LIES. freedom of ALL religion is why US was founded in the first place. freedom to worship or not to worship. people wanted to get away from so-called "christians" who forced their "orthodox" garbage on others & MURDERED those who did not agree with their "version" of "christianity". it is not ur job or a churches job to enforce ur ideas of "worship" on anyone. Jesus never forced anyone...He just gave the invitation: "Come unto Me". free choice. force is from pagan catholicism.
It always pisses me off when these people say that what *I* want is what, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree with. The First Amendment was created to protect speech that other people don't like. And you can't make exceptions for porn, racial supremacists, or the WBC. On the other hand, corporations and communications companies don't HAVE to pay you for it.
Jesus Christ didn't establish Orthodox or any of these mainstream Churches. He knew only about His Church filled with His Own Doctrines. It was no man's Church. The Catholic Church & its defected Evangelical & Born-Again Protestant Churches in 1800s were fighting/struggling among themselves for memberships...more members attend, more money in the bank. The boy Joseph Smith attended some of their meetings & decide to take it to God & got what he never expected. There is only one true Church..
The lds church us international. If what Fischer says is true, then why aren't members throughout the world in countries where polygamy is legal currently practicing it?
If what this guy says were true, then the LDS church would be OK with polygamy in countries where it is not outlawed. There are countries where polygamy is sanctioned. Yet, if a Mormon were to practice polygamy, even in a country where it is legal, that person is excommunicated from the LDS church.
Thus, this tool doesnt know what he is talking about.
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities" - THOMAS JEFFERSON
If the Founding Fathers were concerned only for the Christian religion, how does Bryan Fischer account for this quote from Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography?: "the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
I fully agree with him that we absolutely can not go down the road of polygamy. Polygamy results in a violent society and civil war and civil unrest because it blocks out millions of men from ever having a wife. China's 1 child policy created the same problem because in a certain age group affected by the policy, there is many more men than women because Chinese women had abortions when they determined that they were pregnant with a girl.
You miss the obvious answer of polygamy for all... so I get multiple wives, but THEY get multiple husbands...
Which is far more likely to reduce domestic violence as all her other husbands will beat the living crap out of you if you touch her.
Obviously you are going to have to be johnny on the spot when it comes to policing STD's in such a culture (pun intended) but frankly we should all be doing that anyway.
Remember, naturally there are slightly more women than men out there.
@AnonEyeMouse How do they get multiple husbands? That is polyandry. Slightly more women is a far cry from millions of men with no possible chance of a wife. This issue has been studied and there is a strong correlation between the tolerance of polygamy and violence.
@christo930 "Polygamy" is multiple spouses. "Polyandry" is multiple husbands. "Polygyny" is multiple wives. The LDS church's original stance was more specifically polygyny, as they did not allow women to have multiple husbands.
Yes, there's a correlation between polygyny and domestic violence, but that's an oversimplification. The problem isn't multiple spouses - it's inequality and oppression. Polyamory is more egalitarian and has none of the social ills resulting from oppression & misogyny.
@Datan0de Yes, I used the wrong terms, sorry about that. I just think that most forms of polygamy is a man with multiple wive and that is known to cause problems and is a road that we need not go down.
To be honest I didn't know there were different terms, I assumed that polygamy meant multiple marriages. Whichever word most accurately fits everyone having multiple spouses if they so choose is the one I'm pushing.
I've seen the response in myself when an ex girlfriend was beaten up by her current partner, and I don't think it was a rare response. The guy was lucky to make it out of town on his own feet, considering. That was for an ex. Imagine if it were one of your spouses?
I think I'm on fairly safe ground when I postulate that society, like most things, is fundamentally fractal, so it would be difficult to see how it could create violent societies WITHOUT creating first violent marriages and even before that, violent thoughts. However, as you rightly point out, Polyandry is very rare. I'm unaware of any culture that has fully embraced it and as such, a claim that it causes a certain outcome has to be speculation at best. You started that line of -
-Reasoning arguing that Polygamy causes violence and civil war (or increases it's likelihood) which can at least be tested as such cultures have existed. I'm not sure it can be carried over to a Polyandrous culture, though. After all, some of the prime movers are radically different, such as the number of men without a spouse. It should be more likely for a man to get a spouse in such circumstances, surely?
