Sadly, this young man had a promising future...and then he started reading Bryan Fischer.
Renew America, an extreme conservative political blog, wins this month’s unethical website distinction by virtue of running a jaw-dropping article by Bryan Fischer, one of the blog’s founders. This is a tough one, because I would normally focus my attention on Fischer himself, whose views are at best absurd and at worst insane. But he clearly believes them, so I cannot fairly say he is lying. The website, however, assuming there are others involved in its management other than Fischer, is recklessly misinforming its presumably ignorant and gullible readers, since no one who isn’t reckless and gullible could possibly finish reading a piece including historical and legal fantasy like this:
“The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary. Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.”
I think it is fair to say that there is not one single reputable lawyer, judge, professor or historian alive today who would agree with this bizarre interpretation. For his reference, Fischer goes all the way back to a cherry-picked quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Story, who was appointed to the court in 1811—two hundred years ago….which Fischer then misinterprets. He also calls Story a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which he never was.
Story, a constitutional scholar as well as a judge, noted that the religious freedom provisions in the Constitution were intended to stop one sect of Chistianity from gaining authority over the others, which is reasonable, because the vast majority of the nation belonged to a Christian sect. He also wrote that the purpose was not to “prostrate” Christianity before Islam or Judaism, which, of course, nobody but wackos like Fischer believe is happening or could happen. The Founders were a collection of the best minds in the nation: it is fair to presume that if they wanted to make the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment specific to Christianity, they would have written it that way. Instead, they used the term broad “religion” :
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The Founders knew there were other religions in the world than Christianity. They may not have been thinking about Islam, because Muslims in America were not on their radar (and besides, radar hadn’t been invented yet). But they knew that religion was an inclusive term, and that one does not use an inclusive term for an exclusive meaning, especially if you are, like James Madison, a brilliant communicator.
Justice Story’s speculations notwithstanding, Fischer’s interpretation is unconscionably incompetent, and hate-driven wishful thinking. No ethical website would post such ahistorical misinformation.
When he isn’t making up Bizarro World history and law, Fisher also hosts a TV show, which has hosted both Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty, both potential GOP presidential contenders. Any leader, elected official or politician who would lend their status and credibility to someone as irresponsible and deluded as Bryan Fischer is not worthy of elected office
[Thanks to “King Kool” for the tip.]
Ethics Alarms 
(cough) 200 years…
(cough) Also forgot to give you credit. Fixed ’em both.
Bryan Fischer should feel ashamed for what he wrote. If anyone is delusional enough to believe this, they should find themselves in a padded room.
One of the first nations to recognize America as a sovereign nation was a Muslim state.
I may not agree with the Muslim way of life(especially Sharia Law), but they are protected under our laws just as any other. Why is it difficult for people to understand there is such as a thing as respectfully disagreeing with someone?
Respectfully disagreeing with someone having a contrary belief or opinion is only part of the issue I have with Islam. On one hand, I believe the Founding Fathers would say Islam cannot be prohibited in the United States under the First Amendment, but I have a hard time believing the Founding Fathers would simply dismiss Sharia Law (and the myriad of other ways Islam oppresses or subjugates believers and non-believers alike) with a dismissive wave of the hand and say “separation of church and state.” Here’s a basic ethical dilemma: We know Federal law protects the free exercise of Islam, yet we also know that the practice of Islam constitutes multiple human rights violations. So what do we do — stand up for the freedom to practice Islam or stand up for Muslims who are under oppression? I would opt for the latter — General Colin Powell’s first lesson on leadership basically says: “Doing the right thing sometimes means pissing people off.”
I would say that your position shouldn’t even be controversial. See: polygamy. We respect religious observance that is consistent with American laws and guaranteed rights. That is what the Founders would have approved of.
Jesus Christ, I wish more people knew about Reynolds v. United States; we already have the goddamn legal tools in place to prevent the more objectionable portions of Sharia Law from being implemented in the United States. There’s no freakin’ need to write specific laws banning all of Sharia, even the portions that we could tolerate.
You threw in a red herring. No one (sane) is saying that the U.S. should respect Sharia Law. Much like no one sane says the U.S. should respect Catholic doctrine shielding priests.
TGT, exactitude of language, please. I don’t think there is any Catholic “doctrine” shielding priests, though there has certainly been a “practice” of shielding priests accused or suspected of child sexual abuse.
If there is such a “doctrine”, please give the citation where it can be found.
Thank you.
Doctrine may have been a poor word choice, despite the “Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” being instrumental in the coverup of sexual abuse, and .
How about, no one sane says that the U.S. should respect leviticus (death sentences for insubordination, adultery, and homosexuality), deuteronomy (death sentence for premarital sex), exodus (death sentence for working on the sabbath, no punishment for beating a slave that is not killed), or any of the other crazy parts of the old testament.
There was supposed to be link titled with the Vatican’s warning to the Irish bishops about reporting illegal behavior to secular officials. Oops.
Note: Sharia law is only protected to the extent that it is consistent with US law.
Note to self: Read all comments before commenting.
Thanks.
JM, you got the right word, “jaw-dropping”. Fischer’s very first sentence had me shaking my head. Perhaps Al Franken could add him to his stable of Big Fat Idiots, right beside Rush Limbaugh.
Rush is Isaac Newton compared to Fischer. Even Franken is Isaac Newton compared to Fischer.