Reframing the "Christian Right"

...is "The Rapture Cult". No one wants to believe they're in a cult, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...well, nuf said.

depends...

fanatic
extremist
right wing (instead of right), or extreme right
christo-terrorist
religionist
zealot
crusader
pharisee
war-monger / peace destroyer
literalist / fundamentalist
hypocrite
apostate
cultist
swindler
snake oil salesman
fraud
opportunist
blasphemer
anti_christ, The Beast, demon, etc.
ant-Christian
Judas
fallen (off the path) /deceived (by Satan)
liar
confused
deluded
ignorant
psychopath
religious addict
neurotic
crazies / disturbed
Jimmy Swaggart (Jim Bakker, Elmer Gantry, Father Conklin, etc.)


What to say depends on who you are talking about, who you are talking to, what behavior or beliefs you are referring to, and how you want the listener to react. Many of those words are used by a member of a sect to criticize other members, or members of another sect.

Sects have broken up over, figuratively, which end of a hard boiled egg to break open (little-endian vs big-endian). If one is once "saved", can they later deviate from the path, fall into sin by losing faith, and be damned? Or were they not truly believers and saved to begin with? Huge fights have broken out over such questions. Divide and conquer; fanatic vs fanatic; cultic wars. Let them eat each other while the rest of us pursue sanity.

I had forgotten probably the most important word to use: THEOCRAT.

The problem is not what they believe, in whatever variation, really, but that they want to force their beliefs on everyone else and make them the law. They are like the extreme Islamist theocrats who want to force all Muslims, and perhaps all the world to believe as they do and yield to their authority. The Extreme Christian fanatics are the American equivalent of the most fanatical members of Al Qaeda. Theocrats!

Sorry... The phrase should be about refusing to yield to the theocrats' rule or dictates

not authority, since "authority" implies legitimacy or knowledge. But theocracy is the best reframing.

All of the derogatory words used by BluePilgrim and any other words that implicitly put the speaker in a hostile position against his "target faction" in a discussion on values will have the effect of polarizing the audience based on whether or not they might sometime be considered a part of the targeted faction. A part of the crowd will distance themselves from someone who speaks on such strong negative terms simply because they do not like people to brand others in harsh terms. In short, I believe that the only people who will really listen if you use such hard language are the people you do not need to convince.

In the past, I have suggested things like "My Rules Rule Fundamentalists", "Self-Appointed Values Cops", ("Bible Thumpers", which is not original with me), and "Intolerance Preachers". I feel that a successful frame is one that is so inclusive that it might even include the speaker, but which clearly points out the segment of the population which is most likely to be thought of.

Bill Maher could be called a "Self-Appointed Values Cop" and, as far as a "My Rules Ruler" goes, he's even published a book entitled New Rules. When you hear those phrases, though, do you think of Bill Maher or Jerry Falwell?

The point of framing is, I believe, to set up a cognitive network which fires up a broad set of concepts and causes the listener/reader to identify it with a specific target concept, person, act or thing in the light which will support the rest of what you are saying. Think of "Stern Father" and "Nurturing Parent"--people in the latter category would probably think that these were good terms for their philosophy and the philosophy of the "other guys" and, importantly, people in the former category might place themselves in the former category without understanding why people in the latter category might think that this is bad.

So terms like "fanatic", "extremists", etc. are not good frames. They're just loaded terms.

As I said, it depends on who you are talking to and what reaction you expect. "Fanatic" is not just a loaded term, it is descriptive of the reality.

Keep in mind the loaded terms the extreme right use

beleeding heart liberal, elitist, traitor -- have been effective. One common effect is that people hearing this disassociate themselves with the term, and the group referred to. This can be seen among many liberals who are afraid to be "too liberal" for fear of being branded as liberal. Bill Maher has also been effective, largely in consolidating and providing support to those who oppose Bush. If you hear those who want to rule the world called fanatic or fascist often enough that thought, or more moderate while still disapproving terms, become more acceptable, and some who wanted to say and think that but did not for fear of being "fringe" become more comfortable taking that stand. "Compromising" shifts the middle toward those you compromise with. In actual compromise situations, you can't compromise from the middle position -- you have already given away all of your demands; you can compromise more effectively from the extreme position, however. The value of taking the extreme position has been shown in various studies -- and that's probably why the right wing has been doing so much of it: it shifte the perceived middle. It's also why advertising tends to make extreme statements. Colloquially, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".

