Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

AFA’s Bryan Fischer Proposes Sectarian Cleansing of US Military

Daniel Gonzales

November 10th, 2009
Bryan Fischer

AFA's Bryan Fischer speaking at the 2009 Value Voters Summit

This is shocking even by usual American Family Association “standards.”  Here’s what the AFA’s Bryan Fischer is saying:

It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof.  And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.

japanese-internment

Let’s contrast Fischer’s statement to the 1942 US Government propaganda film “Japanese Relocation” (wikipedia / youtube):

We knew that some among them [Japanese Americans] were potentially dangerous but no one knew what would happen among this concentrated population if Japanese forces should try and invade our shores. Military authorities therefore determined that all of them, citizens and aliens alike would have to move.

Near the end of the film:

[This current story of Japanese internment] will be fully told only when circumstances permit the loyal American citizens once again to enjoy the freedom we in this country cherish and when the disloyal, we hope, have left this country for good. In the mean time we are setting a standard for the rest of the world in the treatment for people who may have loyalties to an enemy nation, we are protecting ourselves without violating the principals of Christian decency.  We won’t change this fundamental decency no matter what our enemies do.

via Joe.My.God

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

Burr
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

While I don’t agree with the conclusions these hatemongers are starting to push.. isn’t it ridiculous that the Army did nothing about a guy that continually expressed such extreme views and spoke out against the mission?

But if he mentioned he had a boyfriend, something would have been done..

Just shows how f’ed up priorities are under DADT.

AdrianT
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

This kind of rabid talk is a reminder that gay people are just the first on their list.

It has a ring of Srebrenica to it.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

The suggestion that Muslims should be legally forbidden from serving in the American military is obviously foolish and unworkable. However, Fischer is not wrong to think that Muslims serving in the American military is a bad thing. He is entirely correct about that, and Americans should be glad that there is someone willing to point out that truth, however politically incorrect.

It is all too predictable that it will eventually become impossible for Muslims to serve in the American military, even without a formal ban. The sheer hostility to Muslims from regular American soldiers will effectively keep them out, even if the military never adopts a policy specifically to exclude them (and I hope it never does).

Shannon Spencer Fox
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Quo:

What exactly are you basing the concept of ‘Muslims serving in the American military is a bad thing’? Is it the same apparently insane concept that drives Bryan Fischer to open his bigoted mouth?

I would imagine whatever rules the Army has in place to keep murderous psychopaths away from people wanting to honestly serve their country would make sure this doesn’t happen again, which is why finding out how this did happen is so important. Even if just stripping out an entire group of people would be ‘easier’.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Shannon Spencer Fox:

Muslims are followers of a religion that the Western world is currently at war with. They do not belong in the armed forces of the United States of America, or any other western country. I hope that most Muslims have enough sense to see that, and will keep out of the west’s militaries. Those Muslims who are foolish enough to actually want to join the armed forces of a western country should be kept out by the pressure that militaries can always exert against people they consider undesirable.

Alex
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

I would love, LOVE to hear you tell a Muslim soldier — someone who literally risks his life for this country every day so that YOU DON’T HAVE TO — that he doesn’t belong in the U.S. Armed Forces and that his service is a “bad thing.” Be sure to have a paramedic closeby.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Alex,

I’m not an American, and how American Muslims soldiers may risk their lives has got nothing to do with me directly.

More to the point, do you really think an American Muslim soldier would physically assault me for suggesting that he (or she) shouldn’t be in the United States military? If you really think so, then you’re undermining your own case, as that is precisely the kind of hysterical reaction that would suggest that Muslims don’t belong in the military.

wackadoodle
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

“Muslims are followers of a religion that the Western world is currently at war with. ”

Yeah the US and the rest of the west HATE Islam. I mean we hate it so much we do absolutely nothing when every other week Saudi Arabia executes someone for breaking some ludicrous religious rule. And obviously kicking out all muslims and declaring war on the religion the vast majority of Iraqi’s and Afgghani’s follow will make those occupations easier.

At this point no ones quite sure why we invaded Iraq in the first place, but being muslim was not one of them.

