Christian Right Propaganda Posters

March 25, 2008

Austin Cline has created a series of satirical Christian Right propaganda posters in the image of those from WWI/WWII.

Austin says this about the posters:

… The intention is satirical, not sympathetic, but even so I believe that both the images and the words accurately reflect what some on the Christian Right belief and advocate.

They’re all very well made and don’t sound too far-fetched when compared to what the Religious Right actually says.

You may have already seen this one in the series (it’s popped up throughout the blogosphere):

Just in case you have seen the others in the series, though, here are some of my favorites:

Check out the whole set here.

(Thanks to Becky for the link!)

[tags]atheist, atheism, Christian, fundamentalist[/tags]

March 24, 2008

Lessons from a Christian Advice Columnist

March 25, 2008 Boy Scouts Get Federal Money for Their Discrimination

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

larry parker

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

"Is it a Radio Flyer?"

Troublesh00ter

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

NotAgain Delightful Bītch

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

"Free ice water at Wall Drug"

Wacker von Wackenfels

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

Arlen

I disagree with the “Teach Me Both Sides” poster. I think it is important to learn both sides to every issue (assuming there are only two sides). One doesn’t have to have sympathy for both sides, or give them equal weight, but an education that does not delve in to the philosophy and history of those whom time has revealed to be wrong is a dangerously incomplete education.
Mriana

Those are not only dumb, but some could even confuse a child- esp the “teach me both sides” one.

That “don’t take Jesus from her” is pitiful. You have a man being harmed by humans in a picture and she’s crying about that? She should be crying that humans can be so cruel and brabaric, then be thankful we have come further than that horrid story.

Oh yeah, let the man control uteruses! 🙄 Now that is the height of female oppression.

Need I say more?
Gregory Earl

Arlen, there is no such thing as “both sides” to evolution or any of the other issues mentioned on the poster. There is the side of science and then there is an open-ended set of deluded fantasies. If you want to teach evolution and “the other side”, which of this infinite number of fantasies are you going to choose?
Pedro Timóteo

Arlen: the problem is that “teach both sides” implies — if not to you, at least to those who call for it, a.k.a. the creatonists — teaching both sides as fact, and then, as they say, “let the children decide”.

I’d have no problem with a science class teaching about obsolete explanations that have been disproved by science. That’s called “history”. The problem is that they want science classes to teach kids that, yes, God did indeed create the world in 6 days and the universe is about 6000 years old. As fact.

If anyone can come up with a fancy and demand that it is thought alongside mainstream scientific facts due to “fairness”, then I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is taught as a third, equally valid theory, and with equal time and attention dedicated to it. It’s not more absurd than creationism, and it’s certainly less harmful…
valhar2000

Arlen: In addition to what Pedro has said, I’ll say that class time is not infinite, and not all sides in a debate are equal. In other word,s while it is good and useful to teach about genuine controversies, where people on both sides made cogent arguments, it is not good to teach the views of every kook, crank, fraud and liar who ever decided to challenge The Establishment, since the majority of these are not ahead of their time, they are just kooks, cranks, frauds and liars.

The creationists are firmly in the latter camp.
Claire

My personal favorite was this one. We won’t need to worry about freedom of speech becoming (horrors!) too free if you can convince people to censor themselves and say nothing critical of religion because it’s not respectful of believers and that it’s wrong to offend them.

It’s even an argument that’s cropped up here more than a few times – religious types who have insisted that by criticizing religion you have personally insulted them, because their religion is so central to who they are that the two are indivisible. It usually starts out with “weren’t you supposed to be friendly atheists?” and ends with some version of “you atheists are all just so rude and mean and disrespectful and you should all just shut up already”.

The whole “freedom isn’t free” thing is usually brought up to defend our overseas wars, but frankly, it seems to need more defending right here at home.
Dawn

The last one is funny. The kids look sincere but the mom looks like she’s trying to sneak in a quick breast exam.
Karen

It’s even an argument that’s cropped up here more than a few times – religious types who have insisted that by criticizing religion you have personally insulted them, because their religion is so central to who they are that the two are indivisible. It usually starts out with “weren’t you supposed to be friendly atheists?” and ends with some version of “you atheists are all just so rude and mean and disrespectful and you should all just shut up already”.

