Romney associates with bigot Fischer

Romney to Share Stage with AFA’s Anti-Indian-Black-Muslim-Gay-Grizzly Bears-Mormons Bryan Fischer

By Gale Courey ToensingOn a recent episode of his television show Focal Point, Fischer said that the First Amendment does not apply to Mormons and that the Church of Latter Day Saints still supports polygamy. But next week, Fischer will be sharing a stage with America’s most famous Mormon, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, TPM reports in a story headlined “Awkward: Mitt Romney Set to Share Stage with Anti-Mormon Shock Jock.” Despite the “inflammatory, hateful and occasionally just plain bizarre remarks” Fischer has made on his show, Republicans vying for the presidency, including Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich all made appearances on Fischer’s show earlier this year, TPM reports.

Romney will be speaking in Washington on October 8 at this year’s Values Voters Summit, a social conservative conference sponsored by the AFA and other far rightwing organizations, including, FRC Action, American Values, the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Liberty University and the Liberty Council. Fischer will follow him.For more on Bryan Fischer, see 1st Amendment Protects Only Christianity?! and Critics Slam Fischer's "Christianity."

Stossel: Indians are biggest moochers

Stossel:  No Group Has Had More Gov't Help Than American Indians

By Eric LachQuick, which group has the U.S. government helped out the most? Wall Street, maybe? Or the unemployed? Oh, how about all those defense contractors? Wrong, says Fox News contributor John Stossel. As far as Stossel is concerned, it's Native Americans.

Stossel was on Fox & Friends this morning to discuss some high-paying government jobs recently reported in The Daily Caller. The report found that the "Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs needs someone to run the Facebook page for the Dept. of the Interior and they'll pay up to $115,000 a year." Stossel took that as an opportunity to wonder about the entire concept of a Bureau of Indian Affairs.

"Why is there a Bureau of Indian Affairs?" he said. "There is no Bureau of Puerto Rican Affairs or Black Affairs or Irish Affairs. And no group in America has been more helped by the government than the American Indians, because we have the treaties, we stole their land. But 200 years later, no group does worse."

Established in 1824, Indian Affairs is the oldest bureau of the United States Department of the Interior. Among other responsibilities, the Bureau is charged with "maintaining the federal government-to-government relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes," according to its website.John Stossel:  No Group’s Been Helped More By Gov’t Than American Indians

By Shani O. HiltonStossel was attempting to make a small-government argument that federal intervention has actually hurt Native Americans, but instead, he displayed stunning ignorance of history and, well, the Constitution. The BIA exists as a liaison between the U.S. government and the 565 tribes who reside on sovereign land located within the U.S. That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the Bureau and its interactions with its constituents, but boiling the challenges Native Americans face down to a complaint about the existence of the BIA is pretty absurd.Comment:  Stossel didn't use the word "moochers," but that's what he meant. He wasn't saying Indians have received more help and that's as it should be, since they gave up their priceless land for perpetual treaty benefits. He was implying that Indians are getting race-based handouts they don't deserve. In other words, that they're worse welfare moochers than their fellow black and Latino moochers.



Stossel follows Rand's lead

Stossel's comments are part of the conservative drive to eliminate the funding for Indians. Or should I say eliminate Indians, period? The most infamous proponent of elimination is libertarian Rand Paul:

Sen. Rand Paul Set to Ignore Treaty Obligations to Indians

By Rob CapricciosoWatch out, Indian programs and all those who depend on them. The toast of the Tea Party, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, so desperately wants to cut the federal budget that he’s ready to stomp all over federal trust responsibility and treaty obligations to Indians—even obliterate them, if he must. The good news: The United States won’t be quite so broke. The bad news: The United States will have broken the law in order to balance its books on the backs of Indians.

Think that’s a melodramatic bit of hyperbole? Check out the proposal introduced in Congress Jan. 25 by the newly elected senator. It calls for the elimination of funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of the Interior agency that oversees a variety of Indian programs. That’s not all. The senator, who is a medical doctor (an eye surgeon, although seemingly myopic), also proposes trimming almost half of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Indian Health Service (IHS) budget this year. Republicans and Democrats don’t tend to agree on much, but one thing they have agreed on over the years is that IHS has been dramatically underfunded. Like them or not, the BIA and IHS are the main agencies of the federal government that have worked with and for Indians, carrying out federal trust responsibility and treaty obligations called for in the U.S. Constitution.

Native Americans will rue Paul's proposals, should the be enacted.
“What Sen. Paul is proposing would mean the end of the policy of self-determination and self-governance, among other things,” said Eric Eberhard, a law professor with the Center for Indian Law and Policy at Seattle University School of Law.

“Ironically, even as we see a resurgence of interest and veneration for the U.S. Constitution, there appears to be a blind spot when it comes to the obligations owed Native American Indians in federal treaties solemnly negotiated and ratified as the ‘supreme law of the land,’ ” added Philip Baker-Shenk, a partner in the Holland & Knight firm’s Indian law practice group. “No honest fan of the Constitution can deny that the founders were referring to treaties with the Indians when they wrote the Constitution.”Let's summarize the Rand/Stossel agenda: Eliminate the US treaty obligation to tribes. Eliminate the tribes' sovereignty over their reservations. Heck, eliminate the reservations, period, so we can gobble up their land.

While we're at it, eliminate the tribes' cultures and religions. Let them assimilate into the mainstream like other minorities have done. Let them become good Christian Americans like John Stossel, Bryan Fischer, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other white supremacists in disguise.

That's the Republican Tea Party agenda for Indians in a nutshell. To reiterate what I've said before, it's to demonize Indians and other minorities as evil and un-American. To justify taking their land, resources, and money and redistribute it to society's upper crust. To enrich America's white power elite at the expense of everyone else.

No wonder Indians often say the genocide against them has never ended. Judging by the anti-Indian rhetoric of Rand, Stossel, and Fischer, it hasn't.

For more on Indians as welfare recipients, see:

Conservatives hate Wikileaks and Indians
Stereotypes drive racism in South Dakota
Mines minister blames the victim
Didier:  Stop "protecting the weak"
Guilt-ridden liberals give Indians gaming?
Why Americans hate welfare
Banker:  Young Indians receive $50K

1st Amendment protects only Christianity?!

Bryan Fischer:  Muslims Have No First Amendment Rights

By Jillian RayfieldBryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the social conservative group the American Family Association, says that when it comes to Islam, the First Amendment is a privilege, not a right. "Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam," Fischer wrote today.

"The First Amendment was written by the Founders to protect the free exercise of Christianity. They were making no effort to give special protections to Islam. Quite the contrary," Fischer wrote on his Renew America blog.

He continued:
Islam has no fundamental First Amendment claims, for the simple reason that it was not written to protect the religion of Islam. Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy. While there certainly ought to be a presumption of religious liberty for non-Christian religious traditions in America, the Founders were not writing a suicide pact when they wrote the First Amendment.Fischer took it a step further, calling Islam a "treasonous ideology" and adding that "from a constitutional point of view, Muslims have no First Amendment right to build mosques in America. They have that privilege at the moment, but it is a privilege that can be revoked."Comment:  A "suicide pact"? That would be relevant only if most of the world's Muslims were terrorists. Since that's obviously false--to everyone except bigots like Fischer--his assertion is ridiculous.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the existence of Judaism, Islam, and other non-Christian religions. They explicitly wrote "religion" rather than "Christianity" in the First Amendment. Yet Fischer thinks they crafted it to protect only Christianity? How goddamned stupid can you get?!

Needless to say, the government could ban Native religions as well as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other major religions under Fischer's asinine constitutional interpretation. Which he'd undoubtedly approve of. As we've seen in Fischer:  Indians Were Thieves, Fischer:  Indians Should Emulate Pocahontas, and Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals, this guy scorns Indians with a passion.

Bigot of the Year?

Fischer must be the biggest bigot among mainstream public figures today. If he isn't, I don't know who is.

