Anti-Christs

October 11, 2007 1:49 PM

Who are the most dangerous "Christian" fundamentalist leaders?

Inspired by this thread, I'd like to know about other "Christian" fundamentalist leaders who use their ministry to spread messages of hatred. What prominent (living) Christians will leave the ugliest legacies after they die? Like Fred Phelps, for example. Supporting links would be helpful.

Looking specifically for church leaders and spokespeople, but secondarily interested in individuals who are merely prominent in some other field but very outspoken in the manner described above.

posted by hermitosis to religion & philosophy (24 comments total)

I'd start with the leaders of the following organizations.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center website (from which the linked article comes) --

'A Mighty Army'
"Inspired by the organizing successes of early anti-gay crusaders like Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, fundamentalist political activists have turned the anti-gay movement into a virtual industry over the last three decades."

Alliance Defense Fund

American Family Association

American Vision*

Chalcedon Foundation*

Christian Action Network

Concerned Women for America

Coral Ridge Ministries/Center for Reclaiming America

Family Research Council

Family Research Institute*

Focus on the Family

Summit Ministries

Traditional Values Coalition

* -- Groups designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

posted by ericb at 2:06 PM on October 11, 2007

[a few comments removed - meta questions can go to metatalk or email if they'r enot helping the OP or you answer the OPs question]
posted by jessamyn at 2:15 PM on October 11, 2007

If by "dangerous" you mean people with the most power to advance their agenda, the list would have to include George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.
posted by Rykey at 2:19 PM on October 11, 2007

For more research, check out the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, or, slightly self-linky, this blog by a person I know that tracks extremist groups.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:27 PM on October 11, 2007

Eh, dangerous to whom or what? Aside from entreaties to hate, do you also want people who, for example, think that a glorious apocalypse is nigh and therefore saving the environment for our grandkids is a silly (or even negative) endeavour? Maybe a more explicit scope would be helpful.
posted by cmiller at 2:33 PM on October 11, 2007

You may find Crank.net's religion section or its supremacists section to be useful. It's not all hatemongers (at least in the religion section), but they're in there.
posted by JDHarper at 3:01 PM on October 11, 2007

Ooh! I found a hate section too.
posted by JDHarper at 3:02 PM on October 11, 2007

John Hagee leader of the Christians United for Israel. That fucker is a nut.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:25 PM on October 11, 2007

Fred Phelps is a harmless gnat. George W. Bush springs to mind.
posted by limon at 3:26 PM on October 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

Okay, to attempt more specifically, I want a list of people who consistently (and paradoxically) use Christian ideology to promote violence and hatred against any other group.
posted by hermitosis at 3:36 PM on October 11, 2007

Fred Phelps, while an abhorrent person with a repulsive philosophy, doesn't actually have many followers outside his extended family. Major nut, minor leader.

George W. Bush, a Christian fundamentalist by his own admission and a leader (empirically) would have to be number one.

Limon's already said as much, but it bears repeating.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 4:22 PM on October 11, 2007

Mel Gibson?!
posted by ReiToei at 4:47 PM on October 11, 2007

One can't mention the name James Dobson enough in this thread.
posted by brain cloud at 4:55 PM on October 11, 2007

I'd also pay attention to people interested in working outside the larger public arena, who are intent on Christianizing specific institutions.

I'm too lazy to google, but there are a couple new Christian colleges and universities designed specifically to groom Christians for government service, Patrick Henry College seems to be the one with sudden remarkable influence. Also scary are organizations such as Christian Embassy, dedicated to transforming the military along Christian lines (one of the leaders of Christian Embassy, I think, is Eric Prince, the billionaire head of Blackwater that's been shooting up Iraqis for the last few years).

So I'd keep my eye not just on the big mass media groups, but also those which don't seek publicity, and which focus on infiltrating and controlling executive and military power in the US. The warping of decision making at these levels is, obviously, extremely dangerous, and we're undoubtedly seeing the consequences of such warping already in many instances of irrational decision-making that have contributed to the insane disaster of US policy in Iraq.
posted by washburn at 5:25 PM on October 11, 2007

What, no love for Ian Paisley?
posted by flabdablet at 5:40 PM on October 11, 2007

Check out the work of David Neiwert, who's a freelance journalist that covers a lot of extremist groups. His guest bloggers and blogroll also are full of good resources.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 5:52 PM on October 11, 2007

Dangerous to whom? I find the more mild-mannered stealth assholes to be the most dangerous because they make hate seem so acceptable. Phred Felps is a joke, but the "supportive" ex-gay people and neighborhood fundamentalists probably do more damage in the long run because they're so incidious. I know that the worst people for me were so called tolerant christians who completely stabbed me in the back as a teenager seeking guidance and acceptance.

In terms of direct threats, I agree with Eric B. The Southern Povererty Law Center is an excellent resource, and a worthy charity.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:35 PM on October 11, 2007

The people portrayed inSoldiers in the Army of God...one of whom said "vaginally challenged" instead of "pussy whipped" in front of the filmmakers to be "polite".
posted by brujita at 10:57 PM on October 11, 2007

Also, Lake of Fire just opened at Film Forum.
posted by brujita at 10:58 PM on October 11, 2007

If we're going to scale then the Pope has buckets of power over his enormous set of followers, refuses to allow the use of condoms where it is self-evident that they would prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS, condemns gay believers to a life of unloved misery, and campaigns against the rights of gay non-believers and believers, heads a church which is rolling in cash and property while pretending to worship a saviour who preached poverty and charity, has actively prevented priests from working for increased rights for the poor in South America and likes to look on the bright side of European/Catholic colonisation of that continent. Make what you will of his comments on other religions and on liberal philosophy.

Previous incumbents have been pro-religious war and often happy to look the other way while followers butcher non-believers.
posted by biffa at 2:28 AM on October 12, 2007

Jack Chick has my vote. Such a simple voice, singing his bigotry in so many languages in so many places.
posted by Jilder at 7:00 AM on October 12, 2007

biffa, I think the operative word in the asker's question was fundamentalist.
posted by brain cloud at 5:35 PM on October 12, 2007

I spotted that, and since fundamentalism is 'strict adherence to ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern developments in thought or customs', this would seem to fit the Pope pretty well. For example, views on contraception, women's role in the Church, etc.
posted by biffa at 3:25 AM on October 15, 2007

Again James Dobson and Focus on the Family from someone who lives within 10 miles of the compound. The people around here can be false friendly. If you're not on "their side" then you are the enemy. (I'm the enemy, btw.)
posted by TauLepton at 6:42 AM on October 17, 2007