Exactly. And of course it’s not only here. It seems like this religious tendency to be hurt by criticism of religion and the corresponding self-censorship on the part of the non-religious is one of the biggest impediments we face in atheist-religious dialog.

It keeps us from making inroads, many times, with the kinds of believers who are most likely to hold the worst stereotypes about atheists, and the most likely to have those views changed if they get to know actual atheists. It’s a real shame and I don’t know how we overcome it.
Claire

Karen said:

It’s a real shame and I don’t know how we overcome it.

We do the only thing we can – we stop self-censoring. We speak up. We point out that the very same right they have to speak up in favor of something gives us the right to speak against it.

Eventually, they will get used to hearing it and stop having hissy fits about it. That’s the heart of the matter: if they never hear it, they will never get used to it. It’s already in the news and on the internet, all we have to do now is get them used to hearing it up close and personal, from an actual human being.

It works both ways, too – while they get used to hearing it, we get used to saying it. It’s very freeing – I know because I’ve done it. Yes, in public, and even at work. They DO get used to it.
Ender the evil Christian

“It seems like this religious tendency to be hurt by criticism of religion and the corresponding self-censorship on the part of the non-religious is one of the biggest impediments we face in atheist-religious dialog.”

It is ironic you say this while defending atheist properganda (satire designed to portray all of a group as being a certain way is properganda in my book). As for the whole teaching both sides of the issue thing, no creationism should not be taught; yes the problems with evolution and the big bang theory should be. For example from first to eleventh grade I assume that life came from a state no life; that matter came from a state of no matter. Then my senior year I was lucky enough to have a science teacher who discussed the second law of thermodynamics and made me question that theory. Yes yes I know that this planet is not a closed system and that the universe might not be, I get that; but I was taught the theory of evolution as FACT at a young age and was not told there were any problems with it until I had almost graduated (and I was tempted to take physics instead of AP chem where I would have never heard that). That is where both sides of the debate should be told. :Puts on flameproof vest and braces for impact:.

P.S. I am dyslexic so please do not be slow low as to make fun of my spelling; that will just make you look like an *** without a legimate debate.
Karen

It works both ways, too – while they get used to hearing it, we get used to saying it. It’s very freeing – I know because I’ve done it. Yes, in public, and even at work. They DO get used to it.

Claire, I certainly hope you’re right! Speaking out in a way that makes it as clear as possible that we are criticizing or skeptical of the belief system, not the person’s intelligence, may help matters a bit.

But I think you’re right, we’re all getting used to new attitudes and conversations in society all the time. This just may be another breakthrough topic that eventually becomes more routine than shocking.
The Atheist Spot

The one with the little girl and the jesus picture reminds me of Julia Sweeney’s story where she used to go around different churches comparing the hotness of the Jesus’s. And how she learned about the pleasures of her body thanks to a big Jesus poster in her room.
Dark

Ender: I do not think that these parodies constitute propaganda. They’re all parodying real positions put forward by real people; propaganda is usually a term only applied to the deliberate spread of misinformation, and I see no misinformation in a parody of a real position (provided it’s a truthful parody and doesn’t misrepresent the original position, and I don’t think these do that).

I am kind of boggling that someone taught you that matter comes from no matter. Man, public schools are pretty crappy. I don’t expect them to cover conservation of mass/energy in first grade, I guess, but it sounds like the way the Big Bang was presented to you was a little.. er.. off.

The claim that evolution violates the second law is false. You’d think if there was such a fundamental “problem” with evolution, scientists would be out there right now looking for an alternate explanation. However, evolution by natural selection consistently proves itself compatible with everything else we know about the world (scientifically), and continues to be backed by new evidence.

