is for the living; it stands or falls on its own basis, and not on the intentions of those who drafted it.

  • John

    Though it will be a Idiocracy eventually.

    Promote reason. Join the FFRF.

  • LesterBallard

    Big fucking problem with that title.

  • $84687101

    I have the exact opposite view: if you are too ignorant to accept evolution you should be unelectable, much as a person who thought the world was flat would be unelectable.

  • $84687101

    “our founders obviously believed…” that it was perfectly fine for them to own slaves, that women shouldn’t vote, that men who didn’t own property shouldn’t vote…

    Charles Darwin hadn’t even been born when the United States was founded. Some of the founding fathers were alive while Newton was. It should be obvious that they were wrong about a great many things and that in no way suggests that we ought to continue their errors.

  • Rationalist1

    “”our founders obviously believed…” that it was perfectly fine for them to own slaves, that women shouldn’t vote, that men who didn’t own property shouldn’t vote…”

    Why do I have the uneasy feeling he might be in agreement with those positions as well?

  • DKeane123

    The founders also believed in bleeding to treat many illnesses – so where do we go from here?

  • Rob P

    “if somebody wants to exercise political power and he is an evolutionist, he is disqualified from holding political office in the United States of America because he does not share the political world view that established the United States of America and made it he greatest country in the history of the planet.”
    So from this “logic”, any politician that doesn’t think that black people should be the property of their white masters should be disqualified from holding political office in the USA. Am I following your argument correctly Mr. Fischer?

  • TheG

    Uh, our founding fathers also believed that a black person is 3/5ths of a person. And that was the compromise (meaning many of them believed they were less than that!).

    So, Mr Fischer, tell me:

    Should a black person be allowed to hold office?

  • WallofSleep

    The purpose of the 3/5ths compromise was to prevent the southern states from having unbalanced influence. They wanted to include their slaves numbers in their population in order to skew representation in their favor.

    Typically, those that argued they should be counted at 3/5ths or less were not the ones who owned the slaves, but those who knew that the slave states were trying to further exploit their slaves by using their numbers to acquire unfair political advantage/power.

  • Nathaniel Harari

    It’s the terrible irony of that bit of history wherein some people objected to having slaves used as part of the population because it obviously wasn’t a real population count in their eyes when slave owners only saw them as objects and not people, and yet came up with a compromise that demeaned black people even more than they already were.

    Of course, the correct solution should have been akin to “One person, one vote”, with the implicit message being that the slaves should have been emancipated and given voting rights.

  • $84687101

    Do you ever get the feeling that the people like Fischer who try to deify the founders while press-ganging their corpses into service fighting for their religion would probably have been Tories had they been alive at the founding?

  • WallofSleep

    More from Fischer today: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Controversy Proves ‘We Are The Mainstream’

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-duck-dynasty-controversy-proves-we-are-mainstream

    Quite an amazing feat, if you ask me, pulling off being the mainstream majority while simultaneously being the oppressed, out-flanked minority. Heh, it’s almost as if Brian does not live in reality.

  • http://atheist-faq.com Jasper

    Some of the founding principles of our democracy was established by the Greeks who didn’t believe in electricity, so anyone who believes electricity is real shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy.

  • diogeneslamp0

    Fischer is saying we have to believe each person is created supernaturally in order for them to have rights. But we know people are created naturally– by sexual intercourse. He is not demanding belief in creationism, he’s demanding belief in Storkism. Alas, scientists have proven babies come from sex not magic storks. Also, your chromosome 2 is a fusion of ape chromosomes 2a and 2b. So we will have to interpret “created” metaphorically– like creationists do when they read the Flat Earth passages in the Bible.

    Worse for him, Fischer’s logic can be reversed to disqualify CREATIONISTS from public office. Tom Jefferson denied any possibility of a global flood (in “Notes on the State of Virginia”) and John Adams believed the universe was infinitely old. Thus, creationists don’t share the worldview of the Founding Fathers, and should be disqualified from office. Also they’re morons, and as Bryan Fischer, Rousas Rushdoony, Tom Willis of CSAMA, ID proponent Michael Egnor and “Joe G” of Uncommon Descent demonstrate, creationists are increasingly fascistic.

  • Matthew Baker

    When Fischer so kindly lets us see into the clouded bubble that is his world its often kind of what happens when you snake a drain–you have an idea of what the most likely base components of the gunk is you’re pulling out but you had no idea it would form into such a terrifying creature.

  • NewEnglandBob

    I suggest we take a vote and vote Bryan Fischer out of the human race.

  • WallofSleep

    You’re late to the polls, buddy. That referendum passed by a landslide years ago. Still in effect, even.

  • Jeff

    We do not get to vote anyone out of the human race. We need to keep them around for teaching moments…..

  • http://uzzas.blogspot.com/2010/06/introduction.html uzza

    Hey, he’s coming around! Notice instead of saying we didn’t descend from apes, he said we don’t share ancestors with apes. baby steps.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    Well, Fischer could just move to texas as that seems to be the case their. As for the founding fathers believing that we were created that is hardly a good argument. The theory of evolution was not publicly known at their time and as smart as the men were on certain issues none of them were scientists, well franklin was an inventor, and the idea of evolution would be unknown.

