On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer quoted Martin Luther King, Jr.'s iconic "I Have a Dream" speech to argue in favor of discrimination against gays.
Citing King's line that he dreamed that one day his children would "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," Fischer argued that discrimination based on behavior is justified and absolutely appropriate ... and, as such, "you begin to see the implications when it comes to homosexuality because you're dealing there with issues of content of character and you are dealing with issues of behavior and conduct and it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against immoral conduct":
84 comments
Fischer argued that discrimination based on behavior is justified and absolutely appropriate ...
But, does Fischer realize that his being a complete and utter asshole puts him on the line for the harshest sort of discrimination?
His behavior is appalling 24/7.
Look out for that boomerang, Bryan, for it's a comin' back at ya'.
""you begin to see the implications when it comes to homosexuality because you're dealing there with issues of content of character and you are dealing with issues of behavior and conduct and it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against immoral conduct":
Yeah I see the implications. Your character is bigotry and as such discrimination against you is justified and absolutely appropriate. We are dealing with issues of behavior and conduct and it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against immoral conduct":
Of course it's perfectly appropriate to "discriminate against immoral conduct".
And as soon as anyone comes up with an explanation for why homosexuality should be regarded as immoral conduct that doesn't rely on "I think it's icky!" (not actually relevant to morality in any way) and "God said so!" (because until someone can provide any actual evidence for the existence of a deity, evidence for his/her/hir/their/etc view of homosexuality and a reason for accepting that deity/ies opinion other than "might makes right", that's not actually relevant either) I will happily change my mind on the subject.
Since I am fairly confident that will never happen, I'm left to conclude that a) causing harm to people, except where unavoidable or he lesser of two evils, is immoral; b) discriminating against LGBTQ people causes them great harm, c) not discriminating against them doesn't harm anyone, and therefore d) discriminating against them is immoral behaviour.
"as ye would that men would do unto you, do you also unto them in like manner"
Take this together with "Judge not lest you also be judged".
Where does this allow for discrimination of any kind? Or did Jesus get it wrong resulting in a contradiction of scriptures? No. I think rather it is Fischer twisting meanings to suit his agenda - the Homophobe Agenda.
You don't have much wriggle room for your blatant bigotry. what is worse, you are using the words of someone who fought against bigotry and hatred to bolster your own hatred. I wonder are you capable of realising what a hypocrite that make you.
Ugh...
See, music fans, THIS is what "murdering a classic" looks like. Not that cover of your favourite song some other band did, but this guy right here quoting one of the greatest anti-bigotry speeches of all time and using it to promote bigotry.
I think MLK was against cheerful people.
I choose to believe that in his vague remark about judging people by character he meant cheerfulness insted of the infinite number of character traits that could be applied to the sentence.
Except that biological differences, like eye color, dominant hand, and sexual orientation don't fall into the categories of character or morality.
Following a religion is a behavior, much more voluntary than sexual orientation.
Who's the immoral one; the one who think discriminations are bad, or the one who contrives to discriminate and be smug about it?
Because that's precisely what MLK had in mind when he made that speech.
"I have a dream that one day another miniority will be opressed the way black people have been opressed because... why the fuck not, LOL!"
The mind boggles.
Unfortunately this guy speaks for the majority. People by nature are hateful and bigoted and if it's not gays it'll be some other group. No matter how much progress is made and how much we push for, bigotry always wins. It's impossible to get people to live together in peace and guarantee equal rights for all.
"Citing King's line that he dreamed that one day his children would 'live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,' Fischer argued that discrimination based on behavior is justified and absolutely appropriate"
I really don't think that's what King had in mind.
I wish this guy would just hurry up and get caught with an underage male prostitute already.
@dionysus, maybe your second sentence applies to the Deep South, but don't lump in where I live, please. Besides, there's plenty of evidence that bigotry doesn't always win....though it always seems to put up a bloody good fight.
@dionysus, I don't agree. The world is moving, albeit slowly, towards greater equality. Concern for equal rights is debated and fought over in almost every country, which wasn't the case even 100 years ago. Give us time. Humanity is stubbornly stupid in many ways, but we do eventually learn.
As for Fischer, all I can say is that if MLK was here today, he'd bitch-slap Bryan into next Wednesday.
Wait, somebody gave this rabid dog a radio show?
Doesn't anyone recognize the mentally deranged any more when they see it?
We can see your character, Bryan, and judge you to be scum.
@dionysus: What Galvatron and Sasha said. When I was a kid we wouldn't even have been holding this conversation. People hate and fear what they don't know. While these laws keep passing in a lot of places, they now fail in others; and where they do pass, it's by narrowing margins. North Carolina's passed with 60 percent, but in 2004 Kentucky's got 75 percent. We're getting there, but nothing worthwhile is easy.
First, the content of one's character doesn't include aspects over which one has no control such as eye color, left-handedness and sexual orientation.
Second, if some activity is harmful to others, there should be laws against it and those laws should be enforced. There is no evidence that homosexuality is harmful therefore there should be no penalties for it. The fact that the idea of two men together makes YOUR skin crawl is irrelevant.
"and it's perfectly appropriate to discriminate against immoral conduct"
And yet telling you people that you're disgusting assholes for "protesting" at gay soldiers' funerals is oppressing your freedom of speech.
The problem is that Bryan Fischer's definition of morality will never agree with mine. I don't consider people immoral because of who they choose to love.
@Dionysus
To everyone saying homosexuality doesn't have negative consequences:
Pederasty
At this point, with all the knowledge available, if you are claiming anything other than homosexuality is nothing more than a dangerous fetish, than you are deliberately lying.
