Nazi’s get blamed for the darndest things
June 18th, 2010
Godwin’s rule says “”As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” Well, it appears that Godwin’s Law applies to political rhetoric offline as well.
Take for example this very creative take on history from Glen Urquhart, a Republican congressional candidate in Delaware. Mr. Urquhart appears to be explaining why it is that he supports a theocracy.
Urquhart: Do you know where this phrase, “Separation of church and state” comes from? Anybody know?
Unidentified man: I do
I know. But I’m the history teacher.
It was a letter.
Urquhart: Actually, that’s exactly not in Jefferson’s letter to Dansbury Baptist. He was reassuring them that our government wouldn’t transform their religion.
The exact phrase, “Separation of Church and State” came out of Adolph Hitler’s mouth. That’s where it comes from.
Next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of church and state, ask them why they’re Nazis.
Perhaps Urquhart should have listened more closely to the history teacher and less to the AFA’s Bryan Fischer. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Danbury Baptist Association in which he included the following now-famous phrase:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
And I’m pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson was not a Nazi.
LaBarbera Award: Bryan Fischer
June 11th, 2010
Some of England’s leading newspapers – The Sun, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail – all had feature stories yesterday about the latest Taliban terror tactic: burying dirty needles with their bombs in an effort to infect troops with HIV. They are planting hypodermic syringes below the surface with the points facing upward in hopes that bomb squad experts will prick themselves and become contaminated with hepatitis and HIV.
If the bomb goes off, then the needles become deadly flying shrapnel.
Said a member of Parliament, “Are there no depths to which these people will stoop? This is the definition of a dirty war.”
If we connect the dots here, the inescapable conclusion is that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism.
…Now if gays are allowed into the military, they will be inevitably be put in battlefield situations where donated blood from soldiers may be necessary to save the lives of wounded comrades. An HIV-infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.
If open homosexuals are allowed into the United States military, the Taliban won’t need to plant dirty needles to infect our soldiers with HIV. Our own soldiers will take care of that for them.
All members of the military, gay or straight, are tested for HIV before they enter. Once in the army, everyone, again gay or straight, is tested every two years. Only those who are HIV-negative are sent into war zones. Other services have similar policies. A simple Google search can uncover this information in just 0.32 seconds. Fischer’s vision of hoards of AIDS-infected soldiers posing as a terrorist threat is purely a figment of his imagination. And it’s that creative spark that we look for whenever we award someone the LaBarbera Award.
LaBarbera Award: AFA’s Bryan Fischer
February 4th, 2010
The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has a blog commentary today about the problems with that Lawrence v. Texas. Homosexuality should be illegal; it would make life easier. If gay folk were all just declared felons, then all of those pesky issues with civil rights and freedoms would just go away.
Think for a moment of the current social controversies that could potentially be avoided if homosexual conduct was still against the law.
Gays in the military: problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy. If someone objects, ask them which other felonies the military ought to overlook in screening recruits.
Gay marriage: problem solved. We should never legalize unions between any two people when the union is forged specifically to engage in felony behavior. Would we sanction, for instance, the formation of a corporation whose stated purpose was to import illegal drugs?
Gay indoctrination in the schools: problem solved. We don’t want to raise a generation of schoolchildren to believe that felony behavior is perfectly appropriate. That’s why we spend so much money warning students about the danger of drugs.
Hate crimes laws: problem solved. We wouldn’t throw a pastor in jail for saying that illegal behavior is not only illegal but also immoral. For instance, he’s free to say that murder is not only contrary to man’s law but also to God’s law. End of the threat to freedom of religion and speech.
Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace.
But why stop with the homosexual felons? Why not apply this solution to other social undesirables.
Two months ago, Fischer identified another group that were getting all uppity and trying to be treated just like real people.
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.
Well, that issue has a little problem with the First Amendment. The whole establishment of religion thingy says that the military can’t determine who gets to serve based on religion.
But we can get around that; just declare all Muslims to be felons. Problem solved. We shouldn’t make a place for habitual felons in the armed forces. End of discussion, end of controversy.
Ya know, this could be a really effective tool.
Take the dangerous issue of African Americans wanting to get a fair trial and states executing criminals solely because they are white.
Put simply, there is no evidence to suggest that blacks aren’t committing the majority of homicides in general and first degree murders in particular. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that proponents of affirmative action will demand that we begin to execute more blacks to make up for their present under-representation in American death chambers. And we can safely say they are under-represented by ignoring their representation in the general population (an irrelevant 12%) and looking at their representation among the population of killers (a relevant 55%).
Solution: declare all African Americans to be felons. Not only would that return black men to their proper place in the social order (and proper treatment by the judicial system), but it would solve indoctrination in schools, hate crimes, and special rights in the workplace all in one fell swoop.
But, you know, why hold back. We should just make socialists, atheists, feminists, and the poor all to be felons. If we define it broadly enough, we could make American a wonderful place again for straight, white, Southern Baptist land-owning men, like our founding fathers intended.
Now I know that we might have a small problem for a while with our crime rates. I mean there would be an awful lot of felons in the country at first. But we could just rightly apply the death penalty for dangerous felons; and then we wouldn’t have ACLU types going on and on about jail overcrowding.
And if someone objects, ask them which other felonies the country ought to overlook.
AFA’s Bryan Fischer Proposes Sectarian Cleansing of US Military
November 10th, 2009
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.
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.