One CAN take too extreme a position, leading to being dismissed as a crank, but the theocrats are more in danger of this than those who call them fanatics because they are so extreme, and a great many people already dismiss them. But that's a danger -- dismissing them -- not taking them seriously. That's one reason a strong reaction is indicated.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

quick summary of common techniques

I'm glad you brought up Bill Maher. When he uses the word, “fanatic”, he is generally either a) countering or quoting someone else who has used “fanatic”. I can't say it with any more authority than that because I don't watch TV, but my small sample reflects that he prefers to disparage those present (or represented by those present) while keeping a civil tongue.

Let me call your attention to a specific point. I said that loaded words were not proper to use “against his [one's] target faction in a discussion on values”.[emphasis in the original] If you think that propaganda techniques are valid in discussion, then you are using a different connotation of the word than I was obviously implying in that sentence.

You brought up a list of propaganda techniques for me. Although it might be the boring nature of what I write which kept you from realizing it, I can show you an example of pretty much every one of those techniques just in things I have written in this site. I use them “just for fun”—at least some of the time specifically pointing out when I have done so— because I am trying to hold a more-or-less serious discussion with people who are presumably working toward the same goal I am. Call me crazy, but I believe that the obvious use of propaganda techniques in a group that discusses integration of concepts and information via language to have a certain humorous irony.

Other than that, I can be as scandalous a propagandist as needs require but, given time, I'll always look for a way to make the other side feel included in my side rather than trying just to move the middles in my direction while leaving enemies to fester among easily identified allies.

It's a documented fact that negative ads produce positive results in political campaigns. It is also a documented fact that negative ads make the electorate have less faith in the political system as a whole.

It's a question of priorities. If you want to be a fanatical propagandist, go right ahead. I think the good guys will spot you out. I think, though we are talking more about framing concepts here than we are about how to put together an ad or a political pamphlet.

I'm not sure of that, mind you... I still do not know what the intended purpose of this site is supposed to be. I would like very much to learn that.

My purpose in citing propaganda techniques was to dispute your assertion that they, and loaded terms, will necessarily turn off people. That is, they do work. Propaganda is not just technique, it is also a description of how the mind and language works. "Propaganda" has taken on a generally negative connotation, but propaganda need not be used to spread lies. Framing has long been part of propaganda

using a natural characteristic of the mind to transmit the message and idea you want people to adopt. To some degree virtually all the propaganda techniques are inherently in any sort of speech, but a propagandist, per se, consciously uses them to in a focued way.

As for being a fanatical propagandist, that does not describe my position. If you choose to characterize me as something other than a "good guy" that's your choice -- but don't then don't complain about name calling to me.

I will say that those who want to to kill non-Christians and take over the government are crazy and fanatical, however (as well as heretical -- another useful word). I will no more try to make them feel included on "my side" than I would the KKK, neonazis, or any such fanatical or violent group: it's not going to work and it only helps to soft pedal and legitimize their fanaticism. Extremists like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, LaHaye, and their ilk, calling for assasinations (as of Chavez), theocracy, disrupting funerals while ranting about "fags", shooting abortion doctors, marketing video games where people are mowed down in the street, advocate nuclear war, and such, are never going to part of "my side", and they certainly don't want to be. These people really ARE crazy (or amoral con men). Fortunately, they are a small percentage of the population, but not calling them out for what they are gives them an air legitimacy which helps them to gather more people into into their cults, and turn ordinary fundamentalists more extreme, or tolerate their extremism. It is the growing number of people who are willing to increasingly identify with this fanatacism which is problematic, largely because they have not been identified as fanatical in the media and by normal people.

In the unlikely event that I were to be in a situation where I was discussing values with a member of the KKK, I might refer to them as "intolerance preachers". They would likely be able to reject being called "evil", fanatic, extremist, "hate mongers", or un-American because they do not view themselves in this fashion. "Intolerance preacher" would be something that, rather than rejecting out of hand, they would attempt to defend as an ethical act.

Although I do not know anyone in the KKK (that I know of... it's still at least partly a secret society), I do know a white supremacist. He's a friend of a friend, and we found ourselves at dinner together one time. Of course, I doubt that I changed his mind about anything, but one thing that we could agree on is that his views were based on intolerance. I did not call him an "intolerance preacher" because he was not evangelical in his behavior; he just hated (insert volatile n-word here), (insert volatile g-phrase here), (insert volatile k-word here), and (insert volatile s-word here).