Alex
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

My “paramedic” comment was an exaggeration, but surely any soldier, regardless of their religion, would be offended to hear that their service is unappreciated.

(Sorry for assuming that you’re an American. Where do you live, if you don’t mind my asking?)

Jarred
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Quo:

No, the western world is not in a war against the religion of Islam. The western world is in a war (though I think that term is being way too loosely) against terrorists. A good number of those terrorists happen to be Muslim. But that is not the same as being at war with the religion itself, as many adherents of that religion find terrorism to be anathema to their faith.

By the logic you’re suggesting, you might as well say that we’re also at war against Christianity simply because some Christians bomb planned parenthood clinics, kill doctors who provide abortions, and commit other atrocities. And yet anyone who actually made that suggestion would be rightfully mocked for such an absurd claim.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Jarred,

The only religiously-motivated terrorists who are being targeted by the “war on terror” are Muslims. Who else do you think the war on terror is against? IRA splinter groups? Basque separatists?

There may be plenty of Muslims who are opposed to terrorism, but that doesn’t mean the US isn’t at war with Islam, just as the fact that some Germans and Japanese opposed their respective governments during World War II didn’t mean that the US wasn’t at war with Germany and Japan during that period.

The issue of Christian extremists committing violence against doctors who provide abortions is totally different and unconnected, since the US government has never said that they are in a “war” against such groups.

wackadoodle
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Who else do you think the war on terror is against? IRA splinter groups? Basque separatists?

And what about the dozens of Islamic terrorist groups we ignore because they’re attacks dont really affect us? You don’t see the US interfering when someone suicide bombs in Sri Lanka or Indonesia, because the ‘war on terror’ is a meaningless buzzword.

You still keep dancing around the point that despite your claims that were at war with islam no western country has done a goddamn thing against Saudi Arabia, by far the most muslim country on Earth.

Lindoro Almaviva
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Well, I hate myself for doing this, but I think it is time that this kind of sectarianism starts so the Christian right is unmasked once and for all.

John
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

I’m not an American, and how American Muslims soldiers may risk their lives has got nothing to do with me directly.
‘Nuff said, thanks for playing. I’m hardly the proverbial liberal pansy believing in a magical fantasyland where a mulitcultural rainbow of folks joining hands and singing “Kumbaya” is all we need, because goshdarnit “Yes we can!”. Nevertheless, Muslims have served this country with honor. Muslims have shed blood for this country and died in her service. While I would undefinitely take flack from more liberal-minded folks here for the tougher hand I advocate in the GWOT, I will not deny my fellow Americans in the process. This war is against extremists who are Muslim, not against Islam itself or all Muslims.

I trust that you are from one of those countries that whines and complains about US interference, but then of course comes running to us for help when times get rough? I take great pleasure in repeating back what you’ve undoubtedly said yourself to us: Kindly tend to your own affairs and butt out of ours.

Timothy Kincaid
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

We sometimes forget that it isn’t necessarily Teh Geys that the AFA seeks to harm. Like all groups motivated by fear and bigotry, they oppose “anyone not like us”.

It’s just that usually Teh Geys are an easier target. Attacking Muslims runs afoul of that pesky Constitution and its freedom of religion clause.

John
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

A Nicolosi fan, eh? Met the man 15+ years ago in Encino, CA. Nice man back then who ideas unfortunately have become even crazier as the years have passed.

Jason D
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

oh, leave up to Quo to paint with the biggest brushstrokes.

No, Quo, we’re not at war with Islam. We’re fighting a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which happen to be Muslim countries. There are others, and we are not at war with them. There are Muslims in the US and we’re not rounding them up.

Kicking out all the Muslims in the military is a childishly simplistic solution.

It is the equivalent of a child closing his eyes — thinking danger cannot get him if he cannot see it.

The trouble with closing your eyes like this is that not only do you not see the enemy in front of you, you do not see the ally at your side either.

What of the muslim arabic translators? What of the muslim strategists and cultural resources that actually help our military fight better? Kicking them out means kicking out their knowledge, experience, and the tactical advantages they give us.

