Some "counter-propeganda" ideas--what do you think, DUers?

[ktowntennesseedem]

I posted this elsewhere in reply to a discussion of how effective the repetitive RW slogans are in giving the brainwashed masses simple talking points and maintaining their loyalty. All their talking points are easy to remember and repeat, while the Dems talking points seem to require an outline, an index, footnotes, and a two-pape bibliography. No wonder we lose most arguments with our repub friends, neighbors and co-workers.

So in order to develop shorter, more memorable talking points, I proposed we start by refuting theirs. For example:

Turn "He is a strong leader" into "One who misleads is no leader."

Turn "He is decisive" into "We need correct decisions, not quick ones."

Turn "He is a good Christian man" into "Read your bible again, Dubya--that's NOT what Jesus would do."

I know, my "slogans" are still twice as long as theirs, but short of merely replying "No, he's not," we have to say something a bit more. I think they are short enough to remember (by most, anyway), and could be a way to start countering the propaganda and lies spewed out by the RW image machine.

What do you think, DUers? Any ideas of your own?

[BOSSHOG]

1. I appreciate the idea

but isn't it sad that we have to sink to their level to communicate. Having said that I do it all the time. Its usually something along the line of "fuck you, you constitution hating, religiously insane asshole." And "Jesus Christ is gonna kick your hypocritical ass straight to hell where you will burn for eternity when you come knocking on the pearly gates." They kind understand that. And one of my favorites - "Have you ever served in the Military?" I almost always know the answer to that one before I ask it. I did 24 years in uniform. If they answer no, I unleash my verbal flamethrower. They may not agree with me but they ain't gonna ignore me and won't soon forget.

I let as many conservative assholes know that I consider them domestic enemies of the constitution.

[Totally Committed]

2. Here's a couple:

Turn "He is a strong leader" into "One who misleads is no leader." - Better yet, "He's a LIAR, not a LEADER."

Turn "He is a good Christian man" into "Read your bible again, Dubya--that's NOT what Jesus would do." -- Better yet, "How many wars would Jesus start on a lie?"

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Hmm . . .

Turn "He is a good Christian man" into "Read your bible again, Dubya--that's NOT what Jesus would do."

Bush's religion is a red herring. Besides that, as a freethinker, I don't want to presume to tell Christians what Christianity is.

Let's try to come up with something better.

The first thing that comes to my mind is something along the line of So, how many Mafioso were choir boys? I think we can do better than that.

[ktowntennesseedem]

4. Good point.

Defining religious belief for another is wrong, and I should know better. That's exactly the problem I have with the religious-right; they hold themselves up as examples of good Christians, and anyone in disagreement is not a Christian.

Perhaps a simpler, open-ended-question approach would be better.

"Is that REALLY what Jesus would do?" lets the reader or listener answer the question for themselves.

Just random thoughts I had this morning--thanks for your reply and imput!

[BOSSHOG]

5. Our Armed Forces aren't in the business

of defending good christian men, they defend all Americans.

[Totally Committed]

6. As long as they are cramming

their Jesus and their form of Christianity down our throats, I see them as fair game.

When I say "their form of Christianity", I mean the kind of Christianity that, if it were say a Muslim sect, would be the Taliban. They are the Talibushies. And they must be confronted. If we don't start winning elections, we should start investing in companies that make Burquas.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I agree, but that doesn't invalidate my point

My point is simply that I don't have a right to tell a Christian what Christianity is. In fact, since Christianity, whatever it may be, is comprised of a set of broad principals and articles of faith, one Christian telling another Christian with any certainty what that means is on hazardous ground. With two thousand years of theological history to examine, we should be on safe ground to say: Christianity is not monolithic.

Your point, which is also valid, is simply that as one American citizen to another, a Christian has no right to tell you or me or any one else that one must accept Christianity at all, let alone his idea of it. The Christian may believe that any one who rejects his faith, either broadly or narrowly defined, is going to Hell; there is no way to make a rational judgment as to whether he is correct or not. However, that is a question of theology, not civics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Here is where you are wrong

there are principles of Faith you cannot tell any christian about, that is for the church... (for the record they have nothing to do whit every day life.. the principles of faith are that Christ is your lord and there are no others... and that you believe in salvation and ever lasting life... I am sure I am missing a couple), They are in that vein

Now those principles you are correct, it is like telling a jew that I should hold images of gods because there is only one god with no form and no taste, but God told me no images (and no hell.. so when Christians tell me go to hell I just smile)

Now what you can correct a christian on, or a jew or a muslim is on moral principles and you not only have a right to engage them but a duty. You see a true Christian does not live a life of ME and I only, that actually is sinful, one of the seven deadly sins (Gee and I am Jewish and I know this), A christian is mandated by his or her own faith, to turn the other cheek, and work for community, this is not taught in the super churches any more... what they are taught is how to become better ME and I... and advance through life. But visiting the prisoner is not part of what many of these suburban super churches are teaching. Feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, taking care of others is not part of what they are being taught. I will even make an argument that this latest revival, and this is what it may be, is not a Christian Revival at all... and it is time to confront this even if you don't believe in Christianity... or did you miss the memo? This is a Christian country with Christian values... if we should even accept that premise, what the followers of this shiny idol are being told is not what is in the book... and one way to fight it is to confront it.

