You’ve seen these, right? They make me mad. Why? Because they don’t really mean what they say.

Let’s break it down. We’ll call each worldview by the letter it’s supposed to represent. So:

  • C = Islam
  • O = Pacifism
  • E = “Gender equality” (=the LGBT agenda)
  • X = Judaism
  • I = Wicca / Pagan / Bah’ai
  • S =Taoism / Confucianism
  • T = Christianity

And let’s assume a very broad definition of “coexist”: living together without calling for the destruction of each other. Here are the problems with that:

  • C wants to kill E, X, T, and (by implication) O. If they achieved the world they wanted, I and S would also no longer exist.
  • O doesn’t allow for effective resistance or defeat of C.
  • E stands in direct opposition to C, X, and T, and accuses those who speak against them of hate speech. Also, they’re trying to edge X and T out of public schools in favor of their own agenda. (They’re afraid C will be offended, so they get less trouble.) E is actually very, very intolerant.
  • X’s existence is threatened not only by C but also by O, who invariably supports C over X.
  • I and S are statistically insignificant and are mainly on there to complete the bumper sticker.
  • T is who the bumper sticker is really arguing against, but poses no physical threat to any of the others.

Historically, T has brought about more tolerance– “coexistence” if you will– than any other movement. But the kind of “coexistence” the people who make this sticker envision is one where at least X and T are completely marginalized.

UPDATE: My wife reminded me that I was supposed to mention this: Worldview issues aside, on a purely graphics basis, this bumper sticker is awesome.

FINAL UPDATE: Comments are now closed, because I feel like all the negative ones have sufficiently reinforced my point. Plus, being cursed at and called a terrorist just stops being fun after a while.


277 thoughts on “Coexist?

  1. Christianity has not “historically brought about more tolerance.” Think Christian Crusades, Puritan hate in early America and modern day crusades on all sorts of “difference”. Christianity is not a religion of tolerance.

    Coexist is a movement that just strives for acceptance regardless of religion. That’s the point.

      • ae, that’s a “tu quoque” argument.

        Christianity *historically* converted the Roman Empire from a religiously tolerant (if politically intolerant) regime into a religiously intolerant regime. Christianity did help make the barbarian kingdoms which succeeded the Western Empire into more civilised nations than they would have been otherwise. But the topic at hand is whether Christianity brought about more “tolerance” in a context of religion, and – relative to its pagan antecedents – it did no such thing.

      • @Zimriel, not true. Pagan Rome was seen as “tolerant” only insofar as pagan religions were not incompatible with each other, in that they had an open pantheon and could include other gods with little compromise to religious principles. That did not work with Judaism’s exclusivity, however, which is why the Empire was initially inclined toward the persecution of Jews. The special exemptions carved out for the Jewish people–and bear in mind that they were in fact significant exemptions, e.g. the exclusion from having to sacrifice to the Emperor–during the reigns of the early Emperors were not as a result of a broad tolerance policy, but as a result of a careful cost/benefit calculation, that it was easier to make a few exemptions rather than fight another war. That calculus changed with the Jewish revolt, and with it any pretension of religious tolerance.

        And, of course, the Roman Empire rather famously persecuted Christianity with extraordinary ferocity. That modern advocates of the “tolerance” movement would hold the Romans up as an example should be a warning to Christians everywhere as to just how serious they are about consistency in application of that principle.

      • Because they weren’t.

        Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted often sharing the same churches, until the Christians “needed” to make the holy land secure.

        Oh, and before you castigate an entire religion you should know that it’s those muslims you think want to kill everyone that are in charge of keeping the peace at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. A necessary job when Christians have killed each other over who gets to use the church.

        Anytime you say “we’re better than you” expect people to point out why you’re not.

        And before you attack me. I’m Catholic. One of those Christians most Christians hate.

      • historycat says: Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted often sharing the same churches, until the Christians “needed” to make the holy land secure.