The ban on gays in the military certainly isn’t keeping us out. A ban on muslims would only give off the appearance of safety and security, but would provide neither. Those intent on being in the military, for good or ill purposes would simply hide their muslim religious beliefs. We would have to ban anyone of Arabic descent, and that would simply motivate both terrorists and patriotic muslims to see plastic surgery and try to make themselves as “anglo” looking as possible. To say nothing of those who convert to Islam. This is closing your eyes.

So what can we do?

Well, we can NOT ignore things like this (from NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10hood.html?_r=1

“Former classmates in a master’s program at a military college said that Major Hasan had expressed anti-American views, justified suicide bombings and contended that Islamic law took precedence over the Constitution, but that their complaints to faculty about his views did not result in any action against Major Hasan.”

The problem is not muslims, the problem is extremism unchecked. Hasan obviously displayed signs of being dissatisfied and unstable, but they were ignored,repeatedly.

Quo’s strategy is to throw out the baby with the bathwater, throw out all the good with the bad. That’s prejudice, plain and simple. You cannot blame an entire class of people for what some of them do. Yet, that’s precisely what Quo and AFA would have us believe is best. And by pretending it’s “realistic” they hope to avoid the reality that they are being bigots. That’s stereotyping, and while it may be convenient, it is both logically flawed, and ultimately creates more problems than it solves. We’ve seen this hundreds of times. But for some reason, whenever something like this happens, fearful immature people like Quo yank out the stereotype machine and start blaming classes of people rather than individuals. Ignoring what should’ve been done to stop an incident by blaming an entire group of people.

By Quo’s logic, we shouldn’t let straight people raise children, as they make up the largest amount of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse cases for children. Men should not be allowed to drive because “The difference between men and women behind the wheel was brought into sharp relief this week when new Home Office figures revealed men are guilty of a staggering 97% of dangerous driving offences and 94% of accidents causing death or bodily harm. On average, men committed nine times as many traffic offences as women, the study found.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/may/13/thisweekssciencequestions1

If we used every stereotype in the book, we’d all be a lot less free.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

John,

Actually, the affairs of the United States are the affairs of the rest of the world, since what happens in your country affects everyone else too.

This is part of the reason why you’d do well to realize that high-minded talk about how Islam itself is not the problem (or something you’re at war with) is delusional: it isn’t only the United States, but the entire western world that will be affected for the worse by such nonsense.

The longer the United States remains in conflict with Muslim countries, the greater the risk there will be of incidents such as the recent massacre. Eventually, I trust, it is ordinary American soldiers who will prevent things like that from happening, by making it clear to Muslims that they are not welcome in the US military.

Little can be done to prevent this development, and nor should anyone try. Your argument for having Muslims in the American military was apparently that they are “Americans.” Yet the fact that some Muslims are “Americans” in the sense of being US citizens doesn’t make them loyal to your country, and nor does it mean that “Americans” is what they privately see themselves as being.

Quo
November 10th, 2009 | LINK

Jason D,

You seem to think that I’m suggesting that all Muslims should be formally expelled from the American military.

Let me clarify: I think that Muslims should have it made clear to them, by a variety of methods, that they are not welcome in the military. Those who are in the military already should be encouraged to leave, and those who might be thinking about joining should be encouraged to forget it. Sufficient hostility against Muslims can be created that it will be effectively impossible for them to serve, even if they are never formally banned. I expect that that is exactly what will happen.

Donnchadh
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, the first problem with your argument is: Why only Muslims? Many Buddhists surely remember the Vietnam War. African Animists must resent how oil-fuelled regimes are propped up by Western trade. Jews might stop seeing America as a friend if the administration gives too much favour to the Palestinian side. And above all, Christians are suspect: as a group, they have never accepted the legitimacy of the United States’ secular constitution (drawn up by people like Thomas Paine -see what he thought of Christianity). None of this is any less spurious.
So once you accept that only pious atheists, agnostics and deists should be allowed, the second problem becomes: how do you ensure they are not closet believers? Make them swear an oath?

