To that end, the newest Donald Wildmon endorsed conspiracy is that godfearing Christians will, within the next 50 years, become a government-oppressed underclass. They will be treated "like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s", i.e., the Jim Crow era. And much, much more. Wanna have a look?
What will religion look like in the year 2060?Laser shows. Lots and lots of laser shows.
Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.There will be "conservative Christian" drinking fountains, and special "conservative Christians" entrances to buildings, and conservative Christians will be … oh, let's just move on.
Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth.And doing what with them? Wildmon doesn't say, presumably because we would all find it far too terrifying.
Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a “family” group at will.I think Wildmon derives many of his notions about future marriage from watching too much porn.
Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose.And then something-something-something, and the Skittles people come out to dance on the grave of the lizard queen, and we shall all sing songs in school about the proper assembly of Ikea products. All of these things are equally likely. (My own question is whether or not there will be "airwaves" to speak of in 2060, but now we are just quibbling.)
We will have, or have had, a Muslim president.OH MY GOD. SOME OTHER RELIGION MIGHT SOMEDAY POSSIBLY HAVE A SINGLE U.S. PRESIDENT OF THEIR OWN FAITH. TRULY, AMERICA IS OVER. P.S. I AM NOT A HATEFUL CRACKPOT.
Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state.P.P.S. ACTUALLY, I AM A HATEFUL CRACKPOT. ALSO, ALL FUTURE AMERICAN BROWN CHILDREN NAMED "JESUS" WILL HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR NAME TO "GENERIC CHILD UNIT NAMING CONVENTION 204, SUBSECTION EIGHT."
I'm not sure hate group really applies to these people. I think first and foremost the group exists as an extended con job, bilking politically unaware, easily frightened, bigoted-against-everything people out of their money. A grift. It seems improbable that someone like Wildmon, who seems to have little problem dressing himself, or navigating doorways, or doing any of the other myriad little tasks of modern life, could constantly write little predictions like this earnestly; that, then, leaves two options.
One he is on drugs, and produces these notes to inform his flock as to each of his hopped-up hallucinations of haughty heretical hellishness. (A Muslim president! Goodness!) Or two, his organization makes its money by intentionally frightening stupid people with ridiculous messages like this one, upon which those stupid people then send in their money hand over fist in order to be kept abreast of these latest, terrifying developments. Money which the American Family Association staff then uses to buy drugs, because I'm not seeing any explanation that doesn't involve drugs.
That's what's most remarkable about the far right. Not their prejudices, or their earnest belief that they are under assault from all flanks, but the stupidity. From Wildmon to the tea partiers, the core requirement is a belief in conspiracy theories that any other thinking person would easily dismiss. As it turns out, you can populate entire movements with stupid people.
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009—The Case for Seating Burris:
|The Senate Democrats have really painted themselves into a corner here. By flatly stating that they would refuse to seat any Blago-appointed Senator -- an assertion of dubious legality and enforceability -- they unnecessarily entered the Senate into a pissing match with both A) Blago, whom the Senators apparently believed would be shamed into resigning, and B) the Illinois legislature, whom the Senators apparently believed would force a special election were Blago not to resign. Of course, Blago hasn't resigned, the Illinois ledge hasn't passed a bill calling for a special election, and now the Senate Dems' bluff is being called by Burris. I'm guessing at least some of them are wishing they'd left a little wiggle room in their position.
The simple facts are that Blago is still Governor, the Illinois constitution still calls for gubernatorial appointment to fill US Senate vacancies, and Roland Burris is constitutionally qualified to sit in the Senate. That should be enough to settle the matter.
Moreover -- not that it's all that relevant to the question of whether Burris ought to be seated -- Burris has not been at all implicated or tainted by the Blago investigation, has no more of a history of ties with Blago than does Barack Obama, and is likely to serve for just two years as a placeholder. Finally, refusal to seat Burris will deny Illinois full Senate representation for months, as it's now clear that Blago isn't resigning anytime soon, and the Illinois ledge doesn't appear ready to move on a special election bill.
In other words, there's not much of a legal argument to avoid seating Burris, and not a lot in the way of ethical grounds, either.