    “if he does not believe that we are created beings, and that our rights come with us from God, that man cannot be trusted to protect your civil rights.”

    Unlike the last guy that believed god wanted him to invade iraq who was so well known for protecting civil liberties and didn’t support unwarranted spying or torture.

    Just a side note, but wouldn’t Mehta be a little too young to be running for president? Don’t know his age so sorry in advanced.

  • Jeff

    HEY HEY HEY! Enough. Stop sending these idiots to Texas! The whole place isn’t crazy, and for the first time in nearly 2 decades, the Republicans are actually having to work for their votes, they have folks running against them that could change the game. LEAVE US ALONE DOWN HERE. YOU KEEP SENDING US THESE FOOLS, WE’LL NEVER GET THE DAMN PLACE CLEANED UP!

  • katiehippie

    Sorry that made me laugh.

  • A3Kr0n

    Bryan Fischer could very well be WildwoodClaire1’s Dim Bulb of the Year winner for 2013 if the voting goes that way. Right now it’s Bryan against TheSpirtScience, and Ken Ham against Rafael Cruz. Check it out and vote for your worst favorite!

  • http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/ Q. Quine

    Yes, Fischer is getting my vote on this round.

  • Randay

    Dr. Common Sense apparently hasn’t read Thomas Paine.

  • Nathaniel Harari

    I just want to thank you for posting that video. I had never seen Coffee with Claire before and I subbed to her right after watching that video.

  • http://lady-die.deviantart.com/ LizzyJessie

    I think that most people that ‘actively’ seek political office should probably be disqualified from holding a political office.

  • God’s Starship

    The founders left us a Constitution that can be amended. Your civics teacher called it a living document, Bryan. They wanted the flexibility to be able to change with the times. For example, rethinking our views as we learn more about our world and our bodies might be a good thing. For all their virtues and flaws, the founders were open to the idea that their descendants might be able to create a better world than they could with the information they would have.

  • jamilleChristman

    Paul Broun is only in office because that area has no opponent. I literally don’t know one person from that area, and I know an abundance since the state university is there who can stand him…..even staunch conservatives. He is an embarrassment to Georgia and an even bigger embarrassment as a medical doctor, though thankfully he doesn’t practice anymore. Here are the list of write in votes at the last election “Darwin”, “Batman” and “JayZ” being the top of the list. http://gawker.com/5959174/georgia-voters-vote-for-my-neighbors-cat-and-burning-bag-of-dogshit-over-anti+science-congressman

  • more compost

    What an idiot. Does he not know that evolution wasn’t known until well after our country was founded?

    And I am pretty sure that both Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would have recognized the reality of evolution, had it been explained to them. Dunno for certain about any of the others.

    Is he really that stupid, or is he pandering to the stupid people who listen to him. Not that the difference really matters.

  • Anathema

    Does he not know that evolution wasn’t known until well after our country was founded?

    Probably not. Bryan Fischer has had David Barton on his radio show before and he seems to think that David Barton is a legitimate historian. And David Barton apparently thinks that the founding fathers knew all about evolution:

    “As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, they’d already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you’ve got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that.”

    David Barton has said a lot of stupid things, but I think that this statement just might be the stupidest of them all.

  • jdm8

    So then, let’s ignore this “no religious test for office” line in the constitution that he claims to hold so dearly.

  • starskeptic

    Comparing arguing with Fischer to T-ball – I can’t even describe how good that line is; what’s the exact opposite of “not even wrong”?

  • concerning

    Did it ever occur to these creationists that we have more important political matters on the table than from
    where humans originated?

  • NotThatGreg

    Yes, but those are *complicated* issues.

  • SeekerLancer

    He claims to know what the founding fathers thought, huh?

    How much clearer does, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” have to be. For fuck’s sake.

    At this point I question if people even know what the United States Constitution is. If you ask a theocratic loony like Fischer you’d think every other line in it was about Jesus.

  • ribaric

    I just wish Fischer would change his name. It’s embarrassing!

    Paul Fischer

  • Nomad

    All I can say to this is that the founding fathers didn’t believe in smartphones either. Therefore, according to this logic, no one should be elected into office who believes in the existence of smartphones.

    No need to comment on the historical evidence regarding how well people who believe that our rights come from a selective reading of a book they think represents the will of an invisible magic man in the sky do at protecting our rights. He’s sunk from the beginning.

  • Tervuren

    My favorite part when I read his Wiki page is “Broun has been married four times.” This is so typical. http://youtu.be/bja2ttzGOFM

  • Andrew

    The Founders didn’t believe in flying machines either, so there goes the Air Force…

  • bismarket 1

    By this thinking a President would have to own slaves & have a plantation/farm because that’s what they believed right (at least Jefferson did, being a brit’ i’m not so sure about the others)?

  • Justatron

    Fischer always looks to me like he’s just a red velvet robe away from telling all his acolytes to drink the magic potion and wait for Jesus to appear on a comet to take them away…