Like most people who view themselves as patriots (more properly stated as "True Patriots") he was an admirer of Thomas Jefferson. I pointed out that TJ had said that he promoted tolerance toward anything that "...neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". This approach did not work because he believed that non-whites were responsible for the perpetually frazzled state of the Texas economy and his financial woes in particular. Accommodating his views is part of why I believe in a high sales tax and a negative income tax.

Whether or not we like these "fanatics", it is still necessary to accommodate their views insomuch as is possible. There is almost always a common ground or common purpose between two parties and that commonality cannot be discovered in the absence of dialog. At worst, there is generally a common "enemy" and even die-hard vigilantes can often be induced to act together with an "enemy of my enemy".

None of your (negative) propaganda techniques would have worked on him unless you happened to share his views. Of course, as long as you are both breathing, it is almost certain that you DO share his views on SOMETHING, and unless you are able to talk with him without calling him names, there's not a chance in hell that you'll be able to be able to reach a consensus view on anything.

I am aware that propaganda is a neutral term. Propaganda in the context of hate and intolerance--such as the list of words you included for use against Christians--is NOT neutral. When I said, "I can be as scandalous a propagandist as needs require", I was referring to the sort of propaganda you promote in this thread, at this time, and in this context.

As I said before,
«It's a question of priorities. If you want to be a fanatical propagandist, go right ahead. I think the good guys will spot you out. I think, though we are talking more about framing concepts here than we are about how to put together an ad or a political pamphlet.»

If your list of intolerant and deliberately polarizing terms is used to create a frame, then that frame (a.k.a. "mindset", "paradigm", "map", etc.) might successfully woo some of the "undecideds" to your side. I already conceded, "It's a documented fact that negative ads produce positive results in political campaigns." You're right. Negative propaganda will produce results.

The question is, will it be the sort of results you will be happy with over the long run. I also said "It is also a documented fact that negative ads make the electorate have less faith in the political system as a whole." If you get someone on your side through a language of hate--no matter how justifiable that hate may seem in your eyes--then this person will believe that you will act upon the hate you promoted. If this is your desired end, then the means you promote are appropriate.

Those means would also make you my enemy. That doesn't dictate whether or not I could work with you. It just means that I would wear gloves and nose-plugs while I did so. This line in particular puts us on opposite sides of a fence which is of fundamental importance to me: "These people really ARE crazy (or amoral con men)". No man is immoral in his own eyes, and--having been officially branded as crazy by the state of Texas--I think that the word "crazy" should be reserved for people who fear everyone, pound their heads on the wall, speak to angels (who talk back), think that they are going to be picked up soon by a wealthy benefactor in a limousine because they are the best f**k in Texas, etc.

You also said,
  «As for being a fanatical propagandist, that does not describe my position. If you choose to characterize me as something other than a "good guy" that's your choice

but don't then don't complain about name calling to me.»

Calling Pat Robertson a fanatic seems no more of an error than calling you one. You both speak the language of intolerance. I'll admit that this was name-calling, but it was not an ad hominem attack because it simply referred to you in language as you had defined it. (By the way, I do not like hardly anything that Pat Robertson stands for. I just do not believe him to be any more a "fanatic" than you are.)

As for my "I think the good guys will spot you out" line, it seems pretty inclusive to me. You can construe it to mean that you are a "bad guy" if you want, but it is definitely neutral language, even in context. (Or are you saying that you would fail to spot your own propaganda for what it was?)

This was a deliberate example of what I mean by non-derogatory language of framing. I did not call you a bad guy. The language I chose forced you to identify with my perspective and then place a value judgment on yourself based on my value system. I think that it helped you come closer to a logical and rational understanding of what I consider to be correct language of framing to be.

This discussion has become pretty pointless. I refuse to accept your concept that exclusive or loaded language is ever appropriate in a discussion of values even on a conditional basis. It may be useful in propagandizing but, for establishing a basis for meaningful discourse or for promoting understanding of the opposition's cognitive frame, it is at best counterproductive and at worst, inflammatory. If you want to continue this discussion off-line, I can be reached at kencomer atsign kencomer period com

obligatory whine: it would be nice to be able to use anonymous e-mail, particularly for threads like the one this has come to be. Better bulletin board

This discussion is pointless. You insist on misreading what I have said, and hurling epithets at me

such as being fanatical. The extreme Christian right who wants to kill me are fanatical.

As for calling a white supremicist a fanatic in a discussion with him, of courtse it's pointless -- as I said, and repeated, consider who you are speaking to.

You did not force me to me to identify with your perspective -- you set up the binary. Read some Saussure: a word is defined not simply by what it signs but what it does not sign. No, I most assuredly do NOT identify with your perspective.

