Which Of These Two Uses Of Jesus (As Symbol) Do You Find More Disturbing?

[DistressedAmerican]

Poll question: Which Of These Two Uses Of Jesus (As Symbol) Do You Find More Disturbing?

The second image I'm sure would greatly piss off the Christian Right in this country. I think it is far truer to Jesus' message than anything coming out of the mouths of the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Freddie Phelps...

I expect that many would applaude the first.

What about you?

Which of these two images do you find more disturbing?
================================================================
Option 1, The Fundie Use:



Option 2, The Peace Protester use:

[annabanana]

1. I expect BOTH are disturbing to the RR

If you want to point out the massive hypocrisy of the RR, the top picture is more effective, because it is "one of their own" doing it. Remember that the people who hitched Christ up to the back of their van are from the furthest outermost fringe of the RR and a real embarrassment to the vast majority of them.

[DistressedAmerican]

2. I Sure Hope You Are Correct. I Really Do Not Have A Feel For

how representative these folks are in the various churches. Are they really the fringe even within these notably conservative churches? That would be great to know. It would give me some measure of hope that the theocrats may be stopped by their own.

I sure hope so. Seems to me like they have a lot of influence though.

[unhappycamper]

3. Christ on an SUV trailer hitch does it for me every time.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DistressedAmerican]

5. Jesus H. Christ On A Trailer Hitch! Don't Forget The Banjo!

[liberal N proud]

7. Pretty much sums it up!

[booksenkatz]

4. Personally? Neither.

Photos of symbols seldom disturb me; photos of dead Iraqi children, now THAT disturbs the shit outta me!

Love your work, DA.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. Certainly, I Find THOSE Far More Disturbing. For Their Sake AND Ours!

[UncleSepp]

25. I find the crying child poster even more disturbing

The image of this child in pain SHOULD be disturbing - it is natural to be disturbed by the image of any being in pain, especially a human, particularly a child. However, the text carries a bad connotation that the reason one should care about the suffering of an Iraqi child is that the child may grow up to be an (anti-US) militant. Overall, the poster plays to fear of retribution as the reason not to cause or allow suffering, and seems to redirect that fear as anger toward Bush. This, I believe, is problematic.

Convincing the viewer that allowing the abuse of Iraqi people to continue will lead to retribution by the survivors may be intended to motivate the viewer to agitate for ceasing the abuse in order to avoid the pain of retribution. However, ceasing the abuse is only one of two logical responses to the threat of retribution: it is as logical to kill the victims and anyone who may remember them so that no survivor remains to retaliate.

Given a viewer with healthy emotional responses and a normal amount of empathy, the crying child visual - which will be processed before the text - will prepare that viewer to feel nurturing and protective. The prepared viewer is intended to then read the text and feel anger at the desired target (Bush) for hurting the baby, for placing him (the viewer) in future danger, or in the case of a big-picture thinker, for perpetuating the cycle of militancy. Some of those viewers will already be anti-Bush and/or anti-war, and as such are not part of the target audience (unless this is intended as part of a sustaining campaign rather than a recruitment campaign).

Some of those healthy, empathic viewers will be pro-Bush and/or pro-war. Those are the critical target audience, but what will happen with them will be different. The healthy, empathic, pro-Bush viewer will experience too much threat and distress, as the crying baby and the implication of future violence will be compounded by an attack on their choices. This will be likely to provoke a defensive reaction, and the anger will be directed uselessly back at the poster itself and not at the desired target.

In the emotionally unhealthy viewer with empathy, the crying child may evoke different feelings and effect the outcome. The crying child may evoke hopelessness and fear in a viewer who himself felt hopelessness and fear while crying and screaming as a child. Those feelings, if stemming from abuse, would heighten the threat response to the 'future militant' message and cause it to be interpreted as a threat of punishment. This may cause the Bush-supporting viewer to paradoxically support Bush even more, attempting to please the authority figure in order to be protected from or avoid the coming punishment. Given the Dobson influence among the Bush supporting demographic, this segment is not at all insignificant. For this part of the target audience, the ad not only does not hit its target, but backfires.