        Wrong. Christians were robbed, persecuted and sold into slavery by the Mohammedans in the Holy Land. Christians who dared make a pilgrimage to that part of the World were risking their lives in doing so. The Crusades were in response to this injustice and hundreds of years of unchecked Mohammedan aggression into the West.

        historycat says: and before you castigate an entire religion you should know that it’s those muslims you think want to kill everyone that are in charge of keeping the peace at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

        You are referring to the door keeper, a function that remained in the charge of a Mohammedan family for many centuries. The lock on that door has since been replaced and even so, it gave the Mohammedan family no control over the goings on the Church.

      • @PV
        Awesome! You nailed it.

        I’m pretty sure that guilty or innocent, the Crusades was something that the Catholic Church alone gets to assume full and total responsibility for on the Christian side.

        “Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted…” Oh, that’s rich. Didn’t the Muslims peacefully coexist with the Zoroastrians, the Hindi, and the Jews before they ‘peacefully coexisted’ with the Christians? I guess that Islam spread from a tiny cult into a mighty empire in only 128 years (622-750 AD) without bloodshed.

      • @ stu, this is all I’m going to say cause I’m not going to get sucked in to arguing with someone who knows so little they would refer to this religion as “mohammedan”. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. But think about this. If the Muslims did control the region, why would they want to keep out the pilgrims? The Christian Pilgrims were a huge source of income for the Muslims. They made money off the pilgrim trade. They loved having Christians come visit. It was the Christian Kings who wanted to take control of the region. Taking this territory for their own economic and social benefit. When it doubt follow the money. When Pope Urban II called for the first crusade the Muslims were protecting Christian sites. They were rebuilding the Church of the Holy sepulcher for us when Christians attacked.

        @ matt groom, You’re incredibly short sited. Muslims had peaceful relations with Hindu, and Buddhists, and all the rest, for over 1000 years. (And Zoroastrians took a steep decline when the Persian Empire fell to Alexander the Great. They still survive in Iran.) It’s only in the past 200 years that the Muslim FUNDAMENTALISTS have taken the stance that Christian FUNDAMENTALISTS have. We know all about THE unknowable God, and no one else is right but us.

        If you want proof ask yourself why the large Buddhas survived until the 1990’s in Afghanistan. When the Fundies took over they excluded all other ideas. Just like you are doing on this site.

        Have fun with your God. You have taken the Omnipotent and Omnipresent God and put him in a box that you like. Good for you.

      • Ummm, no Historycat. The Muslims EXTERMINATED the last of the Zoroastrians, invaded lands that were owned by the Hindi, the Jews, Christians, Pagans, Taoists, and probably several other sundry religions I’ve never heard of long before Christianity took an active interest in fighting back.

        Have you ever heard of the term “Defaced”? In Islam, no pictures of the Prophet Mohammad or any other prophet may be made, nor any depictions of God or Angels. When the Muslims would INVADE lands held by other religions, they would “deface” all images religious significance by chipping away the faces of wall paintings, shattering and destroying any glass works, and breaking off the heads of precious statues. Very tolerant. Hey! It’s just like the Muslims destroying precious ancient statues in the 1990’s! Oh, wait, I’m sure that was some how the fault of the Christians.

        Oh, and you will note that I am an Atheist in the other comments, and I think all of you God-types have a screw loose, but at least I’m not a faux religionist like you apparently are. Your name is apparently a misnomer because your knowledge of history is rather limited, it seems.

      • The Christian intolerance cited by historycat is historical, not recent. I think RECENT history was all the author was discussing. Historycat is playing the standard cherry pick bad things from your religion (Christianity) and cherry pick good things from your religion (Islam). Then throw in self pity about illusory anti-Catholic discrimination. It’s very true the Muslim empires spared most of their Christian subjects. And why not? They served as slaves, soldiers, harem girls, eunuchs, translators, scientists and a lucrative source of taxation affecting only non-Muslims. Some “co-existence”.

    • How is it anything less than suicidal to countenance “acceptance” of a religion that has at it’s root the refusal to accept, or even tolerate, any other religion?