No, I certainly do not want to continue this offline -- or anywhere else. It IS pointless. I shall endeavor to ignore you in the future. If I want verbal abuse and to have what I say distorted I can get that in any number of places, from people more competent at it than what you have shown. If you want to be my enemy, then be my guest -- you will not pine for company.

I agree. I perceive the derogatory terms suggested in a previous post as anti-Christian more than anti-extremist. They'll put on the defensive many Christians who would otherwise be against Christian extremism.

As someone with a Christian background (though not practicing now) I refer to the extreme Christian right as heretics. Their teachings of revenge (eye for an eye) and general old testament adherence are way outside of the main stream understanding of christianity as a religian of love and acceptance (Love thy neighbor). From wikipedia, "Heresy is defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." The Christain right has corrupted major dogmas of Christianity, most notably the "do not kill" one. How can someone be called a Christian if s/he can't even adhere to the ten commandments? The heresy frame is familiar to both believers and non-believers, what's more it is not derogatory to other Christians (rather the opposite) and believers know that heretics are to be corrected, or else shunned and ostracized. If the Christian extreme right is proven to other Christians to be a heresy rather than another legitimate strain of Christianiy its so called values are going to get deflated very quickly.

<p>Sorry, I don't like "heresy". Progressive values include a strong respect for civil liberties, and words like "heretic" sound far too much like there's a witch hunt going on.</p>
<p>The idea raiding the "war on terror" rhetoric is intuitively appealing, and "Christian extremist" is particularly nice, but it does have the problem that we're referring to them as "Christian", which, I think we agree, is misleading.</p>
<p>Once again, the key thing here is to concentrate on <i>values</i>. The Christ-like values that progressives espouse include love, inclusion, and intolerance only towards those who would deliberately exclude.</p>
<p>So perhaps a better term is to deliberaty contrast the pseudo-Christian fundamentalist movement with the beliefs and practices Jesus. How about "Pharisees"?</p>

You can find The Center for Progressive Christianity at

http://www.tcpc.org

My personal favorite is "The Christian wrong."

If you are a pew warming Christian, you'll appreciate this battle between "literalism" and the "historical, critical method" has been going on for decades. I have been seeking out progressive churches and trying to live out my progressive form of Christianity my entire life. My particular brand of Christianity is in The Episcopal Church. I am ordained and remember sitting in a small town ministerial association in the 70s and having one of the Southern Baptist preachers invite me to open the meeting with one of my "printed prayers." It was an open dig to Episcopalians using The Book of Common Prayer. So I opened my prayer book to The Lord's Prayer and started in. Everyone joined me, not only in the prayer, but we all had a smile on our face at the end.

I think this conversation will be a long one and depend a lot on the silent religious progressive becoming more vocal and, as St. Paul, might say it in the book of Ephesians, "telling the truth in love."

The TCPC is committed to the dialogue.

I ran across this article http://www.portside.org/?q=showpost&;i=1902 which brrings up some interesting issues and approaches. Perhaps the "two language" approach can be helpful as to the religious right and politics?

It occurred to me that our reframing of the so-called "Christian Right" isn't nearly strong enough. Pat Robertson has called for a Christian revolution. The U.S. Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion, yet they are trying to establish Christianity as the national religion and making it a part of our laws. They've betrayed America, quite literally. Pat Robertson and his ilk should be investigated by the FBI and (to use a phrase that they themselves are so fond of using) prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What Pat Robertson said is NOT protected by freedom of speech, I don't think. It's in insighting to insurrection. So is the video game "Left Behind" insighting to violence and its authors should be put away for it. Churches and religious organization which don't file taxes but which encourage or discourage support of a particularl canditate or bill are guilty of tax evasion. 501c3's aren't allowed to get political. If you want to get political, you have to pay taxes. Anyone who so much as fires a gun against the American Constitution is guilty of treason. (That hasn't happened yet, but it way well happen!) If it happens and two people witness it, that person or people should be sentenced to life in prison without parole for it.

These aren't conservatives. Real Christian Conservatives (and they are out there, they're just not squeeky wheels) may believe that non-Christians are going to burn in Hell, but they also believe in freedom of religion. The so-called "Christian Right" does not. They're not even merely extremists or regressives (though they ARE definitely both). They're insurgents who have betrayed America and are actively trying to overthrow it. Let's call them what they are: "Christian Insurgents". And... let's defend our country. This isn't a progressive vs. conservative issue. It's a Constitutional America vs. Christian Insurgent cold civil war. Let's take back our country.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity