Bryan Fischer: imprison all gays

[Srelex]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/01/am ... -host.html

American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer has called for sending homosexuals to prison for forced reparative therapy, a move he says is sanctioned by the Bible. Below, he responds to an email from a complaining listener.

Thanks for writing me about my comments on my program regarding homosexuality. It might be worth noting that what I actually suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I'd be curious to know what you think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program. Secondly, I'm afraid you're simply wrong about the Bible's perspective on the law and homosexuality. Paul lists quite explicitly in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the actions and behaviors that are the proper concern of the law:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine..."

The bottom line here is that, biblically, those "who practice homosexuality" should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery. You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

In November, Fischer called for banning all Muslims from the U.S. military. In addition to his radio show for the American Family Association, Fischer is the executive director of the Idaho Family Alliance.

Remember folks, the Christianist right is not about hatred and bigotry. It's about the gentle redemptive love of Jesus, forced upon you at the barrel of a gun in prison as they beat the gay out of you.

[KrauserKrauser]

Does that mean I should start investing in small throwable rocks for the deluge of stonings of adulterers? I could think of a few people that would benefit from a good stoning.

I would love to see what passage he is stretching the fuck out of to make this justification, would make for some mild comedy.

The book a Year living biblically was interesting in its first chapter alone when he discovers the amazing bullshit that is found inside. I hope he's not talking to women, growing a beard and doesn't do fucking anything on Sunday, otherwise...

HELL!!!!!!

[General Zod]

Does that mean I should start investing in small throwable rocks for the deluge of stonings of adulterers? I could think of a few people that would benefit from a good stoning.

I would love to see what passage he is stretching the fuck out of to make this justification, would make for some mild comedy.

The book a Year living biblically was interesting in its first chapter alone when he discovers the amazing bullshit that is found inside. I hope he's not talking to women, growing a beard and doesn't do fucking anything on Sunday, otherwise...

HELL!!!!!!

It's not much of a stretch really. The Bible explicitly says homosexuals should be put to death.

20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[Simon_Jester]

I wonder what his position on dishonest weights and measures is; the Bible is pretty hard on that too, and condemns it roughly as many times as it does homosexuality...

[Darth Wong]

Does that mean I should start investing in small throwable rocks for the deluge of stonings of adulterers? I could think of a few people that would benefit from a good stoning.

I would love to see what passage he is stretching the fuck out of to make this justification, would make for some mild comedy.

The book a Year living biblically was interesting in its first chapter alone when he discovers the amazing bullshit that is found inside. I hope he's not talking to women, growing a beard and doesn't do fucking anything on Sunday, otherwise...

HELL!!!!!!

Actually, it's quite doctrinally consistent. Think of it this way: the Christian hard-liner believes the homosexual is condemned to suffer for all eternity in Hell, unless he repents his sin. He also believes that homosexuality is a sort of sickness, which keeps him from repenting his sin. Ergo, it is perfectly logical to conclude that it is moral to lock up gays and even torture or mutilate them if necessary to "beat the gay out" and make them repent their sins, thus ensuring an eternity of bliss in Heaven for them.

In fact, this is precisely the argument that Christians often advance in order to explain away Old Testament atrocities. I'm simply pointing out how it can also apply to the present day.

This is why religion is incredibly dangerous without doubt. Christians hate to admit this, but it's a fact: it is in fact ridiculously easy to show, in a perfectly logical and reasonable fashion, that all manner of horrors are actually quite ethical once you adopt their belief system with absolute certainty. In fact, one could even argue that any Christian who does not use extreme measures to convert non-believers is apathetic and callous, turning a blind eye to their future suffering because he is too squeamish to do what must be done.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Does that mean I should start investing in small throwable rocks for the deluge of stonings of adulterers? I could think of a few people that would benefit from a good stoning.

I would love to see what passage he is stretching the fuck out of to make this justification, would make for some mild comedy.

The book a Year living biblically was interesting in its first chapter alone when he discovers the amazing bullshit that is found inside. I hope he's not talking to women, growing a beard and doesn't do fucking anything on Sunday, otherwise...

HELL!!!!!!

Actually, it's quite doctrinally consistent. Think of it this way: the Christian hard-liner believes the homosexual is condemned to suffer for all eternity in Hell, unless he repents his sin. He also believes that homosexuality is a sort of sickness, which keeps him from repenting his sin. Ergo, it is perfectly logical to conclude that it is moral to lock up gays and even torture or mutilate them if necessary to "beat the gay out" and make them repent their sins, thus ensuring an eternity of bliss in Heaven for them.

In fact, this is precisely the argument that Christians often advance in order to explain away Old Testament atrocities. I'm simply pointing out how it can also apply to the present day.