It's scary that someone so ignorant and prejudiced has the ear of millions of conservative Christians. As the posting goes on to note:[H]is show is a frequent stomping ground for conservative politicians, including potential 2012 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and actual 2012 candidate Tim Pawlenty.Why aren't these candidates distancing themselves from Fischer the way they do from David Duke, Bob Jones University, and other purveyors of prejudice? Are they bigots too? I'd love to hear their excuses for palling around with Fischer the Islamophobic and homophobic hatemonger.

For more on Fischer's bigotry, see Obama Will Give US to Indians?! and Islamophobia Just Like Stephen's.

Summing up Fischer's bigotry

Indian Comics Irregular #202:  Fischer's Pro-Genocide Column

10% of Indians = Christians

Some postings show how badly conservative Christian Bryan Fischer has distorted the truth about Indians.

Native American archbishop a source of pride

By John LambArchbishop Charles Chaput’s talk at Sts. Anne and Joachim on Friday not only allowed local Catholics to hear him speak on “Building a Culture on Life,” it also gave American Indian faithful from the region a chance to see the first Native American archbishop.

For David “Doc” Brien, from the Turtle Mountain Reservation, it was worth the four-plus-hour drive.

“I consider him one of our great chiefs of the native community, a spiritual leader from the native perspective,” Brien said. “It’s like one of your family members in a way.”

Though Turtle Mountain is a Chippewa tribe and Chaput is a member of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Tribe, Brien sees the priest as figure for all American Indians.And:According to Brien, there are about 3,000 Catholics on the Turtle Mountain Reservation spread among five parishes. He said there are another 300 or so Catholics on the Spirit Lake Reservation.

He believes having such a high-ranking American Indian in the Catholic Church attracts other American Indians to the faith.American Indians to host The Gathering in Oklahoma City

American Indian Southern Baptist leaders will meet for The Gathering to consider ways to help American Indians connect to the Gospel.

By Carla HintonFalls said between 90 and 95 percent of American Indians are not Christians, and yet the Christian faith community has been working to connect them to Christ for many years.

Falls said one reason that more American Indians don't turn to Christianity is the Christian faith community's troubled history with American Indian tribes. He said past encounters between Christian missionaries and American Indians have left a legacy of suspicion in the American Indian community.

"The same Christians who brought us Christianity are the same people who took our land and tried to take away our culture, so it's understandable," Falls said. "I'm presenting it not as an accusation, but it is a barrier."

He said he grew up in a Christian household because his father converted to Christianity. However, Falls said he encountered the doubt and suspicion of Christianity when he met other American Indians while attending the University of Central Oklahoma.

He said some American Indians he encountered considered Christianity to be a "white man's religion."Comment:  According to Falls, at least 5-10% of Indians are Christians. I think the percent is higher. For instance, Turtle Mountain has about 30,000 enrolled members with 10,000 living on the reservation. 3,000 Catholics is 10% of the former number and 30% of the latter. Including Protestants would make the percent even higher.

Moreover, many Indians blend Christianity with their Native religions. Do Christian churches count them all as Christians? Probably not, but they should count for the sake of this argument.

Fischer has implied Indians are avoiding Christianity because they're too dumb and blind to see its benefits. But a sizable minority of them are Christians. So the thing Fischer can't imagine happening has already happened.

Rather than fantasizing the value of Christianity, why doesn't Fischer do the research? Compare the health and wealth of Christian Indians to non-Christians after controlling for things like gaming revenues, access to jobs and healthcare, and so forth. Fischer believes the Christian Indians will be better off; I'm guessing there'll be no difference.

Christians violate 10 Commandments

Unlike Fischer, Falls understands what the problem is. So does everyone who's ever talked to or read about Indians, including schoolchildren. It's not that Indians are too cowardly or superstitious to embrace the "light." It's that they hate Christians for their long history of lies and hypocrisy. For stealing their land and killing them in violation of Jesus's commandments.

How stupid do you have to be not to understand this? The first colonizers brought diseases with them, squatted illegally on Indian land, enslaved some of the Indians they found, and forcibly tried to convert others to Christianity. Fischer wouldn't accept that and neither would any other Euro-American. Why does the idiot think Indians should've accepted it?

For more on the subject, see Fischer:  Indians Were Thieves and Fischer:  Indians Should Emulate Pocahontas.

Below:  "I pray that God will dispose of the Indians in our way," said the good Christian Pilgrim to himself. "If not, we'll have to dispose of them ourselves in about 15 years."

Critics slam Fischer's "Christianity"

Some general reactions to Fischer's latest anti-Indian column (Fischer:  Indians Were Thieves and Fischer:  Indians Should Emulate Pocahontas):Bryan Fischer, Why don't you read John 3:16. As a Native American Christian woman, I will pray for you because God loves you. You have an evil heart and you need to repent. Only the true God will heal your mind and cleanse you of the evil spirits in your soul. With your words, you have committed blasphemy against a loving God. Eternal hell awaits you if you don't turn away from your evil thoughts and words.

Well if this Jesus would come back...He would really have a show down with many of his so called followers...especially You Bryan Fischer! "Love thy neighbor...because you live on their land!"

As a committed Christian, many of the response of "Christians" to this horrendous piece disturb me as much as the article. Nationalism, ethnocentrism and conversion-by-sword are not the values of the Gospel. If you perceive that it is, I would question your understanding of the teachings of Christ, and unfortunately such a discussion would be too long to get into here.

Once again, a so-called Christian unforgivably excuses genocide. "If only the Indians recognized they were inferior then we wouldn't have had to exterminate them and take their land by force." You might call yourself a Christian, but you are anything but. Like the Bible says, "They will know we are Christians by our genocidal hatred."

It seems to me you pulled your last anti-First Nations post because of overwhelming negative response, hopefully that will be repeated.

So all would be good in the world if only everyone were just like Bryan? Get over yourself.

I think Fischer is a loon but good for him for stating his beliefs. I'd rather see blind hatred in all its naked splendor than see it white-washed and hidden under the veil of politics. ... At least with people like Fischer, you don't have to decode their statements to find the true motivation. It's all right there.

Mr. Fischer, are you ill? It's bigoted commentary like this that seems extraordinarily out of place for an author or your erudition to be writing in 2011.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Critics Slam Fischer's Racism and Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals.

Fischer: Indians were thieves

Bryan Fischer, the conservative Christian who favors genocide for people who don't convert to his religion, is back. You can read his latest screed here:

Byran Fischer:  Pocahontas shows what could have been

Since he proved himself woefully ignorant of Indians, Fischer didn't try to assay their history again. This time he uses the story of Pocahontas to make his anti-Indian case.

At least he seems to have read a book on Native history. And cribbed from it. Before he made up his conclusion, that is. That's better than his previous essays, which were fact-free.

This column is mostly a straight narrative of Pocahontas's life. Only a couple sections are really objectionable. After supposedly saving John Smith, Fischer writes:She subsequently was captured by English settlers, who intended to exchange her for English prisoners who had been taken into captivity by the Algonquins, or Powhatans, who also helped themselves to various weapons and tools. The Powhatans, along with many of the indigenous peoples, seemed to have little respect for private property, including boundaries, and little regard for obedience to the eighth commandment and its prohibition against stealing. (On the Oregon Trail, the primary problems travelers suffered from the indigenous peoples were not massacres but thievery.)Why would Indians obey God's eighth commandment when they never heard of or read the Bible and didn't recognize its authority? The very idea is ridiculous. It's comments like this that make you wonder just how stupid Fischer really is.

Indians were mostly known for their honesty--at least among observers who weren't stereotyping them as savages. I don't know if we could make any generalizations about thievery. Tribes may have stolen things (women, children, horses, etc.) from enemy tribes. Or from strangers like white men who had no business trespassing on their land. But I doubt there was much stealing within tribes. I suspect most tribes punished anyone who violated the community's unwritten rules.

