Bryan Fischer's army: A 'macho' video game scored in body counts

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

11/16/2010

by Jeremy Hooper

The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer is no stranger to hostility towards gays and their existences. But now the incendiary Fischer has a bone to pick with -- the Medal of Honor ceremony?!

Have a look:

We have feminized the Medal of Honor.

According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."

When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.

That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them.

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?

Oh, that old nugget of using "feminized" as a pejorative. We hear it with Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, and now we're hearing it in relation to medals based on life-saving rather than life-taking. Because apparently it's "pro-life" to focus on a woman's body, yet proudly pro-death to reject the female mind. Interesting views, Fischer's.

Look, we know that killing is a reality of war. But still: To publicly criticize those who focus on preservation rather than destruction? Shouldn't that be Christian goal?! Shouldn't the ultimate, most sought-after honor for the pro-values, pro-morality crowd be that which fosters protection rather than retaliation?

Or, through an alternate lens: If Mr. Fischer believes that the army is defined by machismo and that machismo is defined by aggression, can't we now fairly interpret his "only gays were savage enough for Hitler" claims to be advocacy for DADT repeal?

**FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH FISCHER: He's the guy who's said that "homosexuals in the military gave us...six million dead Jews," who's said "homosexuals should be disqualified from public office," who has called on Christian conservatives to breed gays and progressives out of existence, has called gay sex a "form of domestic terrorism," who's said only gays were savage enough for Hitler, has compared gays to heroin abusers, has directly compared laws against gay soldiers to those that apply to bank robbers, who once invoked a Biblical story about stabbing "sexually immoral" people with spears, saying we need this kind of action in modern day, and who has spoken out against gays serving as public school teachers, and who has blamed gay activists for dead gay kids, saying that: "If we want to see fewer students commit suicide, we want fewer homosexual students."