I figure we need a real world example of a polyandrous culture before we settle this.
@AnonEyeMouse A polyandrous culture isn't going to come up any time soon. Why would I want to raise your kid? The only polyandry societies that I know of existed where brothers would marry the same woman, so at least the child would be a blood relative. But it has been shown again and again that societies that allow multiple wives become violent and civil wars break out. Psychology Today has a great article on it that's only a couple of years old and is still on-line. Check it out.
Brigham Young had multiple wives because there husbands died. He and some others married them so they could have someone to be with and someone to care for them.
@MrGingerpwns How naive of you. You might want to read the journal of discourses, because what you just stated is an embarrassingly oversimplified and bias view.
"You can't tell people they can't marry 13 year old girls. If members of the LDS church want to have sex with underage girls, who is the government to tell them not to? Look at me, I'm old... what other options do I have?"
This is what happens when we have a deplorable public education system that needs to be abolished. People today are not learning our Constitution and have no idea what America was founded upon. They are learning propaganda propagated by the far left which has infiltrated every aspect of our education system.
Mormons are called by Satan. Our Founding Fathers never knew of Mormonism but Bryan Fischer speaks the truth. Politically correct libtards don't want to hear it but the Constitution was a document intended to protect Christians from state interference and was not intended to protect the rights of non-Christians. Whatever rights we grant to non-christians we grant to you out of courtesy and these privileges can be revoked at any time.
@ClaimAmerica4Christ You do realize of course that the ignorance you claim to abhor is obvious in what you wrote. Just pointing this out, but there is nothing that says that christians are the only group which the Constitution protects. You obviously need to read up on some facts. Like how no one religion can be more powerful than the others in the country, in the very document which you claim says only christians are protected.
I love when religious people talk smack about other religions. Why can they never see that their own religion is just as silly as the one they are complaining about? Ever seen a christian argue with a muslim? It's like watching two kids argue who would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman.
i'm so sick of the right wingers trying to revise history and convince people the founders were hardcore dominionist christians. they weren't. in fact, many were disgusted by the idea. there needs to be a public campaign to combat ignorance.
Your faith has nothing to do with Orthadox Christian faith either. Something I find funny that the orthadox chruch itself finds that you have more in common with Neo-paganism then a historic chrisitan church.
Is it just me or did this guy just not make any sense at all? Honestly, I didn't even understand half his points, let alone a quarter, simply because most of it just seemed to be babbling nonsense. The point of the first amendment was to make sure that religion and government could not mix. The point of the first amendment was to protect the exercise of ALL religious practices or people who just didn't have a religious practice.
And THIS is why Mitt Romney has zero chance of winning the general election or GOP nomination. If you don't think and agree 100% with what these insane Christo-fascist, Tea Party psychopaths want, you are no good to them. At all.
I'd love to know what Fischer's evidence for, "It was very clear the founding fathers did not intend to approve automatically religious liberty for non-christian faiths."
If it was VERY CLEAR, it would have said exactly that in the 1st amendment, not just religion in general. Similarly, the treaty of Tripoli would have said that the US government WAS founded on the Christian religion.
Unless he wants to claim that those who drew up that particular passage were lying...
So, because a certain aspect of Mormonism was illegal, that means their entire religion is outlawed? By that logic Christianity is outlawed because domestic abuse promoted in the Bible is illegal.
You know, I think we should invest in time machines and send people like him to the Spanish Inquisition, or the 1st Crusade. Let him witness for himself what his kind of imperialistic thinking can lead humans to do to each other.
@WEWILLSECURE How bout you first pull that dildo out of your ass? You sound like you're in a lot of pain. And for humanism's sake, don't jack off after you posted a message, nobody wants to know.
Lamech took unto him two wives....Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. ....Elkanah ... had two wives...Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.... Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives...Jehoiada took for him two wives....
How are those citations "negative"? They are pretty positive, to me. They mean that no specific religion, or sect,will be the established religion of the state. It allows for the free exercise of all religious beliefs.
@Msmith7o8 Negative in the sense that the word "no" is negative: no religious test, no establishment of religion. Fischer said "...the purpose of the first Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the christian religion" (as though there's only one, and he gets to decide which it is). He went on to talk about what happened in "the latter part of the 19th century," as though that has anything to do with the founders. My point was that Amendment 1 protects all religions, and no religion.