    • Perhaps because the Crusades happened in the 1200s, Janet? Eight hundred years ago. Quite a lot of things have happened in the world since then, you know. Just to take a random example, we have the courage and leadershp of Pope John Paul II in opposing the oppression of Eastern Europe in the 1980s, and the popular resistance centered in the Catholic Church to the dictatorship in South America in the 1990s.

      Mmm, but then there’s those Puritans, huh? That was in the 1600s, only 400 years ago. No reason we should forgive the Christians THAT quickly, huh? I mean, it’s TOTALLY DIFFERENT from, say, the Democratic Party, which as recently as 1950 was openly racist — where KKK membership was celebrated.

      • Yeah dude, nothing like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the rest of their weird, anti-gay cronies to symbolize tolerance.

    • The 1st Crusade was a war of Defense, in response to the Muslim invasion of western Europe. During that occupation the practitioners of the “religon of peace” sent more than 1 Million SLAVES back to the muslim world.
      The Catholic Church is NOT the whole of Christianity. The things you blame on the entire faith were practiced by small number of individuals that abused and debased the church for their own gain.
      And lastly I pose this question to you: Which country has more tolerance and freedom, America- founded on Christian principles or Saudi Arabia?

      • RightWingRN: “And lastly I pose this question to you: Which country has more tolerance and freedom, America- founded on Christian principles or Saudi Arabia?”

        Christian America before or after it slaughtered most Native Americas and built a nation on slavery?

      • pretty sure none of the founding fathers were christian. Separation of church and state was just to appease everyone.

      • I’m pretty sure that most of the founding fathers were Christians, Jon. The phrase “Separation of Church and State” does not appear in the Constitution. Remember, it’s a federation, not a nation. Most states had their own state religions, but the Federation would not adopt any one, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

    • I hear this unfortunate and ignorant argument frequently. To understand the Crusades, or what in military terms would be called a counter-attack, you need a little historical perspective. Let’s start at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

      In the late 900s, Basil the Great – the emperor not the theologian – consolidated imperial power by destroying the great ducal families in Anatolia which formed the backbone of the Byzantine’s military power. By the mid-1000s, the army still had not recovered from Basil’s purges. When the Muslims again invaded Anatolia – modern day Turkey – the Byzantines thought they could easily repel the invaders. At the Battle of Manzikert, they discovered differently.

      The Muslims defeated the Byzantine armies and captured Emperor Romanos who they later released for a ransom. The defeat at Manzikert initiated a Emperial Civil War during which Romanos was killed. Michael VII became emperor but was unable to stop the massive Muslim conquest of Anatolia which was historically the primary source of military manpower for the Empire.

      As Brian Carey explains in an article on Manzikert in “Medieval History”: “The Eastern Roman Empire, now practically defenseless, feared for its very existence. Desperate times called for desperate measures, and in 1095, Emperor Alexius I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118) appealed to Pope Urban II for Western assistance. . . In the wake of destroying nearly half the Byzantine army at Manzikert, the Seljuk Turks seized much of Anatolia. . . . Malikshah finished what his father began, pressing deeper into Anatolia, destroying cities and ethnically cleansing or enslaving hundres of thousands of Byzantine citizens.”

      The appeal of Emperor Alexius Komnenos led to Western Europe creating an army to perform a counter-invasion. The Byzantines wanted the western army travel through the Balkans to link up with the Byzantine army in Constantinople for a push south. The Western Europeans had no interest in putting their forces under the command of a foreign emperor (glad those issues don’t crop up today) so they coordinated a two-pronged attack – what is known as a double envelopment – of the Muslims. This would be patterned after Hanibal’s great victory at Canae. The Byzantine Army would push south. When the Muslims turned north to face them, the Western European army would perform an amphibious assault on the rear of the Muslim forces.

      Unfortunately, Byzantine doesn’t have a negative connotation for nothing. By the time the Western Europeans arrived in the Levant, the Byzantines had negotiated a treaty with the Muslims. Therefore, the Western Europeans faced the brunt of the Muslim defenses. If you know anything about the relations between the two halves of the old Roman Empire, this is not surprising. What is surprising is how succesful the Western European were considering that they supported a beach head in hostile territory for over a hundred years.