Critics slam Fischer again

The commenters on this column offered some obvious rebuttals:What happened to "love thy neighbor?" Does that include kidnapping? Does it include invading and stealing from those who feed you and teach you how to survive? How are those behaviors in line with the teachings of Christ? Christ gave and gave and gave and early European immigrants took, took, took. Please do read your Bible again and ask yourself if what happened in America is really what Jesus would have done?

So let's get this correct--8th commandment--do not steal--people come onto your land tell you it is now theirs and kill you if you resist or don't adopt their culture. How does that not violate number 8? So if a nation invades us and we don't assimilate into their culture we are wrong. What a twisted world the blog writer lives in--We took everything from a people who lived here. It happens all the time worldwide but to whitewash it as the Indians' fault is egregious in its arrogance.

I think you are getting a lot of your American nationalism from extrabiblical sources. I also think that you are not presenting the full picture of history in this blog. You neglect to mention anti-Christian behavior that the colonists displayed toward each other and the Indians. Part of the missionary's responsibility is to present the gospel without imposing his own culture on his target population. By not taking the effort to do this, you marry extrabiblical principles into the Gospel.

All the Europeans who came here stole the land from the many people who lived here. These were sovereign nations that were overthrown in the name of your make-believe god. I see you are unwilling to separate yourself from this sordid history.

Umm, excuse me? Who had little respect for boundaries and personal property?

Was this from the Onion, really? This satire is along the thinking of "If only the Jews would just leave or commit suicide, the holocaust wouldn't have been necessary." This article is absurd. The British were of course invaders and killers.

So, Rebecca's tribe didn't follow the 8th commandment. Since the English took their traditional lands, I guess they overlooked it too. And your jump forward in time to the Oregon trail--pretty much the same deal. We came and took their land. Why the hatred of Native Americans? Did you always have to play the "Indian" and never got to be the "cowboy"?Some have argued that Christians have killed more people than anyone else in history. One also could argue that they've stolen more than anyone else in history. For 1,800 years or so, the leaders of Christianity--popes, cardinals, bishops, kings, lords, dukes, et al.--systematically usurped the land and wealth of their fellow Christians.

Christians are about the last people who should be lecturing others on the Ten Commandments. Their history is one long litany of murder, warfare, conquest, subjugation, oppression, and enslavement. I wouldn't put that on my résumé if I were you, Fischer.

For more on Fischer's hateful hypocrisy, see Fischer Worships "God" of Racism and Hatewatch Criticizes Fischer's Column.

Below:  The first and last Christian who didn't lie, cheat, or steal.

Fischer: Indians should emulate Pocahontas

Pro-genocide Christian Bryan Fischer is trying once again to save Indians' souls. In part one, I considered his claim that Indians were thieves. Now let's get to his main assertion:

Byran Fischer:  Pocahontas shows what could have been

After noting Pocahontas's conversion to Christianity, marriage to John Rolfe, and trip to England, Fischer writes:It’s arresting to think of how different the history of the American settlement and expansion could have been if the other indigenous peoples had followed Pocahontas’s example. She not only recognized the superiority of the God whom the colonists worshipped over the gods of her native people, she recognized the superiority (not the perfection) of their culture and adopted its patterns and language as her own.

In other words, she both converted and assimilated. She became both a Christian and an American (technically, of course, an Englishman). She melded into European and Christian civilization and made her identity as a Christian and an Englishman her primary identity. She was the first manifestation of what became our national slogan, “E Pluribus Unum,” “Out of many, one.”Actually, Pocahontas would've considered herself an Englishwoman, not an Englishman--you sexist pig.

At least Fischer finally acknowledges that Indians can become Christians. In his first column, he suggested the two groups were incompatible and alien to each other. Glad to see you alleviated your ignorance, Fischer.

We know Pocahontas's story only from the British viewpoint. We have no real idea what she thought or felt. Maybe she was too young and naive to realize what she was doing. Maybe she converted and got married only to keep the peace between the Indians and British. Maybe she did it to spite the Indians who considered her a troublemaker or a sellout. Maybe she pretended to accept Christianity because she loved John Rolfe and he insisted on it. Maybe she was a golddigger who married Rolfe only for his money and status. Maybe she considered herself an Indian first and a Christian second.

And maybe the British didn't care about her conversion. Maybe they paraded her around England as a showpiece, a performing pet, to prove they were getting along with the Indians. That way, their royal and commercial backers would support more expeditions to America.

Really, you have to be naive to think anyone had pure motives in this story. Since Fischer believes the Bible's fairy tales, he may be that gullible. The rest of us aren't.

Christian Indians were massacred

Even if Pocahontas's motives were pure and the results were ideal, a single case tells us nothing. Now that Fischer has recognized that Indians can become Christians, how about surveying the long history of Christian Indians? That would be much more revealing than this questionable anecdote.

An early example of Indians converting to Christianity was the "Praying Indians" of New England. To find out what happened to them, see Pilgrims Initiated Genocide, Praying Towns in After the Mayflower, and King Philip's War in After the Mayflower. Three words should suffice: Deer Island Massacre.

Nipmucs add history to memorial to Deer Island internmentAlthough the "Praying Indians" had converted to Christianity, colonists feared they couldn't be trusted during the war between the white settlers and local Native American tribes.

"They were taken away in chains," said Mary Anne Hendricks, a Natick Nipmuc who lives in Quincy.

"They were loaded in horse-drawn carts and taken to Watertown," Ellis said. "From there, they were put in canoes" and taken to three ships in Boston Harbor that ferried the Natick Nipmucs to their internment on Deer Island.

"When the forced removals were complete, there were about 500 people out there," Ellis said. "Less than half survived. They were put out there to die.Finally, Fischer dishonestly omits the fact that Pocahontas died in England. So much for the joys of assimilation. Join the white man's world, and die.

Critics keep slamming Fischer

Once again, let's let the column's commenters tackle Fischer:It seems that Mr. Fischer has an immature understanding of theology. The gospel message is not about cultural assimilation. Read the Word of God in the King James translation: "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." The Bible does not say that one people group is inherently superior to another. In the presence of God ALL are equally sinful. Which is more authoritative? The Word of God or the words of Bryan Fischer?

Assimilation works when you move to a different geographical area and adjust to their local customs. It doesn't work when other people come into your geographical area and force YOU to adjust to THEIR customs.

The Cherokee assimilated and converted to Christianity. How do you explain their tragic fate? Or will you even publish this comment since it contradicts what you've said?

Really. You wonder why Native American's did not agree to this "Assimilation" call it what it was. The colonist conquered the nation and ousted the Native American people. They took what was NOT there's and you make it sound so enticing. History is just text told by those that tell it. Nothing more.Cherokees were condemned too

Dr. Warren Throckmorton tells us more about what happened to Christian Indians, including the Cherokees mentioned above:

Bryan Fischer speaks with forked tongueFor instance, Delaware people converted through Zeisberger's work had to relocate multiple times at the insistence of European settlers. During one move in Ohio, savagery was the downfall of a portion of Zeisberger's colony, but the perpetrators of the atrocities were Americans who brutally murdered native men, women and children. After this tragedy, Zeisberger's group found refuge in Ontario and thrived as a Christian settlement.

Fischer's thesis is most clearly devastated by the experience of the Cherokees in the south after the Revolutionary War. The Cherokees signed a treaty with the federal government in 1794 and then settled into a peaceful period where they built roads and villages. They welcomed Christian missionaries which led to many converts among the Cherokee in Northern Georgia and Tennessee. In his book on American Christianity, Noll describes "a slow but steady acceptance of the Christian faith." Noll continues the sad tale (in italics):

During the administration of President Andrew Jackson, however, the evangelism of the missionaries and the work of selective cultural adaptation by the Cherokees both received a fatal blow. After the discovery of gold in Northern Georgia about the time of Jackson's election in 1828, the lust of the White settlers for Cherokee land grew even stronger than before. Jackson and his agents for Indian affairs were eager to give it to them. The result was a forced removal of the Cherokees from Georgia to the West. Despite the fact that the Cherokees had adapted to American ways with remarkable skill, the removal proceeded with ruthless finality. The missionaries, who had come to the Native Americans as bearers of civilization as well as of Christianity, faced a terrible dilemma. They now were forced to watch their country, supposedly the embodiment of Christian civilization, turn violently against a people that had responded to their message.

