Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In
Fundie of the Year Nominations up for review
Quote Search:
Fundie: Board:
Comment Search:
Author: Comment:
1 2 3 4 5 10 14
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: 13

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

Quote# 113917

The Founders gave to the States unilateral authority to regulate religious expression as they saw fit. While I am certainly not advocating for it, this means that, constitutionally, States still today can have established churches if they choose, as ten of them did at the time of the founding. And it also means that States can prohibit the building of mosques if they choose.

Bryan Fischer, American Family Association 24 Comments [10/27/2015 6:24:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 113902

[On the Southern Poverty Law Center classifying the Family Research Council and American Family Association as hate groups:]

The plain truth is that we at the FRC and AFA don't hate a living soul. We love homosexuals enough to tell them the truth about the physical and spiritual dangers of the homosexual lifestyle. We want something better for them than the darkness and disease associated with homosexual behavior. We want them to come out of the darkness into the light of the gospel of Christ. We are for the homosexual and so must be against the normalization and promotion of homosexuality.

Note the SPLC is no longer accusing FRC and AFA of hate or violence based on some objective standard. They have simply made a purely subjective assessment that our beliefs about human sexuality and our defense of natural marriage are so offensive to them that we must become the target of the unlimited resources of the federal government.

Do we disagree with the homosexual lobby about homosexuality? Of course. Do we hate them? Absolutely not. Do we advocate violence against them? Never have, never will. We are simply determined to tell the moral, spiritual and physical truth about nonnormative sexual behavior.

Bottom line: disagreement is not hatred, and the truth is not hate speech.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 29 Comments [10/27/2015 3:24:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 113877

Yesterday, Donald Trump told Fox Business Channel that he would “ absolutely” support shutting down mosques in America in order to fight ISIS, so naturally American Family Radio’s Bryan Fischer came to the Republican presidential candidate’s defense today, repeating his frequent assertion that the First Amendment applies only to Christians.

“So the question is, can you close down a mosque in the United States of America given the First Amendment and its guarantee of the free exercise of religion,” Fischer said, “and the answer is that you absolutely can. Yes, Donald, yes, Virginia, we can constitutionally close down mosques in the United States of America.”

This is, he explained, because “the only religious tradition that is being explicitly and expressly protected in the First Amendment is the free exercise of the Christian religion.”

Donald Trump and Bryan Fischer, Right Wing Watch 84 Comments [10/26/2015 3:15:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Giveitaday

Quote# 113422

On the immigration issue, many Christians are rightly fond of quoting the scriptural passages that urge us to be compassionate and kind to aliens. [...] But what these same Christians fail to do is take note of what God said was to happen to immigrants after they arrived in their host country. It is clear that his spiritual standard was assimilation, and that assimilation was not just cultural but spiritual as well.


What this would mean in America's case is quite simple. We would communicate to the world that strangers are welcome here on one condition: that they be willing to adopt our God, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our Christian holidays, our Christian moral values, our Christian heroes and our Christian history.

Can this be done? Of course it can. The Constitution gives unilateral authority to Congress to establish whatever rules for immigration and naturalization it chooses. Certainly these biblically-based ideas will be considered controversial, but given the fact that three billion Muslims have immigrated to the United States over the past decade and have shown no interest in fully assimilating themselves to our culture, now is the time for the conversation to begin in earnest.

Speaking only for myself, I suggest it's time, both from a biblical as well as a practical and national security standpoint, to reconsider Islamic immigration into the United States. [...] Bottom line: it's time not only for America to embrace immigrants but for immigrants to embrace America.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 31 Comments [10/7/2015 2:27:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 113297

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer once again made his case that America's immigration policy ought to require all immigrants to convert to Christianity and adopt Christian morals, holidays, and heroes.

"Strangers are welcome here in the United States under one condition," he explained, "that they be willing to assimilate completely into American culture. That they be willing to adopt our God, that they be willing to adopt our Judeo-Christian heritage ... adopt our Christian holidays ... If you come to America, you understand that we are a Christian country and therefore we observe Christian holidays; don't expect us to make room for your holidays. We're expecting you to accommodate yourself to our standards, our traditions, and our holidays."

"We will expect you to adopt our Christian moral values," he continued. "No place, no room for Sharia law in the United States. You'll be welcome here, we'll open our arms to you, we'll open our hearts to you, we'll open our communities to you, but we will expect you to adopt our cultural and Christian moral standards. We will expect you to adopt our Christian heroes and we will expect you to adopt our Christian history."

Bryan Fischer, Right Wing Watch 25 Comments [10/3/2015 5:01:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Giveitaday
1 2 3 4 5 10 14