(Think of as religious syncretism with a twist. :-)
That is a very good analogy. It IS the method various shades of The Left (pink, red, green etc.) inculcate their faithful, particularly young and those with unformed / uninformed opinions.
It's exactly why I often explain how we have to use similar tactic to [begin to] introduce the right information to these unfortunate souls to revert them from brainwashed state:
From Gingrich: The challenge confronting Republicans - FR, post #26, 2012 December 24
You will not even get to the first base with them, if you are considered a "climate change denier" - they simply will not listen to you or your arguments - you will be challenging their faith. If you don't challenge their faith, it's very easy to provide the argument that the right "green solutions" (like "clean, cheap, green" nuclear energy, natural gas, filtrated oil and anthracite, and even localized - not expensive farm-based - solar energy) will make their energy more plentiful, cheaper and will not require taxes, fees, more regulation and (most importantly for them) "sacrifices" that Democratic doomsday versions of "global warming"/"climate change" are requiring them to accept. You don't need to change their faith in "climate change" to convert them from liberal drones demanding drastic actions (meaning more taxes, fees, subsidies for "green" technologies like expensive and inefficient wind turbines and solar farms, which are nothing more than crony socialism) into allies who will be on your side of the "green revolution" and leave Democrats in the dust on the issue, because their only interest in the hoax is government-doled money. ..... < snip > < snip > ..... To many young people (and many not so young), the "man-made global warming / climate change" is by now a matter of faith, even, as they might believe, scientifically-based "faith" - you will not get through to them about science or fraud or possible positive aspects of AGW (read recent article WSJ: Matt Ridley: Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change, 2012 December 18).
We need to learn how to fight fire by fire, but to it successfully and intelligently, we first need to understand which "fire" or particular "fusion of beliefs" drives them.
That’s certainly a shrewd tactic. I can’t justify it though.
Catholicism might be okay with it: “Sure, bring your fertility symbols and your winter solstice trees. We’ll incorporate them as Easter bunnies and eggs, and Christmas trees. Anything to get you to join our religion.”
Diluting a lie doesn’t make it any less a lie. (”Muslims and Christians both worship the same god.” - G. W. Bush) And I’m not convinced that any (or the most) good can come from pretending a lie isn’t a lie - even in the area of politics/AGW. Maybe I’m wrong?