Mr. Fischer should become a candidate for the Republican Party presidential race. He'd be fun in debate, telling Romney, Santorum and Gingrich they aren't true Christians, that Michele Bachmann should get back in the kitchen, that Herman Cain isn't the right color and Ron Paul is too liberal and not enough of a warmonger.
So, Mormons. Those of you who currently support the aims of this radical political movement disguised as a Christian religious movement, take heed. You will be victims of your own foolishness. You will be disenfranchised along with the gays, atheists, liberals, and probably Catholics in the end. Everyone you hate.
And of course, by extension, to Mulims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and all other non-Christian religions including atheists. I think I see where this is going, we've been there many times before.
I love how he said, "activist courts imposed same sex marriage on the United States."
Yes, they IMPOSED it on you. They went into your home and forced you to marry another man against your will.
mchandler2112 1 week ago
LIES. freedom of ALL religion is why US was founded in the first place. freedom to worship or not to worship. people wanted to get away from so-called "christians" who forced their "orthodox" garbage on others & MURDERED those who did not agree with their "version" of "christianity". it is not ur job or a churches job to enforce ur ideas of "worship" on anyone. Jesus never forced anyone...He just gave the invitation: "Come unto Me". free choice. force is from pagan catholicism.
rusda2 1 month ago
Who the hell makes the decision to give these misinformers air time?
Cerulean0987 3 months ago
Whatever. Madison wasn't a Christian.
MinisterAilingTongue 3 months ago
Sounds good to me. Vote for Mill Romney.
carrotjuse 4 months ago
Like most of the rightwing crazies, he just lies, lies, and then tell s more lies.
SuperContinuum 4 months ago
It always pisses me off when these people say that what *I* want is what, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree with. The First Amendment was created to protect speech that other people don't like. And you can't make exceptions for porn, racial supremacists, or the WBC. On the other hand, corporations and communications companies don't HAVE to pay you for it.
Gunman610 4 months ago
This guy is a lower life form than most liberals. I would prefer a liberal christian over this NON christian preacher
lpsbullion 4 months ago
This guy is NOT a christian because i say so.
Is he a preacher from the westboro baptist church?
lpsbullion 4 months ago
he knows less about the 1rst than that o'donnel broad. classic! he's got it exactly wrong. amazing.
mitchgunthorpe 4 months ago
aaaand the "missing the point" award goes to...
SuperHoboPirateNinja 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is an idiot.
paulner3 4 months ago
Jesus Christ didn't establish Orthodox or any of these mainstream Churches. He knew only about His Church filled with His Own Doctrines. It was no man's Church. The Catholic Church & its defected Evangelical & Born-Again Protestant Churches in 1800s were fighting/struggling among themselves for memberships...more members attend, more money in the bank. The boy Joseph Smith attended some of their meetings & decide to take it to God & got what he never expected. There is only one true Church..
leSavaii 4 months ago
"The Mormon Church never has denounced polygamy."
Which is why it excommunicates members who practice it, even where it's legal.
manaen1lds 4 months ago
The lds church us international. If what Fischer says is true, then why aren't members throughout the world in countries where polygamy is legal currently practicing it?
smham33 4 months ago
I love it when people fight and argue about a non-existent invisible man.
quantumleap7219 4 months ago
If what this guy says were true, then the LDS church would be OK with polygamy in countries where it is not outlawed. There are countries where polygamy is sanctioned. Yet, if a Mormon were to practice polygamy, even in a country where it is legal, that person is excommunicated from the LDS church.
Thus, this tool doesnt know what he is talking about.
Bondsback2325 4 months ago
Except the Founding Fathers were very friendly with the Ottoman Empire. Ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?
Islam wasn't always what we think of it today. Islamic fundamentalism, the burqas, all that didn't start until the 50s. The 1950s.
ferretyluv 4 months ago
AS USUAL, Fischer is correct on this.
sensibleadult 4 months ago
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities" - THOMAS JEFFERSON
holyfreakingwow 4 months ago
This guy is BSC :)
iammorethanzero 4 months ago
This guy is so whacked it's not even funny.
heyman537 4 months ago
But unlike other contributors, I REGRET that Fischer is wrong.