      Now, stop talking about the evil, aggressive Christians and let’s get historically real.

    • “I and S are statistically insignificant and are mainly on there to complete the bumper sticker.”

      By your own logic, Judaism shouldn’t be on this list either. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese alone that practice confucianism. Compared to what, 15 million Jews? I’m happy for you that you have your own blog where you can whine about the persecution of your own religion and preach why its the best, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

      Also, it seems like you missed the entire point of the bumper sticker.

  2. The Crusades were 600 years ago, and Christians who had nothing to do with them have been apologizing ever since. The Puritans came here to escape religious persecution and pretty much invented the idea of religious tolerance.

    Also, you’ve illustrated my point that this movement is actually very intolerant. It’s certainly not tolerant of Christianity, as your hate-filled distortions demonstrate.

    • “The Puritans … pretty much invented the idea of religious tolerance.”

      What rubbish. The Puritans came here to have the freedom to practice THEIR religion, but did not ever practice tolerance of other religions. For Pete’s sake, they exiled Roger Williams from Salem for having “diverse, new, and dangerous opinions” that threatened their church.

    • And that’s why Puritans made church attendance compulsory? The more I read from you, the more I question your schooling and upbringing. Clearly you fail to grasp basic understanding of religion and history. You just want tolerance for you and yours and to hell with everyone else.

  3. Pingback: Coexist? «

  4. Janet,

    The intolerance, violence, self-righteousness, and sinfulness of Christians does not prove that Christianity is itself intolerant, violent, et al or untrue. Likewise, virtuous pagans and kind humanists don’t make the beliefs they espouse good or prove them to be true. In fact, the sins of Christians only prove the truthfulness of the Christian doctrine of human sinfulness.

    Certainly Christianity is not a religion of tolerance if by “tolerance” you mean “acceptance.” Likewise, the tolerance you practice does not even meet the impossibly high standard to which you hold confessing Christians. I assume you do not accept Jesus Christ as the God-Man who is the only way to God? According to the standard you seem to set, that makes you intolerant. Jake made a similar point.

  5. Pingback: Coexist. « Defending. Contending.

  6. Actually, Janet, the Crusades were a response to the lack of “tolerance” by Muslims to Christians on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Muslims had invaded and conquered North Africa, Spain, southern Italy, Cyprus, Malta, etc. Liberals, because they hate Christians, have advanced the idea that the Crusades represent some type of persecution of Muslims, but that is largely myth.

  7. Lets not look at the crusades in a vaccuum. There was plently of death and mayhem to go around. The Turks murdered the Jews and early Christians, the Arabs killed the Turks, etc. Not excusing the Christians but it was a comman theme, not a Christian one.

  8. “The Puritans came here to escape religious persecution and pretty much invented the idea of religious tolerance.”

    Um, no. The Puritans were highly exclusive and not at all tolerant. They scourged and often hanged anyone who deviated from their rigid standards of belief and behavior. The Quakers were pretty much the only early American religion that would fit the bill – and even then, their tolerance was mostly towards other Christians.

  9. Let’s have some examples of people hanged by the Puritans for “deviating from their rigid standards of belief and behavior.” Let’s have some reliable footnotes. It’s really easy to generalize based on what you heard in 9th grade English.

    • How about something more recent?

      The Yelwa massacre took place on May 2, 2004, in Yelwa, Nigeria. According to reports more than 630 Muslims were killed by Christians. Christian men and boys surrounded Yelwa and many were bare-chested; others wore shirts on which they’d reportedly pinned white name tags identifying them as members of the Christian Association of Nigeria, an umbrella organization founded in the 1970s to give Christians a collective and unified voice as strong as that of Muslims. Each tag had a number instead of a name: a code, it seemed, for identification. They attacked the town. According to Human Rights Watch, 660 Muslims were massacred over the course of the next two days, including the patients in the Al-Amin clinic. Twelve mosques and 300 houses went up in flames. Young girls were marched to a nearby Christian town and forced to eat pork and drink alcohol. Many were raped, and 50 were killed.