In the worst case scenario, the emotionally unhealthy viewer without empathy, the crying child will not prepare the viewer for the text portion of the message in the way it would in a healthy person. The Iraqi flag will be as important as the image of the child in the mind of such a person. If the viewer already has an attachment to the Iraqi flag or even to the colors of it, that will color their perception of the rest of the poster. It is likely that the bandage on the child's head will scan as a turban, part of the incorrect but popular ethnic stereotype of the "Muslim terrorist". Depending on whether the viewer has bought into that stereotype or resents the stereotype, that also will shape that viewer's end state. The child's scream is as likely to be understood as rage as it is pain or fear, if it is understood as indicative of emotion at all: it may simply appear that the child is shouting. The child may not even parse as a child, but simply as "person". If the viewer has negative attachments to the Iraqi flag and/or its colors, believes the "Muslim terrorist" stereotypes, and has already begun to dehumanize Iraqi, Muslim, Arab, Middle Eastern, or just plain brown people, the child may not evoke any different feeling than an adult would. At best, the baby will connect to images of child suicide bombers. At worst, the baby will appear like the larval form of a pest. (I know that is a horrible thing to say, but there are people who think this way. As distasteful as it is, I believe we have to understand how hate works in order to defeat it.) Once the viewer is done with the image and moves on to the text, the stereotype will be reinforced by the keyword "militant", heightening the threat response. Going a few steps further with this broken logic, such a viewer may then conclude that the future militants are angry with Bush for trying to defend the US against terrorism, and will keep attacking us if something decisive is not done. This is the kind of person who will choose "leave no survivors" over "create no victims".

Propaganda is an awesome force. We use it, they use it, anyone with a message to spread uses it. Call it advertising or public relations if you want, but in my opinion, to call communications for the purpose of instilling a particular political viewpoint anything but propaganda is to engage in the exact dishonesty with which the word propaganda has become associated.

Propaganda can be beautiful, gentle, and inspire in others the vision of a better world and the desire to bring that better world about. By offering a moment of happiness and peace through images, words, sounds, and events, proper propaganda can cause the ugliness in the world to stand out on its own in comparison. The recipient desires to have more of this happiness and peace, and moves in a positive direction toward the offered light.

Propaganda can also be ugly, brutal, and inspire the nightmares of a world scorched by terror. When you start appealing to fear, you're not playing with sunshine and light any more. You're playing with a terrible darkness when, instead of happiness, you offer people pain. You are giving people something to run away from, not a goal to run toward, and it's very difficult to control the direction and distance as they run.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Wow, That Is Some Reading. Great Points.

I guess I must be among the healthy and empathetic. You clearly understand my general point of being expressed. Every word you say is true.

My message (as it was in my mind when I made it) can be boiled down to this. Suffering begets suffering. Those that inflict pain can expect pain in return. While that may be seen as an appeal to fear, it was intended as an appeal to the very empathy you are referring to. Both the inflicters and victims of violence on both sides must be made human.

The tendency is to talk about the war in terms of numbers and engagements. Imagery makes a more immediate appeal to the emotions. That is sometimes dangers however as you note.

I abhor the violence taking place in Iraq and other parts of the world at the hands of Americans. Is evokes in me a visceral gut response that is usually abject sadness at our actions. I also get swept up in bewilderment that people continue to support this type of behavior.

I am constantly shaken by the notion that we have killed over 100,000 Iraqis to install a government that will be more friendly to Bushco while turning a whole nation's citizen's against us.

As to the reactions of the less empathetic, I hope they gain some understanding when they encounter my graphics. Most will not. However, i have personally met several that did.

My graphics clearly fit into the definition political propaganda. I do not carry the same connotations with the word that many do. Some propaganda is a lie, some is true. Hopefully enough of the good if being produced to begin to keep up with the massive lies...

[katinmn]

8. The fundie one because carting around a supine image of Jesus

on an effing trailor hitch is just disrespectful, not to mention the lack of subtlety.

Now Mary as a lawn ornament is classy in comparison....

[DistressedAmerican]

9. I've Always Had A Thing For Madonna In A Bathtub!

This one anyway!

[katinmn]

10. Ha!

[unhappycamper]

11. I usta call that Mary on the half shell .....

[Disturbed]

12. Did ya know that..

Jesus was naked when he was hauling that cross and then hanging on it? Of course the prudish Christians just all have to cover him up.

The crucifiction was a porposefully humiliating capital punishment. I have always thought that Christians were bloodthirsty and perverse for displaying a man recieving this sort of death as their main symbol. When I first saw this as a child I was scared and thought it was an awful sight.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. Many Protestants would agree with you that

depiction of Christ crucified is too awful to look at.