The United States, bearing the gifts of Christian faith and republican politics, destroyed a tribal people that was working to accept those gifts. Some missionary spokesmen, unlike Worcester, Butler, and the Joneses, played a signal part in that destruction. Such spokesmen were good culture Christians. The agents of Andrew Jackson's Indian policy were democrats. Together they did the devil's work in the name of the Lord and of his "chosen country."

Noll's description is haunting. He repeatedly demonstrates that the Cherokee and other native peoples followed the way of Pocahontas but they were not rewarded with Fischer's "seamless and bloodless" assimilation. Instead, men, women and children were uprooted and brutally forced to march hundreds of miles, many to their deaths, because they were Native Americans. At the time, some Christians, seeing the evil, engaged in civil disobedience to try to prevent the forced relocation. In the present, why can't the American Family Association stop revising history and acknowledge this sad and painful chapter in our history?Another good example of what Christianity did to Indians was the whole boarding-school experience. Kidnapping, forced conversions, physical and mental abuse--i.e., treatment so horrible it caused generations of pain and trauma. Yay, Christians...way to emulate Jesus, who also tortured people into accepting his faith.

Summing up Fischer's message to Indians:

"We gave you 500 years to convert and you haven't done it yet. Why not?! The Great White Father (God, the US government, Bryan Fischer) thinks you're spoiled, rotten children (unlike that good girl Pocahontas). And after all the civilization we gave you, too. Repent, sinners, lest ye be damned!"

For more on Fischer's hateful hypocrisy, see Fischer Defends Pro-Genocide Column and Fischer's Passion for Killing.

Below:  "I died at 22, but at least I died a Christian!"

Fischer worships "God" of racism

Radio Evangelist Preaches An Ugly Message

By Steven NewcombFischer’s argument of “moral disqualification” for American Indians is informed by the Old Testament story of the Chosen People and the Promised Land. In the story, “God” is depicted as being on the side of the Hebrews (and, in Fischer’s view, of the Christians) because “Yaweh” is said to have entered into a covenant with Abram, who was renamed Abraham, “a father of many nations.”

Unfortunately for Fischer, people throughout the world have achieved enough distance from that ancient narrative to realize that he and his allies are operating under a form of outmoded idolatry: He worships the idol of the false “God” of racism and race-purity that authorizes the annihilation of entire peoples because those “others” don’t measure up to the norms and standards of the Old Testament Hebrews and their supposed “Christian” successors. To justify the invasion of other peoples all kinds of false charges are made in an effort to demonize them.

In the background story for Mr. Fischer’s narrative, the deity of the Old Testament is depicted as “promising” the lands of other peoples to the Hebrews “as an everlasting possession” and “inheritance.” This is why those other peoples had to be dehumanized and demonized. That deity instructed the Hebrews to go to cities of the Canaanites, Amorites, and other peoples and engage in genocide against them. Why? Those other peoples were already living in the land before the deity had “promised” it to the Hebrews. The pattern is fully revealed in Deuteronomy 20: 10-18:

But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.Comment:  I said similar things about America's cultural mindset in my posting titled Victor or Victim:  Our New National Anthem?

For more on Fischer's column, see Hatewatch Criticizes Fischer's Column and Fischer Defends Pro-Genocide Column. For similar views, see Beck:  God Ordered Indians Killed.

Hatewatch criticizes Fischer's column

American Family Association Official Has New Target: Native Americans

By Evelyn SchlatterPicking and choosing his history, Fischer essentially blamed violence between Indians and whites on Indians, who rather than embracing Christianity, murdered missionaries in cold blood, and rejected George Washington’s “direct counsel” to give up their own ways of life and learn, above all, “the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Regarding what he described as the “sexual immorality” of American natives, Fischer noted that certain tribesmen honored the arrival of the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 19th Century by offering their wives to expedition members for sex. Fischer didn’t explain why such a practice should justify the tribes forfeiting claim to the land–but not so for the white men who took advantage of it.

Fischer said Americans today are as guilty of abominations as were the Native Americans before they were conquered, citing contemporary abortion, adultery, homosexuality and the normalization of sexual immorality. Furthermore, he claimed, we are witnessing “a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.” He offered no evidence at all to back up this unusual claim. Fischer also warned that we would soon morally disqualify ourselves from sovereign control of our own land.

Philip J. Deloria, professor of history and noted scholar of Native American history and culture at the University of Michigan, said in an E-mail to Hatewatch that “history … starts with the assumptions of historical people … and then examines how their actions comport with their morality.” A historian, he noted, would not take one moral standard and apply it across time and space, but a fundamentalist “can’t really think in those terms … which means that he or she should probably stay away from history.”Comment:  For more on the subject, see Fischer Defends Pro-Genocide Column and Fischer's Passion for Killing.

Below:  God punishes Indians for not adopting Christianity. Bad Indians!

Fischer defends pro-genocide column

In a second column, bigot Bryan Fischer explains why he pulled his first column castigating Indians as animals who deserved killing. According to him, it wasn't because he's a liar and a hypocrite who turned tail and ran when caught making morally reprehensible claims.

Once again, you can read the whole column at the link below.

It appears Fischer has blocked comments this time. Not because he's a cowardly piece of dung who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, but for another reason, presumably. That may be enough to keep Fischer from showing his yellow belly squealing like a stuck pig removing his column again.

Column pulled--here is why

By Bryan FischerOn Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.Again, "we took it down" is conservative coward-speak for "we turned tail and ran when caught making morally reprehensible claims."

It's funny that Fischer predicted a "nuclear firestorm" of responses. When that predictable outcome came to pass, he complained about it as if he hadn't predicted it. Here you can see his rank hypocrisy in action. "I'm going to poke people in the eye by making racist comments about Indians," he seems to be saying, "but it's their fault if they react to the eye poking."

I read the comments before Fischer and the AFA removed the column. They weren't profane--unless you think calling someone an idiot, a liar, and a racist is profane. Since these labels are demonstrably accurate, I don't think "profane" applies.

As for the AFA, it hosts the blog and is responsible for its content being there. If it lets a racist "analyst" blog and he blogs about his racist views, it's AFA's fault.

We already know that Fischer and the AFA are homophobes. I can see how revealing that they're also racists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists would interfere with their mission. Hint: If you're a bigot, it's best to keep your real views under wraps.

If the AFA doesn't like this characterization, too bad. If it disagrees with Fischer's racist views, it can denounce him or fire him. Silence equals agreement.

Fischer wants rational discussion?But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held.Someone else apparently will have to hold this "rational" discussion. Fischer hasn't done it in his previous column or this one.

Indeed, with his references to God and the Bible, he doesn't seem to know what rationality is. Religion is irrational by definition, and so is using it as the basis of one's argument.The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence.Yes...so? Is Fischer actually going to dispute these claims with something resembling facts and evidence? Or is he going to keep spinning his anti-Indian, pro-genocide column?So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations and history.Here we go. We've gone from "international legal scholars" to "nature's God." So much for rationality.

What Fischer apparently means is he's abandoning his previous claims about the legality of conquest because critics whipped his butt on that point. Instead, he's going to retreat to fanciful, made-up arguments about what God intended. Or as a Facebook friend put it:Oh, dear...further schmuckery from Mr. Fischer. I'm sorry sir, but: You need to decide--*either* you want a rational debate of what you wrote, *or* you want a "debate" based on "God's law." One or the other. You pick.What to expect from Fischer

My prediction:

In his next column, Fischer will switch from his "Indians were depraved/Europeans had the right to conquer" to a more standard historical argument. You know, land was practically empty, disease killed the few occupants, Europeans came seeking freedom, inevitable friction, both sides fought, the strong defeated the weak.