      More than 10 000 people have died in fighting since Olusegun Obasanjo was elected as the president of Nigeria in 1999.[citation needed] The origin of the conflict between the Christian Tarok and the Muslim Fulani is rooted in their competing claims over the fertile farmlands of Plateau state in central Nigeria.

      But it has been stoked by religious hatred and the sense among the Christian population that Muslims are outsiders in Plateau.

      Survivors of the Yelwa massacre said they had buried 630 corpses in several mass graves around the remote market town after Sunday’s attack. It was not possible to confirm the figure independently, but a senior police officer spoke of “hundreds” dead.

      • historycat,

        You’re example reinforces what Sam wrote above:
        1) The intolerance, violence, self-righteousness, and sinfulness of Christians does not prove that Christianity is itself intolerant, violent, et al or untrue.
        2) In fact, the sins of Christians only prove the truthfulness of the Christian doctrine of human sinfulness.

        It may sound like a circular argument, but when Christians sin (as in 1, above), it only serves to legitimize Christianity. Oddly, when muslims sin, the acts are also made to legitimize Christianity.

  10. C’s holy book endorses only to subjugate, not kill, X and T. What members of C do to members of X and T are means to that end, not the end itself.

    The Baha’i are not represented in I.

    The set I is of polytheists and S, basically of unbelievers; so C would seek to convert them.

    We’re agreed on C’s take on E.

    Hindus / Buddhists aren’t on the menu, interestingly.

  11. Jake, you lose. Massachusetts exiled Quakers and executed them on their return. Source: The Founding of New England, James Truslow Adams; also its review in NYT, “In The Puritan Reign of Terror”. Some names: William Leddra.

    Also, if we are talking crimes of Puritanism as a faith, we must include the enormities of Oliver Cromwell and John Calvin.

    Actually, Jake: You not only lose, you reveal yourself as an apologist for religious terror.

    • Would you rather be a non-Muslim living in a Muslim society or a non-Christian living in a Christian society? Try driving around with that bumper sticker in Saudi Arabia.

    • It’s ironic that you mention Cromwell negatively in a thread about tolerance. It was Cromwell who invited Jews to return to England, having be expelled some time earlier.

      • Or to sum up the attitude of some on this thead: “why beholdest thou the beam that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the mote that is in thine own eye?”

    • Uhm, Calvin was not a puritan, historically speaking. And what enormities are you talking about? Calvin was a pastor of a church and did not have any hand any government.

      The only possible connection to calvin would be Servetus, but even that was not calvin’s decision, and he did his best to care for him.

      • The Puritans claimed theological descent from John Calvin.

        And I was thinking of the beheadings of Jacques Gruet and Giovanni Gentile. There were dozens of other people executed, exiled, and imprisoned because of Calvin’s bigotry. I know “dozens” seems like not a lot but this was a small citystate; and the context here is theocratic terror, not a body count.

        By the way, this doesn’t include those who quietly disappear in the night, as also happens in theocracies.

  12. Zimriel: “C’s holy book endorses only to subjugate, not kill, X and T.”

    Really? What about Sura 8:12: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

    or “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'” (Bukhari 84:57)

    or “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (Sura 48:29)

    and, of course, the favorite “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (Bukhari 52:256)

    These were all broad, generalized commands, unlike the specific, temporal imperatives in the OT. The commands in the C’s holy book have not been abrogated, thus they are still in effect and, obviously, still being followed.

    • Sura 8 where it talks of total war is talking about fitna – the battle of Islam against heretics. To outside groups sura 8 just talks about making war until the outside groups *surrender*, like the other suras do (you’ve already cited sura 48). It’s sura 9 that then prescribes the terms of surrender: dhimmitude, jizya etc.

      “Whoever changed his Deen, then kill him.’” just says, don’t leave the Muslims. Says nothing about what to do with Christians or Jews living under the Dhimma.

