"I'm a Prat and I'm Proud"

There is a person (for lack of a better term) running for Congress in my area who is proud of having invented a new term of abuse and puts it on his campaign mailers as one of his achievements. That this term, when critically dissected, has no intrinsic pejorative connotations, or any more than say, the words "bunny" (so cute!) and "jungle" (connoting luxuriant growth) do when separate, is immaterial. Most people are not familiar with Hedonism and, if they look it up quickly, will equate it with debauchery. Besides, it sounds like "heathenism"! So they will see the terms "secular" (omigosh, that sounds like "sexual"!) and "hedonism" together and picture scandalous orgies, people with no morals (because many seem to believe you can't be moral without a belief in some god) revelling in lascivious wassails instead of living with an ethical code based on rationality ... and revelling in lascivious wassails.
As a Secular Humanist (because there are Humanists who also follow the religion of their choice), I am insulted by this. I don't think that this represents my lifestyle (based on my personal Hippocratic Oath of "First, Do No Harm.") and it hurts my feelings to have my way of life mislabeled and ridiculed in this fashion. My first inclination is to, of course, turn the other cheek. I dunno, heard that somewhere. Recently, though, I have learned that stigmatizing people (say, by giving them an epithet not of their own choosing) is the easiest method of creating solidarity within a group.
This person wants to improve the cohesiveness of his target group by creating a sense of disgust in that group for another group. Now, I know that too many crazy people try to demonize behavior like that by linking it to Nazi Germany, but that is precisely how the Nazis manipulated people. There are more positive ways to rally your troops, but the easiest way is this way: create a scapegoat. Blame them for all the problems. I'm not saying this is the eventual intent of this person. I'm not saying he pictures a Final Solution for all non-Christians. He just wants to get elected. I'm sure he thinks that when he is elected, he will be working for all of his constituents to improve their lives and that his god is behind him 1000%. He means no one any harm, he just thinks he invented something clever.
Let me put this question to him: if that clever epithet was a new one to describe African Americans, Native Americans, North Koreans, Jews, Muslims, investment bankers, or welfare recipients, would he have put it on his campaign literature? "This country is under threat from 'Kimchi Jong-Illers' - a term I invented." Not that he would have to worry about that voter segment in this population, but how would that look?
While it is now too late to take it back, I appeal to this person's profession of Christianity (which is all over his campaign mailer) and his better judgment to drop this name-calling of a segment of his constituency. It is beneath him. And, while it might be efficacious, it's denigrating and hateful and has made him look like a prat.