Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In
Archives:
Quote Search:
Fundie: Board:
Quote:
Comment Search:
Author: Comment:
1 2 3 4 5 10 15
Quote# 118481

On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer declared that officials who refuse to accept marriage equality or transgender rights will one day be recognized as heroes, just like Harriet Tubman.

Responding to the news that Tubman will replacing Andrew Jackson on the front of the $20 bill, Fischer noted that she is hailed as a hero today for breaking an unjust law in favor of obeying a "higher law."

"Because everybody recognizes that morally her cause was right, she's a hero," Fischer stated. "And I'm suggesting the same thing when it comes to the homosexual agenda."

Fischer said that elected or school officials who defy court rulings on gay marriage or laws allowing transgender individuals to use the facilities that match their gender identity will be seen as American heroes.

"The heroes," he predicted, "are going to be those elected officials, those school board officials, those principals that say, 'No, that's not going to happen on my watch.'"

Fischer has previously said that there should be an "Underground Railroad to deliver innocent children from same-sex households."

Bryan Fischer, Right Wing Watch 19 Comments [4/25/2016 1:58:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda

Quote# 117811

How do we de-Islamize America? While it's not easy (because of politically correct hysteria) it's simple. It must include three steps.

1. Immediately suspend Islamic immigration

[...]

Can this be done constitutionally? Of course it can. The Constitution gives to Congress unilateral authority over “the Migration or Importation of such Persons” it thinks are “proper to admit” (Article 1, Sec. 9). If Congress wishes to suspend Islamic immigration, it can do so tomorrow.

2. No more mosques

Mosques are the incubators of jihadist ideology. The Center for Security Policy determined some time ago that 95% of all American Muslims who attend mosque on a weekly basis attend a mosque which either distributes literature or features imams who advocate the use of violence in spreading Islam.

Can stopping the building of mosques be done constitutionally? Of course it can, if we use the Constitution given to us by the Founders and not the one mangled by the courts. Under the Founders’ Constitution, the States have unilateral authority to regulate religious expression within their borders.

Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, put it this way: “Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions.” If states want to ban the building of any more mosques, they certainly can.

And the First Amendment protects the right “of the people peaceably to assemble.” If any mosque assembles for anything other than peaceful purposes, it has no First Amendment right to meet at all.

3. No more Muslims in the military

Serving the United States military is a privilege, not a right. Congress has complete authority “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1, Section 8). If Congress believes it’s a mistake to allow individuals who have a sacred duty to kill American infidels to serve in our military, they certainly can prevent it. The massacre at Ft. Hood is all the evidence we need that such a restriction is timely and necessary.

Islam, as Brussels, Paris, and 9/11 demonstrate, is the Ebola virus of culture. Everywhere it has been allowed to take root since 630 AD it has brought with it violence and oppression.

Preventing carriers of this cultural virus from entering America is simply common sense, as well as the essence of compassion for American citizens who should not have to live in a society that must live in constant fear of Islamic violence.

The problem, or course, is that we cannot identify carriers of this virus until it’s too late. This simply means we must be careful with them all.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 30 Comments [3/31/2016 3:40:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 117573

Are children of illegal aliens born on American soil U.S. citizens? The Constitution says no.

Here is the actual language of the 14th Amendment (emphasis mine):

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Birthright citizenship only belongs to those who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States the moment they were born. But children of illegal aliens are not.

Their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but rather of their home country, which is why they can be immediately deported if identified and apprehended. You can’t do that to an American citizen.

Since the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, neither are their children. They are, in plain fact, not citizens of the U.S. by birth.

This is why the children of diplomats who are born on U.S. soil are not U.S. citizens. Since their parents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, neither are the children.

We are all familiar with the concept of “diplomatic immunity,” which diplomats often use to get themselves and their children out of trouble on American soil by claiming that the children are not under the authority of American law. All the American government can do in such circumstances is send them back to their home country. That is, all they can do is deport them.


Bryan Fischer, American Family Association 27 Comments [3/19/2016 4:32:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 117279

[On the 2015 San Bernardino shooting:]

President Obama, of course, was quick to blame guns (all of which in this case were legally purchased) and to say the solution is to do something about guns. No, Mr. President, the problem is not guns. The problem is Islam, and the solution is to do something about Islam. The key is not getting control of guns, it's getting control of Islam. That's not Islamophobia, it's Islamorealism.