JR19578 4 months ago
If the Founding Fathers were concerned only for the Christian religion, how does Bryan Fischer account for this quote from Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography?: "the design in building not being to accommodate any particular sect, but the inhabitants in general; so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.
Mr. Whitefield, in leaving us, ..."
JR19578 4 months ago
what a dick
OIObserver 4 months ago
The founders were deists and agnostic. Read the Treaty of Tripoli written by them. And fuck that lying crackhead fischer
splicedenergy 4 months ago
I fully agree with him that we absolutely can not go down the road of polygamy. Polygamy results in a violent society and civil war and civil unrest because it blocks out millions of men from ever having a wife. China's 1 child policy created the same problem because in a certain age group affected by the policy, there is many more men than women because Chinese women had abortions when they determined that they were pregnant with a girl.
christo930 5 months ago
@christo930
You miss the obvious answer of polygamy for all... so I get multiple wives, but THEY get multiple husbands...
Which is far more likely to reduce domestic violence as all her other husbands will beat the living crap out of you if you touch her.
Obviously you are going to have to be johnny on the spot when it comes to policing STD's in such a culture (pun intended) but frankly we should all be doing that anyway.
Remember, naturally there are slightly more women than men out there.
AnonEyeMouse 4 months ago
@AnonEyeMouse How do they get multiple husbands? That is polyandry. Slightly more women is a far cry from millions of men with no possible chance of a wife. This issue has been studied and there is a strong correlation between the tolerance of polygamy and violence.
Do you support polygamy or polyandry?
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930 "Polygamy" is multiple spouses. "Polyandry" is multiple husbands. "Polygyny" is multiple wives. The LDS church's original stance was more specifically polygyny, as they did not allow women to have multiple husbands.
Yes, there's a correlation between polygyny and domestic violence, but that's an oversimplification. The problem isn't multiple spouses - it's inequality and oppression. Polyamory is more egalitarian and has none of the social ills resulting from oppression & misogyny.
Datan0de 4 months ago
@Datan0de Yes, I used the wrong terms, sorry about that. I just think that most forms of polygamy is a man with multiple wive and that is known to cause problems and is a road that we need not go down.
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930
To be honest I didn't know there were different terms, I assumed that polygamy meant multiple marriages. Whichever word most accurately fits everyone having multiple spouses if they so choose is the one I'm pushing.
I've seen the response in myself when an ex girlfriend was beaten up by her current partner, and I don't think it was a rare response. The guy was lucky to make it out of town on his own feet, considering. That was for an ex. Imagine if it were one of your spouses?
AnonEyeMouse 4 months ago
@AnonEyeMouse It's not that it creates violent marriages, it's that it creates violent societies and civil wars. Polyandry is a very rare practice.
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930
I think I'm on fairly safe ground when I postulate that society, like most things, is fundamentally fractal, so it would be difficult to see how it could create violent societies WITHOUT creating first violent marriages and even before that, violent thoughts. However, as you rightly point out, Polyandry is very rare. I'm unaware of any culture that has fully embraced it and as such, a claim that it causes a certain outcome has to be speculation at best. You started that line of -
AnonEyeMouse 4 months ago
-Reasoning arguing that Polygamy causes violence and civil war (or increases it's likelihood) which can at least be tested as such cultures have existed. I'm not sure it can be carried over to a Polyandrous culture, though. After all, some of the prime movers are radically different, such as the number of men without a spouse. It should be more likely for a man to get a spouse in such circumstances, surely?
I figure we need a real world example of a polyandrous culture before we settle this.
AnonEyeMouse 4 months ago
@AnonEyeMouse A polyandrous culture isn't going to come up any time soon. Why would I want to raise your kid? The only polyandry societies that I know of existed where brothers would marry the same woman, so at least the child would be a blood relative. But it has been shown again and again that societies that allow multiple wives become violent and civil wars break out. Psychology Today has a great article on it that's only a couple of years old and is still on-line. Check it out.
christo930 4 months ago
Brigham Young had multiple wives because there husbands died. He and some others married them so they could have someone to be with and someone to care for them.
MrGingerpwns 5 months ago
@MrGingerpwns How naive of you. You might want to read the journal of discourses, because what you just stated is an embarrassingly oversimplified and bias view.
emperor0013 4 months ago
..."imposed same sex marriage on the United States..."
I didn't realise they made it compulsory to marry someone of the same sex.