Jason D
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Quo Said:
“Jason D,

You seem to think that I’m suggesting that all Muslims should be formally expelled from the American military.

Let me clarify: I think that Muslims should have it made clear to them, by a variety of methods, that they are not welcome in the military. Those who are in the military already should be encouraged to leave, and those who might be thinking about joining should be encouraged to forget it. Sufficient hostility against Muslims can be created that it will be effectively impossible for them to serve, even if they are never formally banned. I expect that that is exactly what will happen.”

Oh, okay, so when bigotry and adolescent fear is codified in officially policy that’s not good, but if it’s done on the down-low, that’s far better.

Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of how it’s handled. It’s still based in irrational fear no matter how you describe it.

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Donnchadh,

Your post is (inadvertently, I assume) rather funny. I’m not going to respond to your argument, however, except to note that Muslims who take their religion seriously would hardly be in a position to conceal it – all that praying five times a day while facing Mecca does tend to be noticed, as would refusal to eat pork, and so forth.

Jason D,

“Oh, okay, so when bigotry and adolescent fear is codified in officially policy that’s not good, but if it’s done on the down-low, that’s far better.”

Yeah, that’s basically my point. A formal policy against Muslims serving in the military would attract hostile comment against the United States and be counter-productive, which is why it’s a bad idea, given that the desired result of excluding Muslims can be achieved by informal methods.

John
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Actually, the affairs of the United States are the affairs of the rest of the world, since what happens in your country affects everyone else too.

TFB. Learn the stand on your own and butt out of our affairs.

Alex
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

And you think that thousands of U.S. military personnel “unofficially” ostracizing Muslims WOULDN’T attract hostile comment against the United States or be counter-productive?

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Alex,

That’s a naive question. The level of criticism the United States would receive for making it impossible for Muslims to serve in the military through unofficial methods would be far less than the criticism it would receive for formally banning them – it could always claim that Muslims are simply choosing of their own free will not to join or remain within the US military which would, in a sense, be true.

Alex
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Sorry for being naive, Quo. Please enlighten me: what exactly are these “unofficial methods” you’re proposing? How should the military respond to the inevitable onslaught of complaints and lawsuits filed by Muslim soldiers who suffered harassment from their fellow servicemen?

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Alex,

That’s also a naive question. The methods the military could employ to discourage Muslims from joining, or to encourage them to leave if they do join, are rather too obvious for it to be worth while pointing them out. They wouldn’t lead to lawsuits from Muslims if they are done with sufficient skill, and I doubt that courts would be particularly sympathetic to Muslims anyway.

Alex
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

“The methods the military could employ to discourage Muslims from joining, or to encourage them to leave if they do join, are rather too obvious for it to be worth while pointing them out.”

I’ll take that as code for “I have no idea what I’m talking about.”

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Alex,

‘I’ll take that as code for “I have no idea what I’m talking about.”’

It’s silly to accuse someone of ignorance for refusing to discuss a subject that isn’t worth discussing.

Richard W. Fitch
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

I thought Quo had left this group and created his own forum where he could babble to himself – or is this a different ‘Quo’??

Alex
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

You are the one who brought up the subject of “unofficial methods” to discourage Muslims from serving in the U.S. military. But when I ask you to elaborate, suddenly it’s not worth discussing? How convenient for you!

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Richard W. Fitch,

No, I’m the same person. I changed the name I used slightly several times, and my e-mail address, but it’s still me. I created a blog, which I don’t update very often (I do things at my own pace).

The url is http://debatingmyhomosexuality.blogspot.com/. Look for updates over the next week or so. Or pop over and say hi, if you want to hear some of the things I have to say that the moderators won’t let me say.

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Richard W. Fitch,

No, I’m the same person. I have changed my user name slightly several times, but it’s still me. I created a blog to share some thoughts that wouldn’t really be appropriate for BTB.

It’s here http://debatingmyhomosexuality.blogspot.com/

I don’t update it very often. I do things at my own pace, you see. Look for updates over the next week or so.

Quo
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Richard W. Fitch,

I created my own blog, yes. I haven’t updated it for months, but then, I do things at my own pace. I tried to give you the URL, but BTB’s filtering system refuses to allow posts that contain it. Doubtless there is a reason for this. It’s there in older threads, however (unless it gets censored).