[...]

If the problem is Islam, then we are wasting our time and our breath if proposed solutions do not deal directly with limiting and reversing the spread of Islamic ideology in the United States. Suspending Islamic immigration altogether must be on the table, as well as aggressive surveillance of mosques and the Muslim community. The wisdom of granting permits to build even one more mosque in America must be part of the discussion.

The Center for Security Policy has determined that 80% of all the mosques in America promote jihad, either through literature or invited speakers. And since these are the most popular mosques, 95% of all Muslims who attend mosques on a weekly basis attend one of these jihadist-promoting houses of worship.

[...]

The point here is that there is no way to tell when the next Muslim will develop sudden jihad syndrome. It is perfectly irrelevant to the families of the 14 dead that only a small minority of Muslims are capable of such murderous violence.

President Obama is determined to bring 10,000 additional Syrian refugees to America, despite the widespread support among the Syrian people for ISIS. We have no way of knowing how many of such refugees - or any other Muslim immigrants, for that matter - will be infected with the jihadist virus.

Imagine for the sake of argument that someone offered to send you and your family 10,000 M&M's. But, by the way, they tell you, ten of them contain a lethal poison that will kill you, and we can't tell you which ten they are. In fact, the chemical composition of these M&M's is such that some of them might even turn poisonous after they get to your house. And I'm sorry, but we have no foolproof way of identifying which M&M's you have to worry about and which ones you don't. Now would you accept the shipment? Of course not.

[...]

God has already answered our prayers for protection. He's given us his Word, which indicates that Islam is a religion from hell and should not be embraced by any rational society. But we spurn his gift. We don't read his Word and we certainly don't heed it.

He's given us a Constitution which permits our government to seal our borders from carriers of the Islamic virus. But we are so blinded by political correctness that we don't do it.

And, according to Romans 13, he's given us a government with his delegated authority to use lethal force to protect our citizens from the Islamic threat. And yet our political leaders are so paralyzed by political correctness they won't even use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" let alone use the God-ordained power of civil government to do something about it.

If we don't use the resources God had given us in response to our prayers, we can hardly blame him when we get cut down at our Christmas parties.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 29 Comments [3/6/2016 8:42:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 116797

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer made a passing remark asserting that God has limited the human lifespan to 70 or 80 years, as stipulated in Psalm 90, only to get some pushback from listeners who pointed out that figures in the Old Testament, such as Methuselah, routinely lived for hundreds of years.

Fischer, of course, had a logical way to explain all of this.

Echoing his theory that dinosaurs were really just 1,000-year-old lizards that existed prior to Noah's flood, Fischer explained that prior to the flood, there existed a "vapor canopy that surrounded the earth, this vapor canopy protected the surface of the earth and the people who lived on the surface of the earth from some of the harmful radiation that came from the sun and other sources."

During the flood, Fischer said, that vapor canopy "condensed and fell as rain" and "that protective shield dissipated and so now there were some genetic impacts, impacts on DNA from this radiation coming in with no protection" and "that began to impact the longevity of people."

Bryan Fischer, Right Wing Watch 23 Comments [2/15/2016 3:02:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Giveitaday

Quote# 115798

If we want police officers in America to be able to wear their police uniforms in their own cars without fear, we'd best do something about unrestrained and un-vetted Islamic immigration.

[...]

If we want to see where we in America are headed, we need only to look at Europe. First it was in France, now it's in England. It doesn't take blinding insight to realize we're next.

Hamtramck, Michigan now has a city council that is majority Muslim. The call to Muslim prayer is broadcast five times a day over the entire city, with the first blast launching at 6 am every day whether Christian residents are offended by it or not.

Am I saying Hamtramck is a no-go zone? Of course not. Am I saying that if something isn't done, it will become one? If there is anything to learn from Europe, the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes.

Concern over untrammelled Muslim immigration is not bigotry, it's common sense. Anyone who loves America and is thinking clearly and objectively has reason to worry. This is not Islamophobia, for there is nothing irrational about our fear of Islamic fundamentalism.

No, it is Islamorealism. And whether you agree with Mr. Trump or not, it's time to bleed the mindless hysteria out of this debate. Name-calling is not debate, disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is not hate speech.