The last is what he'll call a law of nature. Lions eat lambs...nothing we can do about it. If he were "clever," he might even cast it in evolutionary terms. I.e., the civilization with better "genes" (religion, culture, technology) won. (Wrong again: See The Myth of Western Superiority for more on the subject.)

And because God supposedly invented nature, he'll claim this is God's will. God wanted (white) men to go forth and multiply. If they kill a few animals or Indians along the way, it's unfortunate, but it can't be helped. The Bible is God's user manual for how to conduct human history.

Indians and Indian buffs like me have heard these arguments thousands of times. No one has ever come up with a valid justification for the European genocide of the American Indian. Will Fischer come up with a "rational"--i.e., irrational--argument we haven't heard before? Don't bet on it.

Here's a couple of clues for Fischer and other defenders of genocide:

1) Columbus and his men began the genocide by enslaving or killing the first Indians they met. That was long before plagues wiped out whole tribes, so you can't blame disease for what happened. The Europeans intended to do evil and diseases merely facilitated their un-Christian aims.

2) Bartolomé de las Casas and others denounced the Spanish depredations while they were happening, so this isn't some case of modern hindsight or moral relativism. If you think you understand the situation better than the eyewitnesses did, explain how and why. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.

Anyone who doesn't address these questions while defending the genocide of Indians is, again, a coward. I'm guessing Fischer is too ignorant to ask these questions, much less answer them. Look for his next column to be as stupid as his last one.

Someone can't handle truth...guess who?So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is..."Robust" is funny coming from the crybaby who complained that the responses were too "intense." What he apparently means is that he wants to present his racist views robustly but he doesn't want anyone to challenge them.

"America is not mature enough"...or perhaps he's tacitly admitting he's a liar, a coward, and an ignoramus. Perhaps he'll drop the subject and crawl back under the rock he came from. You know, because he got his butt kicked from here to Sunday and he's afraid of its happening again. We can only hope.

Looking at Fischer's picture, he appears to be about 70. Maybe we can have a rational discussion about the Euro-American history of genocide in 15 or 20 years. Perhaps not coincidentally, Fischer should be gone and forgotten by then.

For more on the subject, see Fischer's Passion for Killing and Critics Slam Fischer's Racism.

Below:  "We didn't mean to shoot these savages dead. God pulled the triggers, not us!"

Fischer's passion for killing

Here's some background on Bryan Fischer, the neo-Nazi pundit for the American Family Association:

A Christian Warmonger on Steroids

By Laurence M. VanceFischer maintains that "we have feminized the Medal of Honor." This is a "disturbing trend" that he has noticed, but "which few others seem to have recognized." He laments that "every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life." He is upset that "not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy." Fischer wants U.S. soldiers to do one thing--kill:

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery.

We rightly honor those who give up their lives to save their comrades. It’s about time we started also honoring those who kill bad guys.
The reaction to Fischer’s column was fierce. The comments posted were overwhelmingly negative.Fischer wrote a second column defending the first column. Vance continues:I guess Fischer’s ideal candidate for the Medal of Honor would be Lt. William Calley or a worker on the Manhattan Project.

After trying to justify his unholy desire with Scripture, which arguments I will examine in due course, Fischer closes his second column thusly:

War is certainly a terrible thing, and should only be waged for the highest and most just of causes. But if the cause is just, then there is great honor in achieving military success, success which should be celebrated and rewarded.

The bottom line here is that the God of the Bible clearly honors those who show valor and gallantry in waging aggressive war in a just cause against the enemies of freedom, even while inflicting massive casualties in the process. What I’m saying is that it’s time we started imitating God’s example again.
There are two issues here that need to be addressed. One, Fischer’s support for U.S. soldiers killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And two, Fischer’s attempt to justify, with Scripture, his passion for killing.Comment:  Fischer's ideal candidate for the medal probably would be Custer (Washita massacre) or Chivington (Sand Creek massacre). I'm sure he'd agree that our Indian wars were as "just" as any other American war.

This article obviously sheds light on Fischer's column arguing for the slaughter of savage Indians. Summing up his position, if white Christian Americans kill people, it's good by definition.

For more on the subject, see Critics Slam Fischer's Racism and Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals.

Below:  Dead Iraqi child or future terrorist? Does it matter? Either way, Fischer cheers for the Americans who killed him.

Critics slam Fischer's racism

Hundreds of people have already posted comments on Bryan Fischer's racist screed against Indians. Here are some of the best ones:I've followed the AFA and its bizarre diatribes for quite a long time...this one takes the cake. Shame on you. By your logic, you just ceded your home.

Genesis 18:26-33 Someone did not do there homework on the native American tribes, for one most tribes had law in place AGAINST adultery not to mention not all Native American tribes were nomadic, also isn't god the only one who is supposed to judge humanity and races. This argument is so full of holes on your part if I were you I would try to delete this off the Internet before someone decides to point out just how full of holes this is.

You and your article are further proof that the "Christian Right" is neither Christian, nor right.

What self serving dribble. What makes Christianity "the" religion? Compared to American Indian spirituality, which dates back tens of thousands of years, Christianity is a cult. This is what the American Family Association supports. As an American Indian person this scares the hell out of me. How soon will the crusades start AGAIN and the genocide begin?

Jesus read this. "And he wept."

Wow. This is a joke, right? This guys is a total idiot!! He knows absolutely nothing about Native American History! He needs to do his research!

Puke on you! Yup I'm sure my ancestors deserved to be murdered, raped, and forced to live on barren lands while settlers came in, took their children to "Christian" schools and abused them sexually and physically until they despised themselves for being Native American. Puke on you!!!

This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.

As a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for 45 years, I find this article appalling, assuming,and grossly errant! As is so often the norm, when anyone, or any so-called Christian organization or affiliation ordains themselves as Judge, Jury and hangman, bent on changing people or nations, whom in their view are unlike themselves, and do not measure up to their standards or convictions, they usually become worse than those whom they desire to enlighten or convert!

Such hypocrisy. When reading the "guidelines for posting comments," I noticed these types of comments are banned: "Any display of... racism or 'racialism' including, but not limited to, race-based supremacist and/or separatist advocacy." Well Mr. Fischer, you just broke your own rules with your racist, hate-filled, ignorant commentary. This is what family values is? Justifying genocide?

Put a pin on the map for every place your ancestors have lived over the past 200 years and tell me who's more nomadic!

Bogglingly ignorant and hateful. Reading drivel like this makes it hard to remember that we're living in the 21st century.

You are an intellectual fraud. Despite the nonsense of the entire article, you misquote the least religious of the founding fathers at the end of your article. In fact, you cannot attribute Jefferson's quote because it doesn't exist. You lift the first portion of the quote "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time" is from Jefferson's 1774 publication to the English king, A Summary View of the Rights of British America. If taken in context the meaning is the complete OPPOSITE of the one you are trying to portray. Jefferson states that the rights are not divine and cannot be aligned with religion. Jefferson's work completely contradicts what you are putting forth in--what one would loosely call--your essay.Yeah...those implacable Sioux...they objected to being brutalized and murdered...go figure! So the sexual practices of the European invaders was okay according to Christianity? Raping women and children...bringing in the first pedophiles...all THAT is morally upstanding? Parading around with the severed breasts and uteruses of slain women on their hats and saddles...all THAT was in line with the teachings of Christ???????

Shame on you Bryan Fisher....Christianity could be such a great religion if just one person in this world actually practiced it.

You are a terrible man. I'm a Christian, and an extremely conservative one at that. I even like much of what is on AFA. But you--you are terrible. The words you speak are so filled with vitriol that it cannot possible by classified as Jesus-like. YOU are the one who needs to repent of your hate, and betrayal of the love of Christ.

Wow you took a break from attacking gay people and their families and decided to attack Native Americans. You really are disgusting. You should just wear a white sheet and get it over with.

I took this article to my Bible study class last night, almost all people there agreed with this nut. I will not be going back to my church anymore.