This is why religion is incredibly dangerous without doubt. Christians hate to admit this, but it's a fact: it is in fact ridiculously easy to show, in a perfectly logical and reasonable fashion, that all manner of horrors are actually quite ethical once you adopt their belief system with absolute certainty. In fact, one could even argue that any Christian who does not use extreme measures to convert non-believers is apathetic and callous, turning a blind eye to their future suffering because he is too squeamish to do what must be done.

Yeah, if someone asked me who the most sincere Christian ever was, I'd probably answer Torquemada. This is the primary danger of religion. If you accept it as an absolute truth that following those belief systems will result in a person experiencing eternal bliss, and not following them will result in eternal torment, than any kind of earthly torment whatsoever is acceptable for even the smallest chance of converting them, because otherwise they will spent eternity in torment. The Spanish Inquisition consisted, I would go so far as to say, of far more earnest and sincere Christians than almost any today.

[wautd]

It's not much of a stretch really. The Bible explicitly says homosexuals should be put to death.

Reminds me of a troll on the IMDB forum yesterday

- fundie: Hitler wasn't a christian (10 commendments, thou shalt not kill bla bla bla...)
- sane person: Funny, because Christians are always talking about the killings ordered, and done by, god.
- fundie: You need to learn the difference between murder (UNjustified killing) and killing


(ironically, the dickwad is a gay fundie)

[AMT]

I love how he says homosexual sex should be punished the same as intraveneous drug use due to the ability to spread AIDS/HIV.

Not like there are other factors in the illegal drug use that demand prison time. Also, we should lock up all the heterosexuals too, since heterosexual sex also has the ability to spread AIDS/HIV!

[The Spartan]

I love how he says homosexual sex should be punished the same as intraveneous drug use due to the ability to spread AIDS/HIV.

Not like there are other factors in the illegal drug use that demand prison time. Also, we should lock up all the heterosexuals too, since heterosexual sex also has the ability to spread AIDS/HIV!

The fun part about that is when you start getting into the stats. It's anal sex that increases the likelihood of spreading AIDS over and above other sexual activities, but that means that we should also be locking up heterosexual couples that have anal sex together. And what about a (hypothetical) homosexual couple that only uses manual or oral stimulation?

[Serafina]

have anal sex together. And what about a (hypothetical) homosexual couple that only uses manual or oral stimulation?

Not so hypotetical - you forgot about lesbians.

[Darth Wong]

I love how he says homosexual sex should be punished the same as intraveneous drug use due to the ability to spread AIDS/HIV.

Because the War on Drugs has been such a roaring success

[The Spartan]

have anal sex together. And what about a (hypothetical) homosexual couple that only uses manual or oral stimulation?

Not so hypotetical - you forgot about lesbians.

No, I remembered them, but they're unlikely* to engage in anal sex, which was my main thought, so I was specifically referring to a male couple that does only those things.

*Or, to be pedantic about it, less likely, and if they do, likely to do so in a way that would not spread AIDS.

[AMT]

No, I remembered them, but they're unlikely* to engage in anal sex, which was my main thought, so I was specifically referring to a male couple that does only those things.

*Or, to be pedantic about it, less likely, and if they do, likely to do so in a way that would not spread AIDS.

You never know. There might be some A-t-M dildo fetish lesbians out there!

But on a more serious note, he even goes so far as to label homosexual sex as if it were drug addiction on other levels, saying if we allow drug addicts to try and detox, we should do the same for those silly gays too!

I swear, I really wish I could get into the minds of people like this, just for a few minutes, to try and understand why they have such a...unique perspective on life.

[Akhlut]

AMT, the thing to remember is that a lot of those sorts of fundies think that gay sex is essentially the same as a drug addiction. They think it is a choice that one makes out of being around bad influences, and once you do it, you suddenly are addicted to gay sex and won't stop willingly, just like a heroin addict. Most of them don't think homosexuality is an inborn trait, but an active choice.

[General Zod]

AMT, the thing to remember is that a lot of those sorts of fundies think that gay sex is essentially the same as a drug addiction. They think it is a choice that one makes out of being around bad influences, and once you do it, you suddenly are addicted to gay sex and won't stop willingly, just like a heroin addict. Most of them don't think homosexuality is an inborn trait, but an active choice.

More specifically, they see homosexuality as a sin, and Satan is everywhere tempting you to sin. Committing homosexuality means you were too weak to resist this temptation on your own.

[The Spartan]

There's actually two things, at least, going on. The first is, well, imagine you're a child whose parents are abusive, but only when you misbehave. You figure this out and you figure out what it is will get you beaten. But, rather than standing up to your parents or reporting them or whatever, you decide that this is right and good because they're your parents and they know best. So, to protect your siblings, you stop them from doing the things that will get them beaten. That's part of what's going on here. They're, in effect, protecting their siblings from an angry parent.