ScrewFoxNews 5 months ago
what a cunt
badgerboyUK 5 months ago
If Bryan Fischer is an example of what being a Christian is all about, no wonder so many Americans are running into the atheist camp.
witchwild 5 months ago
Don't mock this guy everybody...you know it's cruel to mock the severely mentally ill.
witchwild 5 months ago
hey you better believe in my god
phildirt3 5 months ago
wow this guy is a major dick
phildirt3 5 months ago
Can't help but LOVE how full of hate this Christian is.
soapflake79 5 months ago
"You can't tell people they can't marry 13 year old girls. If members of the LDS church want to have sex with underage girls, who is the government to tell them not to? Look at me, I'm old... what other options do I have?"
Anrkist713 5 months ago
a good facepalm has never been more appropriate
TGDragon 5 months ago
nothing to see here, move along
BHGiant3 5 months ago
And Mitt Romney is going to speak on the stage with this monster.
rjpcambridge 5 months ago
Jeremiahdvorak, get real
hazlett1927 5 months ago
Drugs are bad, mmkay.
Bear5177 5 months ago
This is what happens when we have a deplorable public education system that needs to be abolished. People today are not learning our Constitution and have no idea what America was founded upon. They are learning propaganda propagated by the far left which has infiltrated every aspect of our education system.
ClaimAmerica4Christ 5 months ago
@ClaimAmerica4Christ The Constitution was intended to protect christians?
The FIRST Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
VorconOSX 5 months ago
@ClaimAmerica4Christ Brand new account huh ? I smell a troll.
k3w1b3an5 5 months ago
Mormons are called by Satan. Our Founding Fathers never knew of Mormonism but Bryan Fischer speaks the truth. Politically correct libtards don't want to hear it but the Constitution was a document intended to protect Christians from state interference and was not intended to protect the rights of non-Christians. Whatever rights we grant to non-christians we grant to you out of courtesy and these privileges can be revoked at any time.
ClaimAmerica4Christ 5 months ago
@ClaimAmerica4Christ Really? I don't see the word 'Christian' in the first amendment. I do see the words "Freedom of religion" however.
ClevelandHighCrazies 5 months ago
@ClaimAmerica4Christ You do realize of course that the ignorance you claim to abhor is obvious in what you wrote. Just pointing this out, but there is nothing that says that christians are the only group which the Constitution protects. You obviously need to read up on some facts. Like how no one religion can be more powerful than the others in the country, in the very document which you claim says only christians are protected.
konirtaes 5 months ago
Who cares if people live polygamous? If everybody involved is a consenting adult...
Evilanious 5 months ago in playlist Meer video's van RWWBlog 4
I love when religious people talk smack about other religions. Why can they never see that their own religion is just as silly as the one they are complaining about? Ever seen a christian argue with a muslim? It's like watching two kids argue who would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman.
proudtobeatheist1 5 months ago
Piece of shit
Shelhabiron 5 months ago
Most of the Founding Fathers were Atheist and hated religion. You're lucky you have any rights for the shit that your organizations do to the world.
mikerules999 5 months ago
Isn't it great seeing freaks criticize other freaks?
entertheblackmaria 5 months ago 4
Upthumb this video if you think this guy is a fucktard
GodKillerAtheist 5 months ago
Mormons have never denounced incest or child sex slavery either.
GodKillerAtheist 5 months ago
CITATION NEEDED.
riviell 5 months ago
This twisted fuck is a big Rick Perry supporter.
deepashtray 5 months ago
i'm so sick of the right wingers trying to revise history and convince people the founders were hardcore dominionist christians. they weren't. in fact, many were disgusted by the idea. there needs to be a public campaign to combat ignorance.
frustratedlogician 5 months ago
What an ass!
t0f0b0 5 months ago
Bryan Fischer reads the constitution with his god glasses on. He only sees what he wants to see.
MrRedthief 5 months ago
Multiple wives=Sin
1 wife and WHOLE bunch of concubines= A-ok
atheistNalabama 5 months ago
What a load of crap! Mormons ARE Christians!
PinkPantherFan102 5 months ago 4
@PinkPantherFan102 Their as Christian as Muslims.
stinnetbennet 1 month ago
@stinnetbennet Yeah, whatever, moron! Blocked!