General: The point of the “two sides” parody is quite clear to me; it’s pointing out that in many instances, there are not two equally valid competing opinions; there is one objective truth, and presenting a controversy where none exists does not help anyone. Do we teach kids that SOME people believe Hitler murdered 11 million people (off the top of my head; let’s not quibble about numbers), but that SOME people think the whole thing was made up by a vast Jewish conspiracy, and let the kids decide what really happened? Do we tell them that SOME people think slavery is an affront to basic human dignity but SOME people view it as a pretty awesome economic model, provided they’re the slave-owner? Or that SOME people think the Earth is round, and SOME think it is flat, and they both have very good arguments, so you’re free to believe whichever strikes your fancy? Of course not. That’s the point of that piece. Sometimes, many times, there really IS an objective truth and no real controversy. The only controversy over evolution is between people willing to accept reality and people whose only reason for not liking the idea is that is contradicts what their religion says happened.
Ender the evil Christian

Okay here is why I call this propaganda. It is associating the ideals of a small subset with the whole population. It would like be making posters that make parady arabs by showing them as all being violent and crazy.

Another comparible example is the now classic (at least in some areas) pictures showing an autistic brain reacting to those they recognize and having no change. This is really an autistic brain, and probably the brain of many autistics. The problem I find with this is being aspie this compares all autistics to severe and profound autistics. This might not be a big deal with you, but try having people tell you that you don’t care about anybody or anything… it is not easy.

Also that site is largely false with my beliefs on the second law of thermodynamics. I find the problem to be with life coming from a state of no life, not from things growing. No matter what in evolution you start a state with no life, I just find it odd that life came from a state of no life when entropy increases in spontanous reactions. I am probably wrong but don’t you think that is odd.

Also with the big bang there is still the problem that at some point in time there was no universe, nothing existed, remember one day quadrillions (or more) years from now there will be no more hydrogen in the universe. This seems suggest that at one point in time hydrogen (from which every other substance comes from through stars burning up) didn’t exist. I suppose I never was taught how the big band explains that.

Also as for the whole slave thing, Marx himself would say that without slavery and the explotation of the prolatriot class (which had it just as bad in many cases) society like we enjoy it now would not be possible. Not defending slavery or what slave owners did but in a certain light (that we never learn) it was neccessary to create what we have today. And then we are never told that the working class in the northern states in many cases had it just as bad as the slaves in the southern states. And from a certain perspective Lincoln was a war criminal (he blantantly invaded for no particular reason, a soveign democracy (at least compared to just about any other country at the time and certainly compared to a country like lets just say…. Iraq… now). There are certainly more then one side then is taught to the Civil War (at least in elementry school, we learn more about this in high school).

Also remember that Bohrs model of the atom was at one time considered “reality”, not anymore.
sabrina

Ender, I respect your rights to your beliefs, but please do not ever equate slavery with the working class in the north. Yes, the working class had long hours, substandard living conditions, faced discrimination and disdain, but, to compare that to slavery is insulting, simple minded, and revolting. Slaves were bought and sold because they were considered property. The families of slaves were separated and sold off, mothers separted from children, husbands from wives. Slave women were nothing more than chattel to their owners, to be raped and beaten, with no legal recourse. In the north, a working class woman may have been raped, and if it was by someone powerful enough, they probably got away with it. In the south, anyone with a little extra money could buy or rent a slave to copulate with. These women were forced to work as prostitutes, and when they got older or unattractive, were sent to toil in the fields until they died. And can you imagine what being treated like property, with no rights, would do to your psyche? Yes, the working class had it horrible, but they were not property. They could quit, move west, stay with their families, etc.. Blacks were not even considered human.

To your other points, to compare Lincoln to a war criminal is utterly ridiculous. States do NOT have the right to secede when they get peeved at the government, its not fair to their citizens, and every state signed a compact, and became part of the union. You don’t get to go back on that a couple of years later because you don’t like the new laws. And if you have questions on evolution http://www.talkorigins.org is the best place to go. Thank you.
Ender the evil Christian

I am going from the point of view of Marx here, who would say that there is not real difference between being exploited one way or another; it is all explotation.