The second is sort of a guilt by association. Part of Christian philosophy is that sin corrupts and a society that allows sin corrupts itself and its citizens and that a society like that is liable to be punished, the Righteous and Sinful alike. No one wants to be punished so they want to be sure that their society is Righteous. To continue my analogy from above, imagine the older sibling not only wanted to protect their younger siblings, but also would get smacked if their younger siblings were punished. Again, they don't want to be beaten, so, again, they intervene to stop their siblings from "sinning".

[Justforfun000]

It might be worth noting that what I actually suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Even though I'm aware I'm preaching to the choir here on SDN..I'll say it just for the record. What a statement! So any "engaging" in homosexual behaviour, whether male/female, HIV infected or NOT is the "same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS"? What a ridiculous thing to say. Same kind of risk compared to whom? Those who don't have sex at all? Those who only have "normal" sex? Those who only do it missionary position? Fuck I hate stupid generalities like this.

So also running with that concept....if we wiped out HIV entirely then he has no problem with it? Oh...no..of course that's not what he means...he just wants to use disease as a scapegoat to support his position that it MUST be "dirty" and "wrong" to do something that directly leads to such a horrible, icky disease. It's all their fault after all..if those homo's hadn't been so promiscuous and kept their parts only for the opposite sex in a passsionless relationship then the world wouldn't be dealing with the AIDS crisis right now. He's a victim of course..so is all straight society. Corrupted by liberal morals and gay activists who dare to suggest their "lifestyle" is actually a state of being and identity.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Even though I'm aware I'm preaching to the choir here on SDN..I'll say it just for the record. What a statement! So any "engaging" in homosexual behaviour, whether male/female, HIV infected or NOT is the "same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS"? What a ridiculous thing to say. Same kind of risk compared to whom? Those who don't have sex at all? Those who only have "normal" sex? Those who only do it missionary position? Fuck I hate stupid generalities like this.

So also running with that concept....if we wiped out HIV entirely then he has no problem with it? Oh...no..of course that's not what he means...he just wants to use disease as a scapegoat to support his position that it MUST be "dirty" and "wrong" to do something that directly leads to such a horrible, icky disease. It's all their fault after all..if those homo's hadn't been so promiscuous and kept their parts only for the opposite sex in a passsionless relationship then the world wouldn't be dealing with the AIDS crisis right now. He's a victim of course..so is all straight society. Corrupted by liberal morals and gay activists who dare to suggest their "lifestyle" is actually a state of being and identity.

While I was canvassing last Saturday, I ran into a voter whose views on homosexuality was completely shaped by the homophobic Biblical interpretation. His response to anything I said would be citing the Bible continuously as the justification to any of his homophobic views. Any evidence to the contrary would be disregarded and considered inferior to Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. And anything that can be remotely related to damning homosexuality (AIDS, non-reproduction etc.) is all considered evidence that their Biblical views are correct. I marked him as an "unpersuadable" voter. There is no reasoning with these people. And there is virtually no chance they are going to think differently, much less change their minds. The best thing you can do is to bring up personal anecdotes since they value those more than scientific evidence. But even that will only shift them slightly and only after decades of concerted efforts of persuasion will yield a noticeable result. I suppose after talking to countless voters over the past year, I've gotten somewhat desensitized to their bigoted mentality. It is said that wisdom lies in knowing what can be changed and what cannot. This falls under the latter category. I constantly have to remind myself to move on and concentrate on more reasonable people.

[Samuel]

Bring up passages attacking seafood and women wearing pants. Aren't those also abominations? If you are lucky he isn't entirely insane and you can get him to be a hypocrite.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Bring up passages attacking seafood and women wearing pants. Aren't those also abominations? If you are lucky he isn't entirely insane and you can get him to be a hypocrite.

We've found such approaches are unproductive. If you catch people like them in those situations, all you end up doing is piss them off. But usually, they will claim authoritative superiority on the Bible and the way its read. And how are you going to contest that? The Bible is so contradictory, any asshat can find any loophole to remain logically consistent with their idiocy. It's just too much effort for too little gain. I also ran across another voter who was a lot more level headed but still remained opposed to marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples because of his religious principles. Some of these people provide more leeway for us to work with them. While I could not convince him to vote for us, I managed to get him to assure me that he would not vote against us. While not a complete victory, it's an improvement. This is all part of continuing research to find better and more effective messages to counter the opposition's prejudicially-based attacks.