Sorry for being long winded, but confusing principles of faith with morality is the mistake in this battle for what I believe is the soul of the country...

Can I get an Amen

:-)

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Amen

This is going way beyond the scope of the original remark, which probably does a lot to prove my original point.

You're right. Two people of different faiths can talk about morality or ethics based on a common understanding of what morality or ethics means. However, in order to do that, the two must agree to transcend narrow theological issues. Consequently, the question of what Christianity (or any other faith) is becomes at most a matter of secondary importance to the discussion.

Telling bare faced lies to start wars is immoral and unethical. That is a statement that can be made without reference to any particular faith.

It may come as a shock to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden, but no religious faith has a corner on the morality market.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Amen

as I said you should not touch principles of faith, but most people in daily conversation rarely do. They know they exits, but most people will be hard pressed to mention the principles of their particular faith... I just happen to know mine, and theirs, but I am in the minority. Now if people start telling you that you have no right to tell them what they believe in when you tell them lying is wrong.. that is not a principle of faith, and many hard core so called Christians (they have no idea what their principles of faith are or are very confused) will tell you that when you argue ethics you are trying to tell them how to interpret the bobble.'

Hell the parables have very little leeway in some respects, and lying is a big no-no in all three western religions... not as a principle of faith, but as an ethical standard. Don't be afraid to engage them. Nine times out of ten, anybody who brings out the you are attacking my faith cannard, does not undesrtand their own religion to begin with.

[Sapphire Blue]

11. Jimmy Carter explains how the Christian right isn't Christian at all.

Republicans have been extremely successful at connecting religion and values to issues like the fight against terrorism, abortion, and gay rights. Democrats have been far less adept at infusing our issues -- compassion, help for the poor, social justice -- with any sense of religious commitment or moral imperative. Why do you think that is?

When I was younger, almost all Baptists were strongly committed on a theological basis to the separation of church and state. It was only 25 years ago when there began to be a melding of the Republican Party with fundamentalist Christianity, particularly with the Southern Baptist Convention. This is a fairly new development, and I think it was brought about by the abandonment of some of the basic principles of Christianity.

First of all, we worship the prince of peace, not war. And those of us who have advocated for the resolution of international conflict in a peaceful fashion are looked upon as being unpatriotic, branded that way by right-wing religious groups, the Bush administration, and other Republicans.

Secondly, Christ was committed to compassion for the most destitute, poor, needy, and forgotten people in our society. Today there is a stark difference because most of the people most strongly committed to the Republican philosophy have adopted the proposition that help for the rich is the best way to help even poor people (by letting some of the financial benefits drip down to those most deeply in need). I would say there has been a schism drawn -- on theology and practical politics and economics between the two groups.

<snip>

How do you think the fundamentalist Christian right has misrepresented Christianity, as well as the democratic process?

Well, what do Christians stand for, based exclusively on the words and actions of Jesus Christ? We worship him as a prince of peace. And I think almost all Christians would conclude that whenever there is an inevitable altercation -- say, between a husband and a wife, or a father and a child, or within a given community, or between two nations (including our own) -- we should make every effort to resolve those differences which arise in life through peaceful means. Therein, we should not resort to war as a way to exalt the president as the commander in chief. A commitment to peace is certainly a Christian principle that even ultraconservatives would endorse, at least by worshipping the prince of peace.

And Christ reached out almost exclusively to the poor, suffering, abandoned, deprived -- the scorned, the condemned people -- including Samaritans and those who were diseased. The alleviation of suffering was a philosophy that was enhanced and emphasized by the life of Christ. Today the ultra-right wing, in both religion and politics, has abandoned that principle of Jesus Christ’s ministry.

Those are the two principal things in the practical sense that starkly separate the ultra-right Christian community from the rest of the Christian world: Do we endorse and support peace and support the alleviation of suffering among the poor and the outcast?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/JimmyCarterChristianRightIsntChristian.html

[Jack Rabbit]

14. Mr. Carter is better qualified than I to speak on this subject

Any attempt to make a broad religious doctrine fit a narrow political agenda is an abuse of religion.

Insofar as Mr. Carter applies that principle to the so-called Christian right, I agree with him. What he doesn't do is embrace the mirror image of that position, namely, that God wants everyone to vote for liberal Democrats. I am thankful that he does not. It would be just as wrong.

[ktowntennesseedem]

15. Once again, Carter is right on target.

I just spent a week with the Carters and several thousand other volunteers building houses with Habitat for Humanity. People of all faiths and no faith joined in a common effort to help others and rebuild a community, and I can't think of a more Christian act of service and love. This is the "kind" of Christianity that Carter lives every day, and it is nothing like the way so many on the right claim as the way to live their faith.

Reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers or all time:

The Religious Right is Neither.

[radfringe]

7. here's one that has proved effective with GOPers

take "fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here"

turn it into "so,we're using our troops as bait?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. We are into framing and the culture war

Ok on christianity, I am jewish and I have found quoting the Sermon of the Mount is very effective... let me go dig some for you

darn easier said than done even on line

but do challenge people

Christ told you to turn the other cheek, and to do unto others as you would to yourself.

The me generation has to be waken hard from this ME and I and I deserve and Me deserve and transformed into US.

So do ask... Would Christ go to war? If you answer yes, then why did the Lord command you to turn the other cheek?

People need to turn away from their fear of talking the language of faith...