We Catholics believe it's essential to see imagery of Christ crucified to remember the death He had to suffer for us. It's the same as looking at a picture of a child killed in Iraq; it makes you realize more about suffering and evil. But it's not the only "view" of Christ you'll see in a Catholic church. My own parish church has many images of Jesus and crucifixes are in the minority.

As for Christ being nude on the cross, you're probably right that most Americans would be uncomfortable with seeing that. But then, American TV blurs photos of Michelangelo's "David" so no one will be offended. Americans are not socialized to deal with nudity in art.

I do know of one Catholic church in the US that has a life size crucifix with Jesus nude, emphasizing his humanity as well as his divinity. Perhaps that will cheer you up. ;-)

[baldguy]

13. For real Christians, Christ on the cross is a symbol of faith.

For the fascists who pass themselves off as fundies, its a prop and a lure.

Duck hunters use & recognise decoys, but they don't shoot at them, and they don't bring them home for dinner.

[RC]

14. This really turns me on to Christianity

And people wonder about the violence and hatred caused by religion.

[Maru Kitteh]

19. I think you're missing the point

This was done to Jesus because of intolerance. The lesson to us was supposed to be that violence, hatred and intolerance is evil. Gandhi said that Jesus was the greatest practitioner of nonviolence of all time and yet the intolerance that people display for those who are not like them still brought him to this end.

Throughout history, millions of Christians have gotten the message wrong just like millions of Muslims seem to have gotten the message wrong and so on. Millions of atheists are certainly no better at all when it comes to the hatred and intolerance they show.

Peace, acceptance, tolerance, non-violence. These are good goals which will not be achieved by eliminating Christians or atheists or any other belief system but by changing the human heart, one at a time. If you display intolerance and hatred you can only expect it in return.

[peekaloo]

15. Pic #1 Catapult Jesus. I like how The Simpsons portrayed Jesus

this past Sunday. Sitting forlornly on a twisted swing set looking at his feet......God: "I sent my Son down to Earth a few years ago and he hasn't been the same since."

[DistressedAmerican]

16. Jesus Catapulting!

:kick: :evilgrin:

[unhappycamper]

22. Come on! You should be able to shop that.

Think of it as a Jeebus fling thing fling.

[marions ghost]

17. neither bother me

because both are harmless forms of expression. In a time of general repression, I can't fault either as a way to get out a message.

Only difference is--I laugh at the Fundie trailorhitch sculpture but I dont laugh at the Peace Protestor performance.

[tjwash]

20. Hey. My god can beat up your god.

When I was a kid, growing up in southern-baptist-land, they used to put on an Easter show. It would consist of guys with beards wearing diapers on crosses, covered with fake blood and stab wounds, with the guy on the middle cross being Jesus of course. While they hung there, the minister would pace around with a bullhorn shouting scripture, and phrases like "I will return, OH YES, I shall return".

I look at various pictures like the ones here, and flash back to the S.B. Easter pageant and all I can think is "what the hell do devil worshipers do to top THAT?"

[DistressedAmerican]

21. That Is Some Video I'd Love To See!

Any actual nails like they do in the Philippines or it that a little too real for their morality play?

[tjwash]

23. They did a pretty good job of making it look like they were nailed.

But they were just tied up.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Total Uncommitted Phonies!

[Fridays Child]

26. If I could draw, I'd do a cartoon of Falwell, Dobson, and Reed

hijacking an "Air Jesus" plane.

[bertha katzenengel]

28. BOTH.

I'm not Catholic. I never revered the crucifix, and I have always loathed that symbol. The way I learned my Christianity, Christ is risen -- there is no need to portray his suffering like that, constantly before our eyes. (And I think it has a great deal to do w/ the guilt felt by many Catholics.)

But from the time I saw Salieri put his crucifix in the fire in "Amadeus" and heard gasps all around me in the theater, I knew that symbol was sacred to some people. And it bothered me. It really really bothered me to see that symbol burn.

So here's why I say "both" are too disturbing:

1. The crucifix belongs in the churches of those who revere that vision of the Christ

2. The crucifix should not be used to further a political agenda. What happened to the separation of church & state?

[lectrobyte]

29. neither are particularly disturbing, or effective, imho. This, though,

is just wrong on so many levels. Saint Dale? Buddy Jesus? WTF?

[DistressedAmerican]

30. Kick!

[UdoKier]

31. Neither.

The sight of this possibly mythical historical figure strapped to a cross means nothing to me.

Never understood the obsession with the guy.

But the top one is tackier, if you want a distinction.

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Evening Kicker!

[DistressedAmerican]

33. ...