These kind of articles get on an American Christian family site, is this what you are really teaching your people? Wow...you just prove to the world how Christian Americans really are, we have been telling all the world you are this way and always have been and you just proved it for us.

What sort of diseased mind comes up with this twisted perception of reality? Racist, bigoted, sexually repressed. Oh, a Christian diseased mind, right. I'm sure religious groups do some good in the world, but for every good deed they've done there are 100 like this.

Wow! So much for wanting to unite people. This blatant lie is typical of those who want to rewrite history. Let me get this straight..."God" said it's OK to use murder, enslavement, rape, and disease blankets to take the land? What a sick, sick god. Either that or the fact that you find it OK to justify murder by rewriting facts with fiction.

Um...wow. Copies of this article should be reproduced and sent to every newspaper in North America with the headline "The Christian Agenda Exposed." How long until Mr. Fischer and his ilk pass a law mandating conversions to Christianity upon pain of death for noncompliance? How long? ... Thanks Mr. Fischer for officially conceding the culture wars. This article demonstrates EXACTLY what will happen to personal freedom if the religionists get their way.

This fool doesn't believe in God in the slightest. He believes himself to be God.

Is this a joke? Is some one in America actually stupid enough to write something like this? Does some one as imbecilic as Bryan Fischer actually exist or is he a joke created by liberals to show the idiocy of right-wing loonies?None of this is surprising coming from someone who has so much hate for other minority groups including gays. But it's interesting how similar Fischer's rant is to classic anti-Semitic rants. Several years back I heard Pat Robertson say on the 700 Club that Jesus' statement "whatever you do to these my brothers you do it unto me" doesn't apply to 'just anybody' (Robertson's exact words), just to Christians. In other words, it's open season on everyone else.

Could it be that Bryan Fischer is really a wolf in sheep's clothing? He may actually be an atheist trying to destroy the AFA from within. We saw that last year when Democrats infiltrated Tea Party rallies, putting up ridiculous signs to make attendees look dumb and marginalize the movement.

Christianity is better than this hateful and uninformed screed. It is encouraging to see Christians rejecting this editorial. It will be very interesting to see whether the American Family Association denounces it as well, or whether by its silence it acquiesces in this hatred.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one of the happiest clods on the face of God's green earth. As a follower of Christ, I'm saddened by the stunted state of your inner man. As a graduate of the sixth grade, I'm stunned by your complete lack of knowledge of basic American history (as well as your selective amnesia). As a guy with 12 years experience as a journalist for a number of "legitimate" newspapers, I can't ever recall reading such a pathetic, desperate cry for attention. You're a joke.

You are evil. Your organization is evil. God will smite you for your evil, racist beliefs.

This racist, self-congratulatory drivel is neither Biblical, moral, or just. AFA ought to be ashamed for publishing such ahistorical poppycock, if for no other reason than it makes the organization look like it supports racists with no knowledge of the past, no understanding of the scripture, and no grasp of the present. Your enemies have just been handed a gift wrapped can of fuel to throw on their flames, and for once, I hope they use it. For shame.

"And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest." Where do you get this "might is right" philosophy? Certainly not from any civilized convention, or Christian one for that matter. There is no "right of conquest"--read Rousseau.

I have never met a fundamentalist who is a Christian.

As a Christian I am deeply offended by this article. According to what you are saying, Christians basically have the right to take by force the native homelands of all non-Christians. I guess the Crusades were a good thing? It also seems that nomadic people have no rights? And we're talking about a lot of different tribes here...they don't all believe the same things, so it's ignorant to lump them together. We weren't even at 'war' with all of these people. Many of them were simply murdered because it made things convenient. Being 'superstitious' 'savage' and 'sexually immoral' does not make a people eligible for slaughter. As a Christian, you should spend more time reading the teachings of Christ.Missionaries always leave a place worse off than when they found it. If sexual deviancy invites poverty and other misfortunes delivered from God, explain the financial fortunes of the Catholic Church. It has been an oozing pus-pocket of child molestation for 2,000 years, yet it has gotten along quite well monetarily excepting the last 20 years or so. The only purpose ever served by organized Christianity has been to separate gullible people from their money.

I feel creepy even looking at this web site! This is pure Nazi-like evil. I'll keep my children away from all churches and Christians from now on!

Just when I thought the AFA couldn't sink any lower....

First of all, how many Christians are steeped in poverty, alcoholism, adultery, and other forms of sin? The only difference is that you repent in a church. Amerindian culture viewed God differently than Christians, but that does not make their views wrong. They come from a place of unity with the God and all his Creation.

Lord Jesus, please save us from your "followers."

This is one of the many reasons I am not a Christian anymore, because of morally repugnant stories like this by so called Christian writers. If there was a Jesus he would be disgusted with all of you.

Apparently genocide is now a "Family value."

Which tribe would Jesus Christ have slaughtered first?

So, it's OK for Christians to break God's Commandments on non Christians? The murder, rape, theft, internment, and destruction of Native Americans? Sounds like a few commandments got broken there, bub. So many hypocrites...no wonder people are turning their backs on Jesus by the millions.

People constantly ask me why I am an atheist and I confidently answer that if there were a god who was a benevolent being, he'd never allow all of the terrible things done in his name to happen. Now, that still leaves room for an evil god, but I'm not really convinced there. Of course, that's precisely the type of god this author worships.

Obviously suffering from genetic mental degeneration from his ancestors contracting a potent venereal disease.

So people who killed Indians were doing the Lord's work, clearly. Is it still OK to kill Indians? Please let us know ASAP so we know how to proceed....

I teach at a small Christian college. A little while back, one of my students posted something like this as her Facebook "religion" status: "I love Jesus, but his followers kind of creep me out." This mean-spirited and blatantly false diatribe shows why so many people come to feel that way. It makes me sad.

You of course know the people who wrote the Bible didn't know the Americas or China existed. Why did the Chinese and the Indians (India) survive as a people with their lands intact? Why did the Mongols take over most of the known world in the 13th Century? Your whole argument is full of holes. I hope you're prepared for the "arrows" that are sure to come....

Wow. If you don't get fired for this article, I will lose the remaining little faith I do have.

Comment:  A couple of the arguments are worth repeating:

Many tribes had sexual taboos and did not encourage promiscuity. I get the feeling Fischer read about Eskimos giving their wives to strangers in some white man's journal and extrapolated from that to several thousand cultures across two continents.

If the lack of Christianity was responsible for the Indians' downfall and subsequent poverty, why are countries such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Macau doing so well? I'd love to see Fischer explain how heathen Asia managed to avoid collapse and conquest by God-loving Europeans.

Alas, mass murder and genocide have always been Christian "family values." The latest example is the tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq. If a single Christian in America has mourned their deaths, I must've missed it.

For more on the subject, see Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals.

Text of Fischer's racist screed

Perhaps realizing that Bryan Fischer's pro-genocide column wasn't playing well, the American Family Association appears to have taken it down. But they aren't getting away with self-censoring their bigotry that easily. To prevent computer glitches or sanity from eliminating Fischer's column, here it is, exactly as originally published:Bryan Fischer: Native Americans morally disqualified themselves from the land

Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM

By Bryan Fischer

Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer

In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.

International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.

They established permanent settlements on the land, moving gradually from east to west, while Indian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.

Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.

And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.

But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor.

In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16).

The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”

By the time he brought the nascent nation of Israel to the borders of the land flowing with milk and honey, he had already been patient with the native tribes for 400 years, waiting for them to come to the place of repentance for their socially and spiritually degrading practices.

His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over.

The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.

One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

The Lewis and Clark journals record the constant warfare between the nomadic Indian tribes on the frontier, and the implacable hostility of the Sioux Indians in particular.

The journals record the morally abhorrent practice of many native American chiefs, who offered their own wives to the Corps of Discovery for their twisted sexual pleasure. (Regrettably, many members of the Corps, Lewis and Clark excepted, took advantage of these offers and contracted numerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases as a result.)

The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase.

