The Christian Left Logo

The Enemies Within

The Christian Left LogoThe Christian Left Blog has published a recent post entitled The Enemies Within: The 20 Most Dangerous Conservatives And Their Organizations in which Stephen D. Foster Jr. lists and describes the top 20 Americans he believes to be the most influential and dangerous in our country today. This list includes a photo of each person, a brief description of their organization(s) and work, and contact/address information for the organizations.

I was unfamiliar with some of the people on this list and commend this article to your reading. We all need to be aware of the actions of these people and their organizations.

Here are the people included on their list:

  1. Roger Ailes: The President of Fox News
  2. The Koch Brothers: Koch Industries, Inc.
  3. Dick Armey: FreedomWorks
  4. Tom Donohue: The US Chamber Of Commerce President
  5. Tony Perkins: President of the Family Research Council
  6. Pat Robertson: Founder of the Christian Coalition
  7. Edwin Feulner, Jr.: President of the Heritage Foundation
  8. Arthur Thompson: John Birch Society
  9. Rupert Murdoch: News Corporation
  10. Grover Norquist: Americans for Tax Reform
  11. David Bossie: Citizens United
  12. Tim LaHaye and Kenneth Cribb: The Council for National Policy
  13. Steven J. Law: President and CEO of American Crossroads
  14. James Dobson: Family Talk radio personality and Family Research Council
  15. Phyllis Schlafly: Eagle Forum
  16. David Keene: American Conservative Union, CPACm and the NRA
  17. Tim Wildmon: American Family Association
  18. David Barton: WallBuilders
  19. Noble Ellington: American Legislative Exchange Council
  20. Edward H. Crane: Cato Institute

2 thoughts on “The Enemies Within”

  1. It seems a bit inconsistent to me to write “Fundamentalist faith practice is defined by fear and exclusion” to condemn it in one blog post, and then in the next label 20 people as dangerous and needing to be watched. It appears that “fear and exclusion” are acceptable tactics when they support your perspective.

    1. Thanks for your comment.

      Re: “It seems a bit inconsistent to me”
      Only if one fails to see the distinguishing characteristics of scope and degree. Certainly, not all fear is unhealthy, and some things should be excluded from civil society. It’s a matter of scope and degree.

      The people and their organizations in the article systematically extend their influence to bake fear, often through ignorance and misinformation, into the national conscience to create a people that are easy to govern and who do the bidding of self-appointed religious and elected leaders (many of the later all too often “bought and paid for”).

      Several on the list have an agenda to merge church and state, forcing everyone to live by their exclusion-based religious dogma, even when much of the nation does not embrace that dogma. They wage “culture wars”–their term, not mine, and the term is a telling proclamation of scope and degree. They craft legislation that restricts freedom and human rights. They would deny basic healthcare. They rape the land and sea for profit. The list goes on and on.

      The scope and degree to which they systematically practice fear and exclusion reach the shrill and unbearable level of intolerant extremism creating national policy that hurts the vast majority for the benefit and humor of the very few. Unlike the teachings of Christ (one for all and all for one), unlike government of, for, and by the people (all of them) their not-so-hidden agenda is social, cultural, financial, and philosophical/religious domination. They seem to want a return to the Dark Ages of serfdom.

      And, unless you stand to benefit from their organized scheming, their unquenched thirst for power, their greed and chicanery, my friend, the agenda of these people is truly dangerous and to be feared. We just have to be mindful of the kind of future in which we and our children will want to live: one more centered around love, understanding, compassion, and inclusion or fear and exclusion, one that benefits a wider swath or just a select few.

      To merely warn people to be wary of the dangers these people and their organizations represent seems to pale in comparison to the scope and degree of their agenda.

      Scope and degree.

      By the way, your blog title/banner is wonderfully clever. I really like it! And, based on a quick perusal of your content, I suspect we are both so compelled by our thinking on these matters that we are both fenceposts with only strands of barbed wire connecting us. Regardless, feel free to argue with my fencepost any time. It helps me clarify my own thinking.

Comments are closed.