[Liberty]

While I was canvassing last Saturday, I ran into a voter whose views on homosexuality was completely shaped by the homophobic Biblical interpretation. His response to anything I said would be citing the Bible continuously as the justification to any of his homophobic views. Any evidence to the contrary would be disregarded and considered inferior to Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. And anything that can be remotely related to damning homosexuality (AIDS, non-reproduction etc.) is all considered evidence that their Biblical views are correct. I marked him as an "unpersuadable" voter. There is no reasoning with these people. And there is virtually no chance they are going to think differently, much less change their minds. The best thing you can do is to bring up personal anecdotes since they value those more than scientific evidence. But even that will only shift them slightly and only after decades of concerted efforts of persuasion will yield a noticeable result. I suppose after talking to countless voters over the past year, I've gotten somewhat desensitized to their bigoted mentality. It is said that wisdom lies in knowing what can be changed and what cannot. This falls under the latter category. I constantly have to remind myself to move on and concentrate on more reasonable people.

But...I'm used to be a fundie and I have since changed my mind completely. So, it is possible. I turn it over and over in my head trying to understand why I was able to change and others aren't. I think it had to do with the fact that I was taught fundamentalist religious beliefs AND taught to think for myself, question everything, and follow evidence where it leads. Is there some way we can get this second aspect across to these people?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

But...I'm used to be a fundie and I have since changed my mind completely. So, it is possible. I turn it over and over in my head trying to understand why I was able to change and others aren't. I think it had to do with the fact that I was taught fundamentalist religious beliefs AND taught to think for myself, question everything, and follow evidence where it leads. Is there some way we can get this second aspect across to these people?

I'm not discounting the possibility. You just happen to fall in a very small group of people and a lot of our effort would be more productive on people who aren't total fundies. Also, a lot of people we interact with are older since they tend to be very reliable voters. And the chances of changing your mind on this tends to reduce dramatically when you factor in ideology, religion and age.

[Spoonist]

Bring up passages attacking seafood and women wearing pants. Aren't those also abominations? If you are lucky he isn't entirely insane and you can get him to be a hypocrite.

We've found such approaches are unproductive. If you catch people like them in those situations, all you end up doing is piss them off. But usually, they will claim authoritative superiority on the Bible and the way its read. And how are you going to contest that? The Bible is so contradictory, any asshat can find any loophole to remain logically consistent with their idiocy. It's just too much effort for too little gain. I also ran across another voter who was a lot more level headed but still remained opposed to marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples because of his religious principles. Some of these people provide more leeway for us to work with them. While I could not convince him to vote for us, I managed to get him to assure me that he would not vote against us. While not a complete victory, it's an improvement. This is all part of continuing research to find better and more effective messages to counter the opposition's prejudicially-based attacks.

Well that works if you give them obscure laws from leviticus or some such. However I have found it IRL quite useful to ask first does the NT supercede the OT? Then you ask then which sins did JC on several occasions speak up against?
Shouldn't those sins that JC then found to be the worst be the ones you should engage the most effort against as a christian?
If they agree to all of that. Just pick out a bible and show them that it is possesion and divorce. Then ask how many times JC spoke up against things like homosexuallity...

[General Zod]

Well that works if you give them obscure laws from leviticus or some such. However I have found it IRL quite useful to ask first does the NT supercede the OT? Then you ask then which sins did JC on several occasions speak up against?
Shouldn't those sins that JC then found to be the worst be the ones you should engage the most effort against as a christian?
If they agree to all of that. Just pick out a bible and show them that it is possesion and divorce. Then ask how many times JC spoke up against things like homosexuallity...

The part that I quoted deals with God handing down his commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai, so I'm not sure what definition of obscure you're using here. Generally most Christians put the Commandments God gave to Moses on as high a pedestal as anything Jesus ever said, at any rate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

AMT, the thing to remember is that a lot of those sorts of fundies think that gay sex is essentially the same as a drug addiction. They think it is a choice that one makes out of being around bad influences, and once you do it, you suddenly are addicted to gay sex and won't stop willingly, just like a heroin addict. Most of them don't think homosexuality is an inborn trait, but an active choice.

More specifically, they see homosexuality as a sin, and Satan is everywhere tempting you to sin. Committing homosexuality means you were too weak to resist this temptation on your own.

I have always wanted to know what this temptation is exactly. For something to be tempting enough that it might be persuasive it has to offer some benefit to counter-act the risk.

So what is this benefit with homosexuality? Does anal sex with another man (as opposed to a women) just feel that much better? I would not think so. We will call that a wash.

Is there some sort of perverse pleasure in pissing god off? No.

In exchange we get ridicule, hate, hate crimes, and second class citizenship. With what precisely are we being tempted?