PinkPantherFan102 1 month ago
I agree, Bryan. Polygamy is horrible and it's found nowhere in the Bible.
Nope.
Nowhere.
Ever.
kissfan7 5 months ago
Your faith has nothing to do with Orthadox Christian faith either. Something I find funny that the orthadox chruch itself finds that you have more in common with Neo-paganism then a historic chrisitan church.
Shirotora1979 5 months ago
Didn't biblical Kind David and Solomon top the number of wives and concubines
Dosaaful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Didn't biblical Kind David and Solomon top the number of wives and concubines
Dosaaful 5 months ago
Didn't biblical Kind David and Solomon top the number of wives and concubines
Dosaaful 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First Amendment clearly does not apply to Bryan Fischer. Because I say so and the Founding Fathers say so
Dosaaful 5 months ago
First Amendment clearly does not apply to Bryan Fischer. Because I say so and the Founding Fathers say so
Dosaaful 5 months ago
DUDE!!! I'm not a Mormon, and I think you're a loon. FUCK YOU!!!
The 1st Amendment protects EVERY religion.
With fuckwads like you, how is our Republic supposed to succeed?
lafemmefatalle 5 months ago
WHEN is this guy gonna Take his Well Needed and wanted DIRT NAP
rextrek 5 months ago
WHEN is this guy gonna Take his Well Needed and wanted DIRT NAP??
rextrek 5 months ago
Is it just me or did this guy just not make any sense at all? Honestly, I didn't even understand half his points, let alone a quarter, simply because most of it just seemed to be babbling nonsense. The point of the first amendment was to make sure that religion and government could not mix. The point of the first amendment was to protect the exercise of ALL religious practices or people who just didn't have a religious practice.
Roxas103 5 months ago
And THIS is why Mitt Romney has zero chance of winning the general election or GOP nomination. If you don't think and agree 100% with what these insane Christo-fascist, Tea Party psychopaths want, you are no good to them. At all.
mw2000 5 months ago
@mw2000 I like the word Evangel-fascists.
deepashtray 5 months ago
Count the number of times he says "...so, my guess is..."
Hypothesis, speculation, elaboration and distortions follow.
dogstar7 5 months ago
he really has been off his medicines for a while hasn't he.
masticina 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.. he really has been off his medicines for a while hasn't he.
masticina 5 months ago
.. he really has been off his medicines for a while hasn't he.
masticina 5 months ago
Use moderation when using drugs.
esd2000 5 months ago
I'd love to know what Fischer's evidence for, "It was very clear the founding fathers did not intend to approve automatically religious liberty for non-christian faiths."
If it was VERY CLEAR, it would have said exactly that in the 1st amendment, not just religion in general. Similarly, the treaty of Tripoli would have said that the US government WAS founded on the Christian religion.
Unless he wants to claim that those who drew up that particular passage were lying...
firefly4f4 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fundees hate the Constitution because it smacks in the face their perverse misconception that their Middle-eastern religion is superior to others.
Theocracy=Fascism
luisdez81 5 months ago 5
Comment removed
luisdez81 5 months ago
Comment removed
luisdez81 5 months ago
Comment removed
luisdez81 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fischer's brain is clearly damaged.
antitheisthumanist 5 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Fischer's brain is clearly damaged.
antitheisthumanist 5 months ago 2
Fischer's brain is clearly damaged.
antitheisthumanist 5 months ago 12
@antitheisthumanist Fischer's damage is clearly brained.
spiffythealien 4 months ago
Fischer's brain is clearly damaged.
antitheisthumanist 5 months ago 6
Fischer's brain is clearly damaged.
antitheisthumanist 5 months ago 4
You're a Nazi
jmm1233 5 months ago
So, because a certain aspect of Mormonism was illegal, that means their entire religion is outlawed? By that logic Christianity is outlawed because domestic abuse promoted in the Bible is illegal.
You know, I think we should invest in time machines and send people like him to the Spanish Inquisition, or the 1st Crusade. Let him witness for himself what his kind of imperialistic thinking can lead humans to do to each other.
InContemplation 5 months ago
Sorry Bryan but Mormons have the right to believe as much crazy shit as you
Coughlan000 5 months ago 2
@WEWILLSECURE Nobody's asking you to respond. We just want you to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
aestevalis0 5 months ago
Wat the fuck? Just... what the FUCK!!!! This guy gets more and more bat-shit and intolerant the more I see of him.
aestevalis0 5 months ago
this fucktard must keep a lot of bodyguards in business.
