Fischer Demands Discrimination


Bryan Fischer delivered a brief sermon in favor of discrimination, especially against gay people. While praising the Ohio Catholic school that fired a gay teacher, he said discrimination is right and good.

Comments

  1. D. C. Sessions says

    But of course, he’ll still play the “discrimination against Christians!” card at every non-opportunity.

  2. Trebuchet says

    @1: You don’t get it. Not discriminating against gays (and Muslims, of course) IS discrimination against Christians.

  3. raven says

    If Fischer couldn’t hate, would he have anything to say? Or do?

    My main problem with him is not that he is a hater and bigot. It’s that he is getting boring. Hate 24/7/365, like anything else done to the exclusion of everything else, gets boring fast.

  4. Sastra says

    The ironic thing is that Brian Fisher is basically right with his premise: “discrimination” is not automatically wrong and sometime is it only proper and just that we discriminate. We skeptics make this argument all the time when we explain why it’s “fair” for science instructors and classes to throw or keep out pseudoscientists and pseudoscience. We make a just discrimination between good and bad ideas. We make a just discrimination between good and bad morals. We make a distinction.

    But of course like all apologists Fisher equivocates and pulls a bait ‘n switch — using a reasonable point to sneak in an unreasonable one. Being gay is not harmful. It is not aberrant behavior similar to theft. It is NOT moral turpitude. That’s the jist of the problem. The argument isn’t over whether it’s ever okay to make a reasonable discrimination between alternatives. When we call homophobia “discrimination” we mean it’s UNFAIR discrimination. Homosexuality is morally neutral and the teacher’s sexual orientation was irrelevant. We don’t mean that there’s no such thing as right or wrong because we should make no judgements.

    But Fischer plays it that way to make it seem as if the protests are coming from amoral people with no discernment and a pop postmodern perspective that all things are equal. Get them nodding over one point and slide imperceptibly into another. Dishonest.

  5. David C Brayton says

    [Pet Peeve Alert] The word discrimination is a neutral word meaning to divide a group based upon a characteristic. Everyone discriminates every day based on relevant characteristics. For example, employers hire folks only with the appropriate education–those without are discriminated against. It is when discrimination is based on an irrelevant consideration–race, religion, national origin for example–can it bad. And race sometimes is an appropriate consideration. For example, no one would argue that discriminating against a white women for the lead role in a biographical movie about Muhammed Ali is wrong. [Alert off].

  6. khms says

    no one would argue that

    Soebody probably would. Remember, there’s no opinion so stupid that nobody will ever hold it.

    Of course, usually pretty much everyone will laugh at somebody like that. It’s when sufficient numbers of people nod along that it becomes a problem.

  7. dan4 says

    I’m a little confused about the point Fischer is making. Is he saying that employment-based discrimination due to homosexuality is okay on a “job-specific” basis (i.e., a gay teacher being fired from a Catholic school), or is he saying that this rationale for job termination should be acceptable in ANY form of employment? If it’s the former, then that’s (moderately) defensible. If it’s the latter, then he’s basically saying that all homosexuals should be unemployed…which is, of course, not defensible.

  8. lanir says

    @dan4 #9:

    My take on it was he’s arguing the latter while using the former as a straw man and convenient fall-back position. I know we tend to look at these guys as stupid yokels but that is the sort of strategy a lot of them seem to use and for good reason. It’s a more sound strategy than taking either position directly and running with it in that it lets them loop in the most nutters while giving them a more reasonable sounding position to fall back to if too many normal people get the message by mistake.

    Personally I think both arguments are complete BS but that’s just me.

  9. says

    @10:

    I can’t speak for anyone else, Lanir; I think it’s a safe bet that whether most of Ed’s regulars think that Fischer is a lying fuckbag or dumber than a box of dunce caps is not of any consequence. He’s as wrong as anyone can be and how he got to this position is not something I need to know before pointing and laughing.

  10. madgastronomer says

    Weirdly enough, words can have more than one definition, and those definitions change over time! Astounding, right?

    From Merriam-Webster Online:

    Definition of DISCRIMINATION
    1
    a : the act of discriminating
    b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
    2
    : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
    3
    a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
    b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment

    Don’t pretend that discrimination between two things and discrimination against a group of people are not separate — and well attested to — definitions and usages. It’s intellectually dishonest.

Leave a Reply