Bottom line: it already looks like England is not just a gun-free zone but on its way to becoming a brain-free zone to boot. Let's not follow them there.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 26 Comments [1/4/2016 4:07:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 115621

[On Donald Trump's call for a total ban on Muslim immigration to the United States:]

Two questions must be asked. Are such bans constitutional? And more importantly, are such bans biblical?

[...]

There is no constitutional right, of course, to immigrate to the United States. It is a privilege, not a right. And we the people have given to Congress authority to set parameters for immigration for our protection, our cultural unity, and our national security.

So while it may not be politically correct or politically feasible to implement Trump's proposed ban, it is not unconstitutional. It is a political and cultural question, not a constitutional one.

For those of us who are evangelicals, there is a second question, which is of greater importance than the first. We not only want to know if an immigration ban is constitutional, we want to know if it is biblical. Did God himself ever impose such an immigration ban?

The answer is yes. With the fledgling nation on the edge of the promised land, God instituted a permanent ban ("forever") on immigration into Israel from two nations, Ammon and Moab.

[...]

Ammonites and Edomites were not allowed to immigrate because of their historic animosity toward the people of God and their commitment to weaken them and defeat them. Where such conditions exist today, a similar ban on foreign immigration would have biblical precedent.

Now obviously exceptions could be made and were made on a limited basis. Ruth, for instance, was allowed to immigrate into Israel from Moab. Ruth rejected the ancient hostility of her people toward Israel and embraced its culture and its God. “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:17). In other words, she happily assimilated in every way, included in religious matters, to her newly adopted nation.

She was not only welcomed, but found a place in the line of descent that led to the birth of the Savior of the world.

The bottom line: a ban on immigration from nations which have demonstrated abiding hostility toward the United States is both constitutionally permissible and biblically permissible.


Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 24 Comments [12/28/2015 5:06:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 114862

There is no question but that we are long past the time when many mosques in America should be shut down. They foment hatred and violence against the United States on a weekly basis and many have become recruiting and training centers for the most radical elements of Islam.

We likewise should ban Islamic chaplains in our prisons, which have become little more than recruiting centers for jihad. Couple angry, bitter, violent inmates with a religion that legitimizes violence against the country that put them behind bars? What could possibly go wrong?

Any discussion about restricting the practice of Islam immediately counters First Amendment objections. Why, we are told, "Muslims have freedom of religion in America under the Constitution just like Christians do! You can't shut down a mosque! That would be unconstitutional!"

Whether it is unconstitutional or not all depends on whether we are using the Constitution as crafted by the Founders or the one mangled beyond recognition by the courts.

As I have written before, everything hinges on what the Founders meant by the term "religion" in the First Amendment. If by it they meant "any supernatural system of belief," as activist judges contend, there may not be much we can do to close mosques or keep giant statues of Satan off government property.

But if we understand "religion" as the Founders did, to refer specifically to Christianity, then there is a perfectly constitutional way to shut down mosques starting today.

[...]

So while Congress is flatly prohibited by the First Amendment form interfering with the free exercise of the Christian religion, the Constitution is silent regarding Islam. This means that Islam has no fundamental religious liberty claims under the First Amendment. In America, while Muslims may enjoy the privilege of religious exercise until they misuse it, they have no fundamental constitutional right to it.

Since the Founders' Constitution is silent with regard to Islam, this means, according to the 10th Amendment, dealing with Islam is an issue that is reserved to the States.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 32 Comments [11/28/2015 5:27:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 114351

I've had some secular fundamentalists tell me that this doesn't make the document or the nation Christian in any sense since the dating formula was simply customary. It’s what everybody did.

I respond by saying this makes the case even worse for them, since they are admitting that it was so common for the Founders to think of Jesus as Lord and His life as the turning point of all history that they had not a moment's hesitation in putting His name in our foundational document, expressing their personal allegiance to Him, and dating it from the year of His birth.


Bryan Fischer, American Family Association 31 Comments [11/12/2015 4:11:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Tony

Quote# 113918

Bottom line: the Founders’ Constitution permits States to prohibit the building of mosques. For the safety and security of the American people, perhaps the time for them to start doing it is now.

Bryan Fischer, American Family Association 26 Comments [10/27/2015 6:25:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
1 2 3 4 5 10 15