      You have a point with Bukhari 52:256. But that’s an apocalyptic statement. Only an apocalyptic Muslim would hold to that; and such Muslims would be viewed as kooks, like we view Christians holding up “end of the world” signs.

      • Zimriel, where in The Bible (Christian Bible) does it say that Christians should KILL non-believers or (in essence) infidels? Nowhere can that be found. “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”. No, Islam espouses the notion of vengeance and murder actually being given over to the Muslims on behalf of Allah. If Allah is so powerful, why in the hell does he need us to kill each other? Why can’t he take care of ‘bidness’ himself?
        No I’d much rather be a Christian than a Muslim if I must subdue or eliminate someone of another faith just because it’s not mine…

      • I am not an expert on Islam and as such say this merely as an observation of Sura 8. Perhaps the word “disbeliever” is defined somewhere else, but it does not seem like Sura 8 makes such a distinction between heretics and outside groups. A quick search around the net would seem to confirm this.

        Also, in Sura 8 it does not seem to be talking about making war until an outside group surrenders. What it seems to be saying is that the Muslim shall not surrender to any outside group. Quoting Sura 9 is interesting since 9:5 specifically states to kill the idol worshipers. Perhaps Christians are “unbelievers” as opposed to “idol worshipers” (though beyond the concept of an idol there seems to be no differentiation), but Muslims are clearly taught to kill unrepentant idol worshipers, however that may be defined.

        Also, in quoting “Whoever changed his Deen, then kill him” and saying that it just means “don’t leave Islam” is incorrect. That softens the statement beyond any recognition. Ask any convert in a Muslim country if this simply means “don’t leave Islam”. It may not single out Jews or Christians but it is clearly hostile to people who convert away from Islam and that would include Jews and Christians, or anyone else.

      • Deut. 7: 2.
        “And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly adestroy them; thou shalt bmake no ccovenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:”

      • Reader of books, that was an order that God gave to the Hebrews, which they followed through on thousands of years ago. It is not a standing order for Jews or Christians to kill. This is quite different from the unabrogated commands from allah to kill non-believers.

  13. Folks in the west get hung up on the idea of tolerance because it’s a “fish don’t know water is wet” kind of thing.

    The entire concept of pluralism, tolerance, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a Judeo-Christian, even Enlightenment idea.

    This is one of the problems we have in dealing with Islam…most Muslims in the world don’t accept our most basic premise, that it’s fine to disagree, that it’s fine to be an apostate / heretic / whatever. To them, the heretic is to be forcibly converted, or at best subjugated to Dhimmitude.

  14. E doesn’t stand in direct opposition to T, at least not as it’s practiced in my church. Nor do the C charities we rent space to seem particularly inclined to do us harm. Every few weeks one of them even does the cooking for our soup kitchen. (Why soup kitchen, BTW? We’ve never once served soup.) Oh, and I don’t think you can say that the sticker is always anti-T. My priest has one on her car, and I’d call her pro-T.

    • She’s not pro-T if she has a sticker which symbolically equalises several rival faiths to T. She’s not anti-T (although I question her orthodoxy), but she isn’t pro-T either.

      • The sticker just says coexist. It says we can work with Muslims to feed the poor and do events with Jews and all get along. That’s a fine message, and a Christian one, as far as I’m concerned.

        Past that, on what basis would you question her orthodoxy? That’s a lot to get from a sticker.

      • You can’t coexist with people who want to kill you. You stop existing. Islam begins shutting down any others as soon as their numbers are sufficient.

  15. While I don’t think much of the ‘coexist’ sticker – graphically or otherwise, I truly do resent the piety and smug self-righteousness they project.
    A word to you ‘coexister’s’
    If you have one of these on your Prius, I guess you think you’re perched on the moral high ground – You’re not, that’s not the high ground – it’s a big ‘ol pile of BS.

    BTW – You ever see a picture of Bono sporting that coexist headband of his in Riyadh? Nope, me either. Posers, preeners all.

    • Islam’s “Reformation” was held by Ibn Taymiyyah, and the Taliban is its “Calvinist” moment. What Islam needs is what conservative Christianity needs (c.f. Jake), an Enlightenment.