They rejected Washington’s direct counsel to the Delaware chiefs in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Thomas Jefferson three times signed legislation appropriating federal tax dollars for the evangelizing of the Native American tribes. It all came to nought, as one tribe after another rejected the offer of spiritual light and advanced civilization.

Missionaries were murdered in cold blood, including Marcus Whitman, who was tomahawked to death in his own house in 1848 by the Cayuse and Umatilla Indians in what became the Oregon Territory.

God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”

Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes. Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.

The continued presence of native American superstition was on full display at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooter, when the “invocation” (such as it was) was offered by a native American who sought inspiration from the “Seven Directions,” including “Father Sky” and “Mother Earth,” rather than the God of the Bible.

Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.

Even worse, the reaction will likely obscure the sobering lesson for today. America in 2011 is as guilty of “abominations” as the native American tribes we replaced. We have the blood of 53 million babies on our hands through abortion. We have normalized sexual immorality, adultery, and homosexuality, all horrors in the eyes of God, and are witnessing a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.

God warned the ancient nation of Israel not to lapse into the abominable practices of the native peoples “lest the land vomit you out...as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28).

Time eventually ran out for the Canaanites, because they filled up the full measure of their iniquity. Time ran out for the native American tribes for the same reason.

The only question that matters today is this one: how much time does America have left to repent of its superstition, its savagery and its sexual immorality before it is too late, before we will have filled up our own slop bucket and will have morally disqualified ourselves from sovereign control of our own land?

Thomas Jefferson wrote at the time of the Founding, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” It is long past time for us once again to tremble for our country.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)Comment:  Yes, this column generated a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left. And among wingers on the right. And among conservative Christians. And self-proclaimed fans of the American Family Association.

Apparently this firestorm was too hot to handle, since the AFA withdrew the column. Not only are Fischer and the AFA racists, they're cowardly racists. They're too embarrassed by their own repugnant opinions to stand by them.

For more on the subject, see Critics Slam Fischer's Racism and Fischer:  Natives Had No Morals.

Below:  Jesus weeps over the lies and hypocrisies of so-called Christians like Fischer.

Fischer: Natives had no morals

It's still early in 2011, but I think we've found the most stupid, bigoted, and racist screed of the year. It comes from the same Christian cretin who told us Obama intends to give the US to the Indians.

You can read the whole thing at the link below. I've included the key paragraph so casual visitors will know what we're talking about.

Native Americans morally disqualified themselves from the land

By Bryan FischerThe native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.Comment:  Fischer predicts his column will "generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions." Yes, because it's possibly the most racist screed of the year. Is that what you meant, bright boy?

Wow. Could this piece of crap be any more bigoted? Let's rip this conservative liar, hypocrite, and asshole a new orifice by disassembling his column:In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.Wrong. This has been a near-constant claim by Euro-Americans against Indians for 500-plus years. "We defeated and destroyed the uncivilized savages, so they don't deserve America. Genocide is its own justification. If you can kill people, they deserve to die. To the victor goes the spoils. Might makes right. Etc."

I probably could find a million examples of this kind of thinking, literally, if I had enough time. It's the default position in standard US history. God took America from the savage Indians and gave it to the civilized white men.

In case you missed it, note how Fischer doesn't capitalize the "native" in "Native American." Like other white racists, he's trying to delegitimize Indians by delegitimizing their name.International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons."International legal scholars" from the conquering countries in the previous century, perhaps. I don't think any legal scholars from conquered countries have said that. And I don't think any legal scholars have said that recently. Ever since the 1960s, we've routinely denounced the conquest of foreign territory.

Scholars okay with invasions?

Also, this after-the-fact rationalization obscures the whole morality problem. A century after the onslaught, legal scholars and historians may downplay the moral crimes. But while the Europeans were invading, conquering, subjugating, enslaving, and murdering the Indians, they were violating most of Jesus's commandments. Their actions were pure evil by any religious standard in existence.They established permanent settlements on the land, moving gradually from east to west, while Indian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.Wrong. Many Indian tribes had permanent settlements. That's why the country is full of Indian mounds and ruins--all examples of fixed settlements. Do you think they built huge monuments and then wandered away, or took them with them?

And how are the foreigners who crossed an ocean to invade an occupied land not nomadic? If they believed in permanent settlements, they should've stayed in their home cities and villages.Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.Partly true but misleading. Many of these sales were committed under duress. When the Europeans used up an area's resources, the tribes had to sell and move or go hungry. Others were crooked deals. The white man violated some 400 treaties--many of which involved land sales.



Conquerors get to keep conquests?And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.The right of conquest...that's hysterical. If Japan had successfully conquered Hawaii, would we have recognized that as a legal annexation? The way we recognized Nazi Germany's conquest of central Europe? Or Iraq's conquest of Kuwait during the first Gulf War? How freakin' stupid can you get?!

So "all men are created equal," with "certain unalienable rights," including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But some people have the right to conquer others and eliminate their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Does Fischer really think the Founding Fathers would've agreed to Great Britain's "right to conquer" them?

Does Fischer's "right of conquest" permit conquerors to enslave and kill people, or just to subjugate them? I guess he thinks the Holocaust was okay, since the Nazis had the right to conquer the Jews. And anyone else they were "superior in battle" to.

But I must've missed the part where "international legal scholars" recognized the conquests of the Axis powers, the Communist powers, et al. I look forward to Fischer's documentation on this point.The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality."Basest forms of superstition" = any superstitions other than Christian superstitions, obviously. "Savagery in warfare"? Hmm. Which continent was it that launched two world wars with poison-gas attacks, genocidal death camps, and nuclear mass murder? Oh, yeah...the same continent that engaged in hundreds of bloody wars, crusades, and inquisitions throughout its history:

List of conflicts in Europe

"Debased forms of sexuality" = sex outside a Christian marriage between man and woman, presumably. In addition, Fischer's claim that his claims are "virtually without exception" is a flat-out lie. There were countless exceptions.

Jefferson's "merciless savages"One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”I think that line was more of a political statement than a personal belief. But suppose Jefferson meant it. I conclude the man who owned human chattel was almost as bigoted as Fischer. As I discussed in Jefferson's Indian Removal Policy. So what?The Lewis and Clark journals record the constant warfare between the nomadic Indian tribes on the frontier, and the implacable hostility of the Sioux Indians in particular.Lewis and Clark were preoccupied military men, not expert anthropologists. I'm pretty sure they didn't sit around watching tribes war with each other. I suspect a lot of what they recorded was what tribes told them about their enemies--an obvious source of distortion.

Moreover, Lewis and Clark visited only a fraction of the American West for two years. This was after Americans began pressing westward, which forced tribes into unwanted proximity and conflict. Anything that happened centuries after European contact is arguably not a fair measure of tribal cultures.

What Lewis and Clark didn't visit was the rest of the Western Hemisphere over its ten- or twenty-thousand-year history. From the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego, they didn't have a clue what was going on. Generalizing from one small expedition to the entire history of two continents is incredibly asinine.



Where's the warfare?

Here's the only mention of warfare in the Wikipedia entry for Lewis and Clark:The Lewis and Clark Expedition established relations with two dozen indigenous nations. Without their help, the expedition would have starved to death or become hopelessly lost in the Rocky Mountains. The Americans and the Lakota nation (whom the Americans called Sioux or "Teton-wan Sioux") had problems when they met. The fear of attack by hostile Lakota was a constant source of apprehension. During the recent raid the Sioux had killed 75 Omaha Indians. One of their horses disappeared, and they believed the Sioux were responsible. Afterward, the two sides met and there was a disagreement, and the Sioux asked the men the stay or to give more gifts instead before being allowed to pass through their territory. They came close to fighting several times, and both sides finally backed down and the expedition continued on to Arikara territory. Clark wrote they were "warlike" and were the "vilest miscreants of the savage race."Summing it up, the Sioux didn't like white men passing through their territory. They probably realized Lewis and Clark were the forerunners of an onslaught of disease-carrying, treaty-breaking miscreants. They were smart to oppose the white man's passage.The journals record the morally abhorrent practice of many native American chiefs, who offered their own wives to the Corps of Discovery for their twisted sexual pleasure. (Regrettably, many members of the Corps, Lewis and Clark excepted, took advantage of these offers and contracted numerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases as a result.)There's no mention of this in Wikipedia. If Fischer isn't lying outright, it was probably a minor issue.