JESUStheATHEIST1 5 months ago
Polygamy is accepted in most countries of the world.
The Christian bible is filled with approval of polygamy.
The first amendment is for all people, not just Christians.
This guy is the most foul of them all.
Blairtim69 5 months ago 2
who ever said southern baptists, fundamentalist & born again people are real Christian either, just cause they say they are?
these people broke away from the original Christian church, at the decree of a king & based on his need to divorce, NOT by or from the word of God!
it's just amazing how people like fischer so conveniently forget their own dark, faulty religion's history.
as far as i'm concerned & in fact, fischer & his religion aren't really Christian either, they're ignorant bigots!
wntoply6 5 months ago 2
1st amendment was to protect the free exercise of the ChristiaWHAT THE FUCK!!!
AntiYourFacePhD 5 months ago
@WEWILLSECURE How bout you first pull that dildo out of your ass? You sound like you're in a lot of pain. And for humanism's sake, don't jack off after you posted a message, nobody wants to know.
avdmeers 5 months ago
where are the Mitt Romney ads when you need them?
AVINATION 5 months ago
@AVINATION hahaha my brother i was thinking the same shit
ymkamara420 5 months ago
@AVINATION Why is Mittens friendly with the AFA?
stephenwalls1 5 months ago
Next stop -- man on dog!
RedTory59 5 months ago
Unfortunately his attitude is not at all uncommon among the religious right.
Bookwyrm86 5 months ago
Lamech took unto him two wives....Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives. ....Elkanah ... had two wives...Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.... Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives...Jehoiada took for him two wives....
Ugh. Fuckin read your Bible, retards.
EntinludeX 5 months ago 3
Don't you just love it when the insane accuse the insane of being insane? Christianity is just as nutty...
And btw dipshit, the bible is chock full of polygamy!
vadimcream 5 months ago 10
The founders created a secular nation, not a theocracy. The U.S. Constitution mentions religion only in the negative.
Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Amendment 1*: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion**, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
*Ratified in 1791, 39 years before mormonism was created by Joseph Smith.
**This includes christianity.
YY4Me133 5 months ago 8
@YY4Me133
How are those citations "negative"? They are pretty positive, to me. They mean that no specific religion, or sect,will be the established religion of the state. It allows for the free exercise of all religious beliefs.
Msmith7o8 4 months ago
@Msmith7o8 Negative in the sense that the word "no" is negative: no religious test, no establishment of religion. Fischer said "...the purpose of the first Amendment is to protect the free exercise of the christian religion" (as though there's only one, and he gets to decide which it is). He went on to talk about what happened in "the latter part of the 19th century," as though that has anything to do with the founders. My point was that Amendment 1 protects all religions, and no religion.
YY4Me133 4 months ago
Mr. Fischer should become a candidate for the Republican Party presidential race. He'd be fun in debate, telling Romney, Santorum and Gingrich they aren't true Christians, that Michele Bachmann should get back in the kitchen, that Herman Cain isn't the right color and Ron Paul is too liberal and not enough of a warmonger.
hatmap 5 months ago 5
Bryan Fischer loves teh cock.
smartalex1972 5 months ago
So, Mormons. Those of you who currently support the aims of this radical political movement disguised as a Christian religious movement, take heed. You will be victims of your own foolishness. You will be disenfranchised along with the gays, atheists, liberals, and probably Catholics in the end. Everyone you hate.
Think.
MacNutz2 5 months ago 4
@WEWILLSECURE I pray you meet your despicable maker soon. Fucking bigot.
AmsterdamHeavy 5 months ago
And of course, by extension, to Mulims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and all other non-Christian religions including atheists. I think I see where this is going, we've been there many times before.
colourmegone 5 months ago 4
This guy is totally a closeted homosexual. It's so fucking obvious.
Jeremiahdvorak1 5 months ago 28
Fact: Every single video featuring ideologues like Fischer is in 3D - Dumb, Delusional, and Dangerous.
Bluesman63 5 months ago 5
The constitution does not apply to people I don't like. -Fischer
No, FUCK you!
Furai47 5 months ago 45