Say what you will about Bryan Fischer, but the man just refuses to give up or ever back down.
Case in point: after his blog post asserting that Native Americans were "morally disqualified" from exercising control over North America and that Europeans were justified in taking it by force was taken down by the AFA, Fischer has continued to defend it, claiming that people were just too immature and dim-witted to deal with this truth.
But that wasn't enough, so Fischer penned a new column explaining if all Native Americans had just been as deferential as Pocahontas and converted to Christianity, the European settlers wouldn't have had to resort to all that "bloodshed and violence" ... a point he made again on his radio program yesterday:
But you think about how different American history would have been if every member of the indigenous tribes had followed Pocahontas' example. She not only converted, she assimilated. She did not just convert to Christianity and then try to maintain some separate tribal identity, some segregated style of life. She converted, she recognized the superiority of the spiritual convictions of the colonists, of the Englishmen, she embraced their religion, she embraced their faith, she embraced their god, she embraced their savior because she recognized that the god that the English served was superior to the gods that the Indian people served. So she identified herself no longer as an Algonquin Indian but as an Englishman. So she melded into the culture that she recognized was superior to her own. If the example of Pocahontas had been followed, things could have been much, much different - we would have had a seamless and bloodless assimilation, integration, of the indigenous peoples into the melting pot which became America.
Let's take a step back for a moment.
Fischer asserts that Native American were "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" and that, for those reasons, European Christians had been tasked by God with emptying out the "slop bucket" and taking control of the nation.
And the reason that these European Christians had to resort to "bloodshed and violence" was because the Native Americans refused to submit to the "laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations" that says Europeans had the right to take the continent and likewise refused to convert to Christianity and assimilate.
Now, keep in mind that Fischer makes similar claims about Muslims today.
He says "Islam is an evil and wicked religion, and unworthy of a Christian nation."
He says that Muslims "are engaged in subversive activity, treasonous activity, against the United States."
He says that lands dominated by Islam are filled with nothing but darkness, tyranny, repression, poverty, disease, and emptiness.
He says that Muslims are dangerous, violent, and stupid because of rampant inbreeding and that the world must fight the "ravages of Islam" and oppose "the spread of this dark and dangerous religion."
So it seems that, based on Fischer's logic, Muslims are likewise "morally disqualified" from controlling any land and therefore Christians are justified in taking control of any such areas. And should the Muslim inhabitants of such lands refuse to embrace Christianity and assimilate, then the Christian conquerors are entirely within their rights to resort to "bloodshed and violence" in order to subdue them in accordance with the "laws of nature [and] nature's God."
I guess now we know why the AFA put that post up on its blog a few weeks ago claiming that it is okay to commit genocide so long as God tells you do it.