States do not have the right to secede from the government when they get peeved because the North won the Civil War and for no other reason. The citizens were for succession as evidenced by their seceeding and by the fact that not a single state in the south voted for Lincoln, it would sortof like the United States and Canada agreeing to be one but giving Canada enough power that they can get anyone elected just by all voting the same way. As for the whole agreeing to something so therefore your part of it for all time thing no matter what way it goes that seems a bit shakey on its base to me, especcially seeing how the north single handly changed that new compact in midgame. What I suppose the arguments boil down to there is does all that justify the huge loss of life when you take away the issue of slavery (which was never the main issue for the war). I imagine you probably think George Bush is a war criminal (based on your other viewpoints, I think that certainly makes Lincoln one too.

The website you gave never mentions how life first spawned in reflection the my problems with it just how it relates to the farther evolution of that life. The problem is that I have no problem with the theories on the farther evolution of life, I want to know where life first came from and where matter first came from. In other words how hydrogen came from a state where there was no hydrogen and how life came from a state where there was no life. Also you never mentioned the propaganda aspects of this post, mainly that it attributes ideals to a very large % of the population ideals that they may not have.
sabrina

I wonder which one of my viewpoints you looked at that would give you my feelings on the current regime. But, I disagree strongly that Lincoln was a war criminal, he had to sustain the union, or a power vacuum would have been created that would have led to the downfall of both sides. I know that Marx thought the working class were being held in some sort of slavery, but I don’t believe he ever said the plight of slaves was equal to those of the working class. And the reason you can’t have a definite answer on the origins of the universe, is because it hasn’t been discovered yet. This doesn’t mean you get to crow “Goddidit”, but that you have to wait for research, or start research on your own. There are several interesting projects going on in abiogenesis right now. Because abiogenesis is still struggling to find answers, its not taught in schools. We know the big bang happened based on microwave waves that are left over, we know how old the universe is, we can hypothesize on how planets and stars began to form. We don’t know how it was “created” or what caused it to happen. That doesn’t mean you get to teach any unproven theory you want, namely “goddidit”. Thats a cop out, a way to stop doing the work, investing the time, and researching the science. Jainists believe the universe is infinite and timeless, Hindus believe their gods formed the universe, ancient Greeks believed in Gaia, Christians believe in God, etc. Which would you teach in school, all of them, or your personal belief? And I didn’t comment on the posters because I don’t feel one way or the other about them. They’re humorous, and I think they represent accurately a % of this nation. If you don’t believe me google atheists suck, atheists are evil, atheists are heathens, etc. To be honest, I never comment on evolution (theres no point, evidence doesn’t trump faith) but your comment equating working class whites with slaves in the south was pretty horrible.
Claire

Ender said,

Okay here is why I call this propaganda. It is associating the ideals of a small subset with the whole population.

Sorry, but that’s just not true. There is no attempt here whatsoever to say that all or even most christians share these views, only that subset known as the christian right. We are well aware that many christians do not share those views. The original site and the post title here makes it pretty clear that it’s only the christian right that these are about. Those are the people who are trying to turn this country into a theocracy, and these posters are damn near to understating their views.

we are never told that the working class in the northern states in many cases had it just as bad as the slaves in the southern states

Leaving aside the politcal correctness issue, this just plain isn’t true. Are you possibly confusing being working class with being an indentured servant? You might make some sort of case for indentured servitude being like temporary slavery, but the operative word here is ‘temporary’, and that makes a really huge difference.

when you take away the issue of slavery (which was never the main issue for the war).

That’s just plain bullpuckey. Do you really mean to say that if the north had said “fine, keep your slaves, it’s ok”, or if that south had said “ok, we’ll give up the slaves”, that the civil war would still have started? No, slavery was and is the only reason that war ever happened.
Endersdragon

Do you really think that if the South had said, okay we will free our slaves to the point that we will give them wages and have them work on our farms still (which was all the Civil War really did for many-most slaves) the North would have allowed them to succede? Remember the South was pissed that none of their votes counted, not saying the war wasn’t largely about slavery but it was more about keeping the union intact. Look at the post above yours, someone gets what the Civil War was really about; and it doesn’t seem that much better then the Iraq War when you consider that the South was largely a democracy (at least comparatively speaking).

