Bryan Fischer Award Nominee: Art Fuentes


The Bryan Fischer award is given to those who demonstrate a staggering lack of self-awareness and is utterly oblivious to their own contradictions. This exchange took place on a friend’s Facebook account. I love how he simultaneously claims that Christians don’t want theocracy AND says that atheists should be banned from holding public office.

Comments

  1. matty1 says

    Art appears to have interesting views on the Proper USe of CapitalS as well. This is a common theme with these people Ed posts about and might almost make one wonder if they don’t have quite as much education as their opponents.

  2. ArtK says

    Personally, I love the use of the word “Humble” right before declaring that all 50 states should ban atheists from holding office. If that’s “humility,” save us from arrogance.

    (As another Art, I deplore this idiot’s statements and attitude. I’d love to deny that he’s an “Art,” but all we have is self-identification, so I’m stuck with this bozo.)

  3. jaranath says

    It’s downright Orwellian. He doesn’t just deny that banning nonbelievers from office is theocratic, he actually positively asserts that the reason FOR banning nonbelievers is that they’re not using a “Biblical Perspective”. What the hell does he think “theocracy” means?

  4. ArtK says

    @ jaranth

    All he knows is that “theocracy” is something bad, that will put people off. He doesn’t actually know what it means. He tries to distance himself from the term because he’s not a bad person (humble, too.)

    An alternative explanation is that he has a very narrow definition of “theocracy,” probably limited to having priests/ministers in charge instead of presidents, legislators and judges.

    Or, he’s just an idiot.

  5. im says

    We kind of need a word for this kind of thing, in my opinion.

    The Jews have often been accused, often very ridiculously, of killing Christians and using their blood in some kind of ritual. And so they have the term ‘Blood Libel’ to categorize and attack such travestous accusations.

    We need a … Immorality Libel? Something to describe the cases when Christians claim that Atheists lack morality or meaning in their lives without even asking them. Maybe ‘Nihilism Slander’?

  6. Larry says

    Art is just another ignorant, god-soaked idiot who is simply too stupid to do any investigations on his own about what atheism is. The sum total of his knowledge comes from being told to believe certain things and there is no intellectual curiosity there that could prod him into determining whether or not its true and factual. In fact, if you were to ask him where he acquired this information, I’m confident he’d claim its in his bible which, of course, he has never read.

    Just like every other xtian fundie whack-job.

  7. busterggi says

    Of course believers don’t want a theocracy – their god does & they are just obeying orders, they can’t help themselves.

  8. mucklededun says

    Well aware….[9]that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy…of being called to offices of trust…unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.

    Thos. Jefferson, from The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom

  9. kagekiri says

    @9 Larry:

    Unfortunately, that “atheists are evil” line IS in their scumbag’s handbook….I mean in the Bible.

    Fricking Romans 1 has all of that standard anti-atheist BS: “atheists have no morals”, “atheists are just pretending they’re atheist so they can do what they want”, “atheists just hate God”, “atheists are the source of all evil”, etc. Ah, and it’s also homophobic and claims gays chose to be gay, to boot. That chapter is thick with bigotry and demonizing nonsense.

  10. leni says

    Yeah I get a few winners like this from time to time.

    I had one jackass post a picture (of a news clipping that was presumably a letter to an editor) with a snarky remark on the fact that are signs in national parks saying not to feed animals lest they become lazy and dependent, yet the government gives some people food stamps. Which is ironic only if you think poor people are, um, like wild animals.

    So I pointed out to him that most of the people receiving food aid are children, disabled, or elderly, and advised him to consider that before advocating starving them.

    He responded that he was just pointing out the “ignorance of our government” and that it would be “rediculous” to starve children.

    I wanted to cry, laugh, and slap the jerk all at once.

  11. thalwen says

    You guys just don’t get it. If it is a Muslim wanting to impose evil Sharia law in a private business contract – that’s theocracy. Imposing Christian Biblical law and being magnanimous enough to behead people (I assume stoning is still in) is exactly what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

    Also the idea that one can only be moral because of the threat of eternal torture and not because doing bad stuff is, um.. bad, is quite disturbing. As is the fundies insistence on their righteousness by insisting that they only reason they aren’t raping, looting and pillaging is because the bearded sky fairy tells them not to do it.

  12. thisisaturingtest says

    jaranath, @#6- “What the hell does he think “theocracy” means?”

    It’s only a theocracy when it’s being imposed on them by folks who believe in the wrong (i.e., any other than their) god. Otherwise, since it’s just voluntary acceptance by them of the right (i.e., their) god, it’s not really theocracy. It doesn’t matter what other folks do or don’t believe- their system is a perfectly self-contained and circular one that not only allows, but positively demands, such self-centered justifications. It’s the same reason, BTW, they must insist atheism or secularism are just religions too- that way, they can be framed as impositions on their beliefs, instead of just choices made by other people who aren’t them and, therefore, don’t really count. They’re kind of solipsistic, in their own cute little way.

  13. andrewlephong says

    I’m not a theocrat. I have lots of atheist friends and I even let an atheist use my bathroom once.

  14. kermit. says

    My Mommy and Daddy once had an argument and she went away and Daddy gets mad if I ask about her. He spanks me when I get mad. He has rules that I try to follow. My friend Joey asked me if I understood the rules and I said I didn’t know why he would ask that. They make sense because they’re Daddy’s rules.

    Joey says that since I’m 34 I shouldn’t have to live with my Daddy anymore, but Daddy says he’s going to spank Joey one day and never, ever stop, not even when Joey goes to sleep. Daddy says he won’t spank me as long as I do what he says and tell him how awesome he is. I think maybe Joey should follow my Daddy’s rules. Maybe everybody should. My Daddy can beat up their Daddies.

    I love my Daddy.

    /analogy

Leave a Reply