First amendment doesn't apply to some

[ViperJock]

So apparently This guy Bryan Fischer thinks mormons shouldn't have the first ammendment. I guess actually he is saying that anyone who is not a mainstream christian has no first ammendment rights. I think the First ammendment was made with people like Fischer in mind.

Romney jabs controversial speaker at Values Voter Summit – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Fischer has claimed that Mormons and Muslims have "a completely different definition of who Christ is" than the founding fathers did, and do not deserve First Amendment protections as a consequence.

I wonder who Fischer supports? I guess maybe anyone who will burn witches at the stake.

 

[mrjarrell]

Fischer is a Perry supporter. Has been for awhile. He likes Perry's pray it away take on problems. Lots of folks with the same outlook are lined up behind Perry. The evangelical soc-con base line right up with him and he does some serious pandering to them. That's one of the things that makes Perry dangerous for this country.

 

[Jack Burton]

I would like to see the actual quote where the pastor said, "...do not deserve First Amendment protections as a consequence."

Until I do I consider the story totally bogus, with a helping dose of "made up from thin air" nonsense that the liberal media is so good at with conversatives.

 

[EODThree]

I'm with Jack, sounds like a load of crap to me...

"DEEP TIES TO THE blah, blah, blah". Typical liberal gas-bag rhetoric.

 

[KLB]

Listen for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPz8kmPpRsM

 

[rambone]

Listen for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPz8kmPpRsM

My jaw dropped about 10 seconds into the clip. This guy is serious??

 

[KLB]

Yes he is. It is a long recording, and he goes into a lot of detail defending his views.

In a way, he is right. The founding fathers probably were not thinking about non-Christian religions when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but I do not think it would have been their intention to only give religious freedom to mainstream Christians. Another example of them not being able to see the future, yet they did an amazing job of setting a framework of principles to stand the test of time.

 

[kevinj110]

Man that guy needs to be taken to Antarctica and left there to freeze.

 

[rambone]

In a way, he is right. The founding fathers probably were not thinking about non-Christian religions when they wrote the Bill of Rights,

The founders had to know about pagans, muslims, jews, etc. They had to know about the rivalry that existed and history of religious persecution. They knew that either we all had individual rights, or none of us do.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The errors in this video are too numerous to mention. There are plenty of half-truths and flat out incorrect statements. In adherence to INGO policy, I'm not here to debate the correctness or incorrectness of those statements, or the merits of one religion or another. I will say this - if I wanted to understand the merits of a Dodge Durango, would I go ask the Toyota dealer about it? Am I likely to get a solid understanding? Perhaps not.


That said, he makes his point pretty clear. Freedom of Religion under the first Amendment, in his view, only applies to Orthodox Christian religions.

That, in my opinion, is pure iguana .

Of course, as I understand it, his Doctorate is Theology based - NOT in Constitutional Law. And that is apparent in his flawed and biased analysis.

Now how does this all fit in to the upcoming election? Not at all. Choose the candidate that reflects your values and where you believe that this country should go. Let's turn down the squealing and bleating, choose a person who does things the way that seems right to us, and get on with it. My only further commentary is that "deeds, not words" will win the day. Find someone who will talk the talk and walk the walk. And shrink the size of government . The smaller, the better.

 

[Pocketman]

Yes he is. It is a long recording, and he goes into a lot of detail defending his views.

In a way, he is right. The founding fathers probably were not thinking about non-Christian religions when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but I do not think it would have been their intention to only give religious freedom to mainstream Christians. Another example of them not being able to see the future, yet they did an amazing job of setting a framework of principles to stand the test of time.

I do not think you'll find history supportive of such a statement. Religious freedom means exactly that. The first Quaran was brought to America ~1620.

 

[Prometheus]

This guy sounds a lot like the liberals on the other side of the isle talking about freedom FROM religion.

Seriously, listen to the more articulate ones, they make just as 'compelling' an argument using many of the same styles as this guy.

The 1st Amendment is as clear as the Second Amendment. The problem is every one wants to spin it to their benefit.

People have a RIGHT to free speech and a RIGHT to practice whatever religion or faith they want. Period.

People have a RIGHT to keep AND bear arms. Period.

 

[Sylvain]

I think the founding fathers had Glock, and Glock only, in mind when they made the second amendment.
It's not about giving the right to own any gun you like, they didnt think about the guy who would want to own a XD, or a Sig or even for people who didn't want to own any gun.
No they made it clear it was only for Glock owners.

This guy is full of crap.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yes he is. It is a long recording, and he goes into a lot of detail defending his views.

In a way, he is right. The founding fathers probably were not thinking about non-Christian religions when they wrote the Bill of Rights, but I do not think it would have been their intention to only give religious freedom to mainstream Christians. Another example of them not being able to see the future, yet they did an amazing job of setting a framework of principles to stand the test of time.

You would be mistaken. The founders did take non-christians into account. It seems to escape many peoples notice that the revolution was seriously funded and supported by a colonist who was a jew. The founders certainly wouldn't have excluded him.
Haym Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KLB]

You would be mistaken. The founders did take non-christians into account. It seems to escape many peoples notice that the revolution was seriously funded and supported by a colonist who was a jew. The founders certainly wouldn't have excluded him.
Haym Solomon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for sharing that. I don't remember ever hearing of him.

As for the Bill, I think that the wording was exactly what they wanted. All of the talk in that recording about the notes of the authors including Christian this and Christian that were not included, precisely because they did not want it to be.

 

[Jack Burton]

I think the final word should go to founding father George Washington. After all... he was there at the time.

http://www.tourosynagogue.org/pdfs/WashingtonLetter.pdf

 

[GBuck]

I would like to see the actual quote where the pastor said, "...do not deserve First Amendment protections as a consequence."

Until I do I consider the story totally bogus, with a helping dose of "made up from thin air" nonsense that the liberal media is so good at with conversatives.

I'm with Jack, sounds like a load of crap to me...

"DEEP TIES TO THE blah, blah, blah". Typical liberal gas-bag rhetoric.

What say you now?

 

[GBuck]

Listen for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPz8kmPpRsM

I litterally laughed the whole way through this. How does this guy have a radio show? The fact that he has fans is even scarier.

 

[NYFelon]

I think the final word should go to founding father George Washington. After all... he was there at the time.

http://www.tourosynagogue.org/pdfs/WashingtonLetter.pdf

That was awesome.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could interpret the Constitution to deny anyone the rights of freedom of speech and religion. Perhaps it's because I was born and largely raised in Chicago, but I've never been much of one to denigrate another's religion and I don't see where we, as a nation, have ever elevated one religion over another (community standards are another issue altogether and a dominant Christian culture - as it existed until the 1980s has been largely benign in respect to other religions in our country). I remember in the 60's reading various "Boys' Life" magazine stories talking about Scouting and mentioning various religious beliefs in a neutral manner (again, more a cultural issue than a religious one).

Although I'm sure there have always been "hate preachers" in various places, it has taken a combination of modern communications and a new attitude of "you must not offend" among some people to bring these folks and their ideas out of the woodwork. I also note that almost no one holds these "hate preachers" up for public acclaim; they are generally held up as objects of derision and disdain.