Meanwhile, Fischer's holier-than-thou Christians had about 1,800 years of prostitution, adultery, pedophilia, orgies, rape, etc. under their belts at this point. Jesus probably was the first and last Christian to obey God's commandments.

Washington the "town destroyer"They rejected Washington’s direct counsel to the Delaware chiefs in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”I can't imagine why Indians wouldn't trust and obey Washington. Oh, yeah, maybe this:After the Americans invaded Iroquois towns in the Susquehanna Valley in 1778, George Washington, determined to exterminate the Indian threat once and for all, ordered a massive sweep of Iroquois country, specifying that it should "not merely be overrun, but destroyed." Following orders by Washington to "lay waste all the settlements," Gen. John Sullivan's men ravaged 40 villages, burned 500 houses, and destroyed 100,000 bushels of corn. Some units stopped to plunder graves for burial goods; others skinned the bodies of dead Iroquois to make leggings.

Through Indian EyesThomas Jefferson three times signed legislation appropriating federal tax dollars for the evangelizing of the Native American tribes. It all came to nought, as one tribe after another rejected the offer of spiritual light and advanced civilization.So Jefferson wanted to eradicate Indian cultures and religions so he could steal their land to enrich his fellow slaveowners. Again, so what? Presumably he had to keep busy between bouts of impregnating his female slaves. Since they couldn't opt out of sex with him, he was arguably a rapist.

So much for America's "spiritual light and advanced civilization."

Missionaries reaped what they sowedMissionaries were murdered in cold blood, including Marcus Whitman, who was tomahawked to death in his own house in 1848 by the Cayuse and Umatilla Indians in what became the Oregon Territory.Indians were murdered in cold blood too. After they were cheated out of their land by broken treaties, that is. That's the nature of war, unfortunately. But unlike the trespassing missionaries, the Indians were defending their homeland.

As for Whitman, he was murdered in "his own house" in Indian territory, presumably. I wonder if he got a deed from or signed a rental agreement with his Indian landlords. Or was a he just a common trespasser who suffered the fate of other trespassers?Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.Many of those reservations already have converted to Christianity. It hasn't made much difference in improving the tribes' lives. But Fischer is too bigoted to understand that. He thinks all Indians are savage beasts by definition. Incredibly, he can't conceive of a Christian Indian, a common occurrence.The continued presence of native American superstition was on full display at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooter, when the “invocation” (such as it was) was offered by a native American who sought inspiration from the “Seven Directions,” including “Father Sky” and “Mother Earth,” rather than the God of the Bible.The continued display of conservative Christian hatemongering and vitriol was the main outcome of the memorial. It couldn't be plainer that conservative Christians like Fischer are stupid, ugly racists. You gotta love someone who defends Nazi-style genocide...not.

Conclusion

Let's sum it up. Fischer repeats the white supremacy claims uttered by five centuries of his ancestors. He depicts Indians as sick, depraved animals, not human beings.

Gee, I can't imagine the connection between that and broken treaties, underfunded programs, violent crime, low-self esteem, depression and suicide, etc. Indians are subhuman beasts...but they have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. It's a level playing with no barriers to Indian advancement.

If Indians aren't as successful as non-Indians, they must be lazy, good-for-nothing bums. It's not because of racism like Fischer's, because that's impossible in utopian America. We judge people on their merits, not on their race or religion.

What a goddamned crock.

For another deconstruction of this racist screed, see:

AFA’s Bryan Fischer:  Native Americans Have Never Had Morals

For more on the subject, see:

Bachmann fibs about America's founding
Obama's UN "coup" is "chilling"
Racist rhetoric fuels hate crime
Conservative website calls Indians "Beringians"
Palin:  Racism is a ploy

And about a thousand other postings in this blog.

Below:  Fischer's ideological bedfellow: "I agree with Herr Fischer! The Aryan race is the pinnacle of civilization! The mud people and homosexuals are nothing but stains on the earth! We rule the lesser races by the right of conquest! Ja wohl!"

Farah wants Manhattan back

The conservative carping over the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is starting to gain attention in the mainstream media. A mainstream blog, at least. In other words, it's starting to become a meme:

Latest Right-Wing Freak-Out:  Obama Wants To Give Manhattan Back To Native Americans

By Jillian RayfieldThe good news is that the right-wing isn't talking about President Obama being a secret Muslim right now. The bad news is that they're now concerned that he's going to use his honorary status as a Crow Tribe Indian to return the United States to Native Americans.The article summarizes the previous criticism:Obama was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow tribe during the 2008 campaign, and was even given the name "One who helps people throughout the land." Most of the outrage lobbed at the President in the wake of the announcement, naturally, references that fact.

Last week, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the Christian conservative American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, wrote a blog post claiming that "President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords."

"Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire," Fischer wrote. "But for the other 312 million of us, I think we'll settle for our constitutional 'We the people' form of government, thank you very much."

Yesterday, the right-wing blog World Net Daily took it a step further in a post called "Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans? President believes nation can spare some sovereignty." The article describes how "President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan."

The article continues: "Obama's interest is personal. He noted during the 2008 presidential campaign he was officially adopted by the Crow Nation, an Indian tribe in Montana, and he was given an Indian name."Finally, the article refers to a new example of the right-wing freak-out:

I'll take Manhattan

By Joseph FarahMaybe you missed it, but Obama has endorsed a United Nations resolution declaring the rights of indigenous people that could mean large swaths of the U.S. will be returned to native Americans like me.

I'm hereby staking my claim to Manhattan.

Maybe you didn't know I have native American blood coursing through my veins. I'm more well-known for my Lebanese and Syrian ancestry. But, truth be told, I have a fair amount of Indian heritage on my mother's side. So this proposed redistribution of wealth is welcome news for me.

Where do I apply? I want to return wampum for Manhattan.Comment:  Note how Farah doesn't capitalize "native." Like other conservatives, he doesn't want to acknowledge the Natives' claims of being here first.

In the first paragraph, Rayfield correctly links this attempt to smear Obama to previous attempts to link him to Muslims, Kenyans, terrorists, and other "tribal" people. Having failed to prove Obama is a Muslim or a Kenyan, they're now claiming he's joined another group of brown-skins who don't share America's values. Indians have refused every "opportunity" to assimilate and become white Christian Americans, so they're suspect by definition.

That conservatives keep pointing out Obama's tribal adoption isn't a coincidence. Rather, it's a key part of their smear tactics. They're telling people he'll put his "tribal" identity ahead of his national identity. Because to "those (brown-skinned) people," blood is thicker than water.

Clearly conservatives plan to keep smearing Obama until they replace him with the usual white Christian stooge of the military-industrial complex. And these Nazi-style Big Lies are working with the misinformed boobs who watch Fox News. These idiots are much more likely to believe Obama is a Muslim and a foreigner than the average American.

Farah the Indian wannabe

Anyway, Farah gets a Stereotype of the Month entry for his bogus claim that having some Indian blood makes him an Indian. It doesn't. He's not a member of a federally recognized tribe, which is a political entity, not a biological one. He could be a full-blooded Indian and he wouldn't be eligible to get land back.

Obviously he doesn't meet the other criteria for being an actual Indian. And he doesn't let on that his claim is false and spurious. Ignorant readers will assume that fake "Indians" like him will come out of the woodwork to claim places like Manhattan.

For more on the UN declaration, see Right Fright Over UN Declaration and Conservatives Criticize UN Declaration. For more attempts to smear Obama, see Limbaugh Lies About Thanksgiving and Obama Attacked Over Sitting Bull.