@Arianna
Please, saying homosexuality is just a dangerous fetish is dumb with today's evidence, especially since it is not a choice.
How long would it take you to crack open a dictionary, Frelus?
Pederasty is a FORM of pedophilia, but they are not equivalent.
Arianna, lesbians have the lowest rate of AIDS of any sexual orientation. Therefore homosexuality is good for society.
Also, most child molesters are white, heterosexual males. So heterosexuality is bad for society.
You see how that works?
Oh, addendum to Arianna:
@ Arianna:
To everyone saying parenting doesn't have negative consequences:
Incest
DO YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE, NITWIT?
@rubber chicken, GalvatronPrime, and Lucilius
Thank you, I needed that. Sometimes I just get so discouraged when the tide of bigotry and ignorance gets way too strong. I know that what you say is true even if it doesn't always feel that way.
@Arianna
Pedophilia
That's how stupid your pathetic excuse for an argument sounds. Now kindly fuck off.
@dionysus: The late great Molly Ivins used to exhort those fighting the good fight to make sure they enjoyed it, because they were going to lose most battles before winning the war.
@Arianna: Do tell us about the positive effects of bigotry and stupidity. You seem exceptionally well-acquainted with those.
Not really, because a sexual preference is something, like skin colour, that you can't help, and similarly has no bearing on the content of your character.
@Arianna:
Tralalalala lalala lalala, lololo lee-ohhh. Tralalalala lalala lalala, Oh-hahahaho! Oh-hohohohoh! Oh-hahahaho! Oh-hohohohoh! Lolalalalalalo lalalalalalo lalalalalalo lalaloh!
Yes well if we take the history of thoughts and actions of homosexuals and Christians and line them up side by side, Christians have a LOT more to account for. They have a lot more blood on their hands. Christians have harmed mankind for centuries through torture, ignorance, the suppression of scientific curiosity, the subjugation of women, etc. These are the things they have to defend. Gays only really have musical theater and skinny jeans to account for.
This is the stupidest argument I've ever heard because unscrupulous people can use it to discriminate against whatever behavior they want.
Mr. King didn't specifically mention behavior in his speech, so obviously he meant it's OK to discriminate against baseball players, NASCAR fans and poodle owners.
@ Arianna:
Actually, the Patient Zero of AIDS contracted it in the 1950s. That being said, the notion of it being "the gay disease" was prevalent amongst Fallwellites in the 1980s... which is still far earlier than literally every modern study which proves otherwise. It is also interesting how you ignored everyone else's rebuttal to your original argument, but stayed on to make that pathetic accusation.
@Arianna
You realize lesbians have the lowest rates of STDs, right? How do you factor that into your, ah, "reasoning"?
Is it any wonder we hit this man's twaddle with the Orwellian references?
To him, Hatred IS Tolerance.
He sure as Hell proves there's no God, or his hate mongering ass would have been damned decades ago..
Bryan, I've seen video of that speech, and it made me shake with belief. I can't see it used to discriminate against anyone.
Sex is, if anything, amoral. It has nothing to do with morality at all.
Also, I'd say you should check your Bible for this little chestnut: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
As much as one would like to marginalize him as a bigoted extremist, he does host a radio show which has been on the air for quite some time now, this means that a significant portion of the population actually believes this drivel.
But in the end, we must also remember that Martin Luther King Jr. was also a Christian clergyman.
@#1400941
In that regard, Martin Luther King Jr. was the exception, not the rule.
Fischer, the rule, perverts Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech to demonize a group of humanity itself, which as the rule, Fischer has nothing in common with.
Hm, sorry for the gross misjudging of the phase of "Aids is for gays"-era - I am usually only interested in modern scientific discoveries, modern as in "state of the art", because those are revelant.do care.
How about Oscar Wilde?(Personal hero of mine.) Should we judge him for being homosexual, or for his literary talent and intelligence?
Fischer argued that discrimination based on behavior is justified and absolutely appropriate
I actually agree with this part - you totally have the right as an individual to not associate with people whose behavior you disagree with. You don't like gays? Fine, don't associate with them. You don't like right-wing loonies? Again, fine, don't associate with them.
The problem most social conservatives have is that they believe that there is an objective reason for their disapproval - since their god claims homosexuality is wrong, it must be wrong, and therefore, they are justified in discriminating against gays.
Unfortunately for them, "my god says so" isn't an objective criterion. For it to be one, first you'd have to prove that your specific interpretation of a god exists - something that various groups have been trying to do for millenia with no success. Given that, using religion as a justification for legal discrimination is wrong in a secular society.
Until the right wing can show a non -religious reason that homosexuality is wrong, they can't insist on legal discrimination against gays. To date (so far as I know), no one has provided such a reason.
@Justanotheratheist: Unfortunately, according to Fisher and Co., you can kill 'three' wives (or sleep with your mistress while your current wife is in the hospital with cancer) and still be in god's favor, as long as you repent to Jeebus on your death bed. *groan*
@Arianna:
-Heterosexuals get AIDS, too. In fact, lesbians are the lowest-risk group for ANY STD. The fastest-growing group for AIDS is heterosexual men.
You are lying. I suspect you know you are lying. You're just trying to justify your bigotry. Hate is an abominable thing, and you are abominable for acting as if it's a positive attribute.
True, I don't know what Dr. King's position was on homosexuality.
Pity he's not still around so we could ask him.
So before Bryan Fischer has sex, he honestly thinks to hiimself "Well, I could have a big harry man hole in front of me....sounds good....meh...I guess I will just go with the woman hole this time" - because he chooses his orientation right?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
