Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Liberals = Muslims = HATERS Edition)

I was going to skip over this one, Bryan, really.  Because it’s just plain zany.  But as I went through the litany of all the things that liberals are or do or hate … well, I just had to say something.

From your AFA-hosted/sponsored radio show:

There’s this odd collaboration between liberals in America and Muslims.

That’s right, Bryan. We’re meeting together and talking about you.  Calling you a dolt. Behind your back. On the Internet.

Liberals reject the Judeo-Christian tradition just like Islam does and that’s where, I think, the linkage is.

I suppose what it means by “the Judeo-Christian tradition,” Bryan.  Define what it means, and I’ll tell you if I reject it. I mean, it makes for a great buzzterm, very holy-sounding, good and old-fashioned

It might also explain whether Islam rejects it as well.  Which would be kind of weird, given that Islam acknowledges its roots in and history with Judaism and Christianity. It interprets some things a bit differently, of course, and there’s also a huge difference between Islam (say, the Qur’an) and how Islamic cultures work (e.g, the burqa, which is not commanded by Islam, but is a local cultural artifact in its countries, justified by an interpretation of Islam.).

I mean, you look at Islam, they’re going to behead homosexuals; liberals want them coronated; we want them helped.

Well, some Islamic cultures behead homosexuals.  Some Christian cultures have been known to kill them in the past, too.  Some ostensible Christians s still do.

I for one don’t have any desire to “coronate” homosexuals.  In fact, quite the opposite: I don’t see any reason to treat them any differently from heterosexuals or bisexuals.

And by “helped,” Bryan, I think you mean “changed.” Or perhaps “medicated.” At least “removed from society.” If lucky, “saved.”

So these are poles apart, so why is it that liberals in America are so fond of and go to bat for Muslims all the time? It makes no sense in any kind of rational world.

Hey, Bryan, are you familiar with David Barton?  Sure you are.  Both you and he have touted the idea that the First Amendment was meant only to protect Christians.  Now, there’s some truth to that — the history of inter-denominational conflict in America in the 17th and 18th Centuries was not pretty, with both social persecution and actual legal punishment for being the “wrong kind” of Christian.  Quakers were pretty much reviled everywhere.  Baptists were frequently attacked or thrown into prison.  Catholics, of course, were reviled papists to some. Etc.

So the idea is that all these various states, most of which had their own established or majority denomination in them, agreed that they would prohibit the national government of the US from establishing its own official church, each in fear that they would be the one on the “outs” and be subject to persecution.

Liberals tend to make common cause with Muslims (assuming one is excluding the concept of Liberal Muslims, which I assume you do, Bryan) as well as other groups for much the same reason — we are only each safe from persecution and legal attack when we all are. Think of it as another aspect of that Niemöller quote.

The fact is, I, as a Liberal, support you being protected from persecution and legal attack.  Hell, I believe in someone like Fred Phelps being able to speak freely, and you’re small beer compared to that nutcase, Bryan.

I may not agree with Islamic theology, but that doesn’t mean I see Muslims as some monolithic enemy out to steal my daughter and take over my church.

But there isn’t any rationality in liberalism. It’s not rational. It’s not logical. It violates everything we know about history, everything we know about logic, everything we know about morality. All of those are violated by a liberal worldview.

Don’t beat around the bush, Bryan — tell us what you really think about liberals.

So what is that they share in common? Well, I think what they share in common, the reason that they bond together, you know, is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, …

Well, I kind of think I said that above.  Though I don’t consider Islam my enemy.

… they both have in common one enemy: the Judeo-Christian system of values, the Judeo-Christian system of truth, claims and values. They both hate the Judeo-Christian tradition with equal passion and so that’s what bonds them together.

Still not sure what you’re lumping together under “Judeo-Christian” this-and-that, Bryan.

And they hate America with equal passion.

I don’t hate America, Bryan.   I know a lot of liberals, and they don’t seem to hate America, either. And I haven’t seen anything from American Muslims that they hate America, either.

Not that I think America beyond criticism.   For all our gifts, our new ideas, for all that we do that is worth admiring, we’re still human, and America is a human institution, a human society. We have failings.  I’m not idolatrous as to think we’re perfect.

That doesn’t mean hate, Bryan.

And they hate democracy.

I don’t hate democracy, Bryan.

They hate freedom of speech, ….

I don’t hate freedom of speech, Bryan. Indeed, I have an inordinate amount of love for it.  I’d even go toe to toe with you on it, Bryan.

… they hate freedom of association.

I don’t hate freedom of association, Bryan.  I like associating with people I like.  But I don’t love people using “freedom of association” as a “freedom of disassocation” — as an excuse to discriminate, to exclude, to marginalize.

So what Muslims and liberals share together is this hatred of the United States, this hatred of classical American values, this hatred of the Judeo-Christian values system.

Well, as long as you’re not going to overgeneralize much, Bryan.

And the illustration of the way in which Muslims hate democracy just as much as “regressives” do … I’m not saying “as much” because Muslims are willing to go much further in their opposition to democracy than Democrats are.

So by “liberals” you mean “Democrats.”  Got it, Bryan.

They’ll try to shut you down, they’ll try to engage in electoral fraud, they will try to use intimidation, they will try to use the courts, they will try to shout you down, …

Project much, Bryan?

There are certainly some Democrats (or Liberals or Progressives, or whichever label you’re using this paragraph, Bryan) who are so devoted to their cause, that they believe the ends justify the means.  And there are certainly others who are in it for the power.

But (and I’ll confess my own bias here), I have a lot easier time coming up with cases of Conservatives and Republicans (I don’t presume the two are completely the same) and Tea Partiers and Religious Righters (for either reason) shutting down the opposition, engaging in electoral fraud disenfranchisement, using intimidation, using the courts (and legislatures and statehouses), shouting their opponents down …

… but so far they haven’t taken to killing people.

Yes, there you have it, people.  The main difference between Liberals and Muslims is that Muslims kill and Liberals (“so far”) don’t. Political and Religious and Social Theory from Bryan Fischer, and an example of the keen insight from the Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association.

Stay classy, Bryan!

(I’ve cleaned up the transcript a bit from the one on Right Wing Watch)