Priya Lynn
November 11th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, if you think “unofficial methods” of discouraging muslims from serving in the military is a good idea then it stands to reason that they are worth discussing. You don’t want to discuss them because you suspect that if you were to discuss them they wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny as a plausible idea and you’d look bad for proposing them.

Quo
November 12th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

You’re saying that because you had nothing better to do with some hour of your day than to disparage me.

Christopher Waldrop
November 12th, 2009 | LINK

Quo, you seem to come here because you have nothing better to do with your time than disparage others and make occasional claims that you can’t back up. Priya at least raises a serious point, which you dodge by accusing her of sinking to your level.

Timothy Kincaid
November 12th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

If you would like for those who read here to have access to your website, simply enter the website’s URL in the box provided for that purpose when you comment. Then if they click on your name, it will take them to your site.

Robert in San Diego
November 12th, 2009 | LINK

I’ve been listening to the radio commentaries over this incident and how the military wants a diverse military with all different types of servicemen and how they do not want to discriminate against muslims because it is not PC, but we’ll kick out a gay as soon as we find one. Gays break down the ranks. Of course though I can’t recall a gay killing anyone or fighting against their government. Last time I checked they enlisted to serve and protect their nation.

JJQR
November 12th, 2009 | LINK

Quo : I love reading what you have to say. Even if I don’t always totally agree with you, you are whacking their hick butts left and right.

Joel
November 13th, 2009 | LINK

Muslims have been serving in the US military for how long now…

So this is among the first incidents of a jihadist among our military ranks?
Not only was this a jihadist but he was an outspoken one at that too…

Certainly this should teach the military to not be deaf…

Yet, i seem at odds with another event that makes me doubt a complete apprehension to someone expressing their views.
“(The Major)justified suicide bombings and (he)contended that Islamic law took precedence over the Constitution, but that their complaints to faculty about his views did not result in any action against Major Hasan.””
It seems to me that in the UK there are more than enough muslims that speak as this guy spoke… yet they are granted freedom to do so at no cost, except maybe the occasional conversion.
Where does freedom of speech end so that
prevention can be asserted? Should ppl who believe X should die be apprehended(aka Westboro, as a hitting home example)?

Maybe the military personnel was not deaf… but rather letting the muslim voice his opinion… yes, opinion… they didn’t think of it as anything else. Yet…

Should everyone that voice support for jihadists be jailed, exiled or discharged? If muslims pose a possible danger to the military and should not be allowed to serve because of this then wouldn’t it make sense and follow logically- since jihadists are not JUST a threat to the military but rather any american… anywhere- to sack them from our country, or rather as Quo so fervently suggested, must we be unofficially hostile to them?

Quo claimed that it was impossible to not weed out muslims from the military(why did he stop the weeding out, just from the military, eludes me) due to 5 times a day prayer(and sum other stuff)… but seriously… do you really believe a jihadist whose divine mission is to kill as many people as he can be stopped by not praying or eating pork a few times?

Seeing as these jihadists in the US are rather the exception and not the rule, and since there is no jihadist detector(applicable to muslims and, what quo seems to be overlooking, ‘NON-MUSLIMS’) then there doesn’t seem to be any reason to disallow or unofficially reject all muslims that wish to enter our military ranks.

Now the question remains… how to prevent a future attack? If sacking all possible perpetrators by not allowing the class to which they belong(which is impossible to do, as Jason pointed out, because of unidentifiable-converts and Arab fake-non-muslims, with planned agendas), then what could possibly be a solution?

Maybe it is this lack of finding other solutions that drives ppl, like the AFA and Quo, to uphold such strikingly ineffective ones. Ultimately only achieving the alienation of allies and the prevention of nothing.

A rather lenient approach is to simply try to reach out(directly or indirectly) to the ‘anti-gays’ in order to win their hearts over… And, whenever possible, screen the expressively violent person for possibility of harm. Even if this doesn’t work, at least we would still have our allies.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.