And no I was talking more about the working class person of the 19th and early 20th century who sent their kids to the mines (or mills or whatever) at a very young age to learn a living and that kid would work there (or some place like there) for the rest of their lifes in haderous conditions where many would die. They were frequently given just enough to survive, certainly not enough to risk changing jobs knowing there might not be another one to come to (a form of slavery in and of itself). You can say this is not as bad as slavery and I might agree with you; but if you really think that it is not that bad you must be crazy. Take aside the issue of rape and abuse (which not all slave owners did to begin with and factory workers could generally get away with abuse) and you still have the insanely long hours in hazardous conditions, no hope of changing your situation (without risking your life and limb; not to mention those of your family)… it really doesn’t sound that much better or worse then slavery to me, certainly not a system I would ever want to live in.

And yes I can’t just say that God did everything, but you can not dismiss the possibility altogether. At some point in time life came from a state of no life; matter came from a state of no matter. What is wrong with saying that this could have come from a higher being? The perfection of the universe and this world seems to suggest that something helped to do it. I do not wish for anyones theory to be taught, just explain the problems with evolution as soon as you explain the theory.

There are just as many sites on there going against Christians (like this one for example). God only knows that I can not walk around school without seeing all sorts of signs premoting atheistic organizations. God only knows that I have been critized for wearing my cruxcifix or my Christian special needs summer camp shirt in the past. Both sides are hatefilled so please get off your high horse :).
hoverFrog

“don’t take Jesus from her”, don’t give it to her in the first place. Give her a teddy bear or book instead.

Just so I know. Are these joke posters that are ironic or genuine posters that are scary? I’m torn between the two and I can’t decide. Either way I’m tempted to change the slogans on several for comedic effect.
GentlePath

The guy that made the posters said his “intention is satirical, not sympathetic.”

I think they’re creepy. Really well done, but creepy. If he had them printed up, I guarantee they’d sell. If that wasn’t the case, they’d be hysterically funny. That one of Jesus and the little girl would be framed and hung on more than a few public school walls in parts of the Bible Belt.
Sandra DeForest

“Arlen: the problem is that “teach both sides” implies — if not to you, at least to those who call for it, a.k.a. the creatonists — teaching both sides as fact, and then, as they say, “let the children decide”.

I’d have no problem with a science class teaching about obsolete explanations that have been disproved by science. That’s called “history”. The problem is that they want science classes to teach kids that, yes, God did indeed create the world in 6 days and the universe is about 6000 years old. As fact.

If anyone can come up with a fancy and demand that it is thought alongside mainstream scientific facts due to “fairness”, then I demand that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is taught as a third, equally valid theory, and with equal time and attention dedicated to it. It’s not more absurd than creationism, and it’s certainly less harmful…”

I want to ask, how much you actually know about evolution? I’ll tell you what I know. Evolution, in the sense of dinosaurs becoming birds, cannot SCIENTIFICLY happen. the only thing that can EVER happen in the real world is deevolution and natural selection. No natural organism can gain genetic information. It is not possible. There can only ever be loss of information or rearanging of present information. In that case, the THEORY of evolution is a hypothesis that is wrong. Creationism does not teach this kind of evolution. I do not have the time to go into all the finer points about the so many holes the theory of evolution ACTUALLY has but it is definitly more then the genesis account if you look at what the bible has to say along side the science.
Just a curious student

I saw the original link, and was shocked to see the kind of posters that the church promotes. Later on, i read the short opening paragraph and realized – that the person who posted that ‘blog’, actually made these posters himself. He says that images are more powerful than words, so that’s his way to show the true impact of the christian beliefs, as he seen them. These were never actually published. Most based on World War poster, that were published at the time.

error: Content is protected !!