Dick Cheney’s Belated Push for Equality »« Obama’s War on Pot

Fischer Attacks Jessica Ahlquist

You knew it was only a matter of time before bigoted lunatic Bryan Fischer turned his empty rhetorical guns on Jessica Ahlquist and started calling her names. After all, he thinks this country should be for Christians only and she’s not one of them, so she must be bad.

This little atheist bully, with the help of the grammatically-challenged Freedom From Religion Foundation (the Constitution guarantees freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion), got a prayer banner pulled off the wall of a Rhode Island high school, a banner that had not been bothering anybody since it was first put up in 1963.

On Planet Wingnuttia, up is down, war is peace and victims are bullies. The 16 year old girl who has to go to school with an armed guard, whose family has been bombarded with hatred, bigotry and death threats — she’s the bully. The real bullies are the victims.

This small-minded and vengeful brat has managed to override the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion and free speech just by being noisy and mean. She is the newest religious bigot in America.

Imagine a Muslim prayer on the wall and let’s see if Bryan Fischer defends that as the free exercise of religion and free speech. He’d be demanding the school board’s heads on a platter. There’s not really an inconsistency for Fischer, who believes that freedom of religion and speech is reserved only for Christians, but he should really just admit to being a theocrat and stop pretending that it has anything to do with liberty or equality.

Comments

  1. Taz says

    “…a banner that had not been bothering anybody since it was first put up in 1963.”

    How does he know?

  2. Chiroptera says

    (the Constitution guarantees freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion)

    One thing I’ve learned from internet flame wars:

    A sure sign that someone has no real argument and is desperate is when he focuses on insignificant matters of syntax and grammar.

    And reading the rest of the screed I find out that, sure enough, he simply has no argument.

  3. jeevmon says

    The very idea that people who are different from him are entitled to liberty and equality is so absurd to Fischer that it merits no consideration whatsoever. For him, it’s like claiming that restaurants should be required to serve dogs.

  4. gshelley says

    This little atheist bully, with the help of the grammatically-challenged Freedom From Religion Foundation (the Constitution guarantees freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion)

    I wonder if he is aware that neither phrase appears in the Constitution?

  5. Captaintripps says

    While the actual wording of the Constitution really does matter, you don’t need to be a Silicon Valley entrepreneur to figure out that the Freedom From Religion Foundation fits well-within the spirit of that part of the Constitution. If Fischer started with that as a premise I’m not even interested in reading the actual post.

  6. Larry says

    She is the newest religious bigot in America

    Fischer should be welcoming her to the bigot’s club. Now he has someone to swap war stories with.

  7. ShowMetheData says

    In his world, there is no freedom from religion – ever. No place you can hide, no place you can even think non-religious thoughts.
    In other words – no freedom from his religious tyranny

  8. raven says

    Has Bryan Fischer ever had anything positive to say about anything?

    Far as I can tell, all he does is rant and rave and foam at the mouth. It’s not the sign of a mentally healthy person.

  9. Chiroptera says

    Damn that small minded and vengeful brat! How can we get back at her?

    I know! We’ll deny her basic reproductive health care!

  10. John Hinkle says

    This small-minded and vengeful brat has managed to override the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion and free speech just by being noisy and mean.

    I doubt she’s small-minded, vengeful, noisy, mean, or a brat. Wow, that’s like name calling overload, 5 in one sentence. Infantile much?

    And as ShowMeTheData said, for these people there is no freedom from religion. Try listening to Moody bible radio some time. Any time. It’s god, god, god, 24-7. You can’t dissolve any more god into these people. They’re saturated.

  11. says

    raven “Has Bryan Fischer ever had anything positive to say about anything? Far as I can tell, all he does is rant and rave and foam at the mouth. It’s not the sign of a mentally healthy person.”
    It’s the only way he can achieve orgasm.

  12. says

    Chiroptera,

    syntax and grammar is very important in certain matters of constitutional law. There was this thing about commas (strictly speaking, orthography is not part of grammar, but the commas of course have to do with an ambiguity in the syntactical structure) in the Second Amendment, where the justices chose interpretation many linguists seem to disagree with.

    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005229.html

    That said, it’s established constitutional law that the First Amendment also covers freedom from religion, so willfully ignoring that would indeed be a sign of desperation.

  13. imthegenieicandoanything says

    Raven,

    That is NOT true!

    He never actually achieves these orgasisms you claim, since he (according to those “inside” his cult compound) cannot achieve even the most rubbery physically state.

    The closest such people manage to sex is a vague sense of excitement, which in Bryan’s case is achieved only when he views slow-motion snuff films involving kittens and puppies.

  14. Homo Straminus says

    Re Modus@19:

    Damn you. Damn you to an icky, icky place. You made my brain flash on the image of Bryan Fischer’s O-face.

    “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices synapses suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.”

  15. dingojack says

    pelamun – that’s exactly how I’ve argued the 2nd amendment should be read, as a nominative absolute.
    Being that we need a militia to protect the fledgling United States, then the citizens should be armed‘.
    [But now, since the US spends 43% of the whole world‘s budget on soldiers and their toys, has national guards in every state, enough para-military police to have the highest incarceration rate per capita in the civilised world and a plethora of spooks; such a militia is completely redundant and the citizenry does not need to be armed].
    Dingo

  16. says

    Dingojack, but what about when the citizenry has to rise up against the government, which turned too strong (and also too weak), too much of a bully (and also too cowardly) and too oppressive (and also too free, for the wrong people), and these brave citizens (much like the Founding Fathers) must defeat the very military that’s so overfunded (and also underfunded)?
    If anything the 2nd needs to (nay, must!) be expanded to ensure that pets and inanimate objects also have the right to bear arms!

  17. gshelley says

    I was thinking a little more about this and I’m not entirely sure what they mean by “Freedom from religion”
    I don’t think any atheists ever claim that the constitution guarantees freedom from religion, rather freedom from government endorsement of religion, which would be quite a separate thing.
    It could just be sloppy language, but it could also be trying to imply that people like Jessica want total freedom from religion – ie they don’t want to ever be exposed to religion (which would indeed be contrary to freedom of religion). I have seen people make that argument, so can’t rule it out, silly as it seems

  18. Chiroptera says

    gshelley, #30: …but it could also be trying to imply that people like Jessica want total freedom from religion – ie they don’t want to ever be exposed to religion (which would indeed be contrary to freedom of religion).

    You have to remember, these people not only desire but actually demand that they and their children be shielded from every single idea or belief with which they disagree.

    It’s not hard to see how they would project that onto the secularists.

  19. zmidponk says

    Chiroptera #3:

    One thing I’ve learned from internet flame wars:

    A sure sign that someone has no real argument and is desperate is when he focuses on insignificant matters of syntax and grammar.

    And reading the rest of the screed I find out that, sure enough, he simply has no argument.

    Actually, the fact Fischer’s interpretation of the Constitution means it guarantees ‘freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion’, even if it were correct, has no bearing on the grammatical validity of the phrase ‘freedom from religion’. So even this small point is wrong. What he actually means to say is that the FFRF is misnamed, as the Constitution does not give ‘freedom from religion’, but that view is simply wrong, because otherwise the Constitution would basically be saying, ‘pick any religion you choose, but you’re not allowed to be an atheist or agnostic’.

  20. bobcarroll says

    M.O. @28
    Exactly. Especially in the Spring, it would be a barrel of fun if the 2nd A. were expanded (or expanda’d) to include the right to arm bears…

Leave a Reply