      • For the purpose of this “Ellen subset” of the thread, I’m not talking about Christianity. I’m talking about the Reformation sects. The Reformation sectarian John Calvin absolutely did preach death – he *sentenced* death.

      • As for my comment that conservative Christianity (as a whole) needs an Enlightenment, that doesn’t refer to the violence of Puritanism – that is, not directly. I am however concerned with the *apologetic* for Puritanism / Calvinism I see in this thread. Even making excuses for a Calvin betrays a corrupted – “unenlightened”, if you like – mind.

    • Christians (in this country, now, for example).

      Jews (historically, they were much safer in Islamic cities than they were in Christian ones).

      • While it’s true that Jews in the Muslim world were less likely to be killed than in Christian Europe, that’s not to say that Sephardim had a fun time living as dhimmis.

        While Christians may have behaved badly, little of their violence could be explicitly justified by passages in the Christian bible. Subjugation of non-Muslims, OTOH, is explicitly commanded in the Quran. While Jews were second class in Europe, that status was unofficial. Under Islam, the subjugation of dhimmis is Quranic law.

        It’s interesting that mainstream Christian denominations learned, in the wake of the Holocaust, to be more tolerant of Jews. At the same time, Muslims were embracing eliminationist Jew hatred.

        Contemporary Christians regret that Pope Pious and other Christian leaders did not speak out more loudly against the crimes of the Third Reich. Though Christian leaders may not have acted nobly, unlike Muslim leaders they did not embrace Nazism. The Grand Mufti, Arafat’s relative, spent the war in Berlin and helped raise a SS division staffed entirely of Muslims from the Balkans.

        To my knowledge, there are no photos of priests conducting mass for members of the SS, while there are photos of the Muslim Handschar SS division kneeling in prayer. Their division flag was a scimitar with a swastika.

  16. “Coexist is a movement that just strives for acceptance regardless of religion”

    Uh huh. And just how do you square that statement re: Islam? They, under no circumstance, accept other religions as being on par with themselves. Every other follower of every other religion is literally a second-class being to them.

    You do realize that there exists only one religion that requires – demands even, that it is the role of all fellow-travelers to kill apostates? Quit Christianity, and other Christians will pray for you. Same with Judaism, and others. But Islam? Nope, quit that religion and you now have a death sentence on you. Religion of peace and all that.

    • You do realize that less than 40% of Muslims in the world live in the Middle East, don’t you? That Muslims have managed to integrate in nations far and wide, and hardly ALL of the that 40% or so IN the Middle East are radicalized?

      And the radicalized Fundamentalists are LESS fired up on matters of religion, as opposed to the politics that led to their turning to the Fundamentalists in the first place?

      Are you going to blame all Muslims for the sins of a minority? If that is the case, can we call to disband Baptists and replace their churches because of the actions of bombers and clinic shooters? Or those who scream that God is punishing our troops with death and that AIDS is a retribution from Yahweh for allowing gays to live?

      Focusing on small slices of a faith, as opposed to focusing on the individuals is part of the problem.

  17. I know those stickers are supposed to spell out “Coexist” but they make more sense if you look at the C like it’s trying to be Pac-Man.

  18. This is one of the best posts I’ve read in the last few months. Succinct, yet profound.

    Rome didn’t care about religion when Christianity became ascendant. Therefore, it tolerated religion. Whatever people care about, they don’t tolerate opposition to it, if they can get away with it (empire, dictatorship, etc.).

    All of us who are not Muslims and don’t plan on converting should be very thankful to our ancestors who resisted Islam.

  19. Historically speaking, no one has been particularly interested in co-existence or tolerating dissenters. Group cohesion was necessary for survival, and dissent was a threat to that, whether it was social dissent or religious dissent or some other type. By killing the heretics, you were eliminating a potential weak link in the community.

    Every group was bad, and arguing about which was the worst is a waste of time. For every sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, I can raise you a sack of Constantinople when it fell to the Turks. For every harsh law in Islam, I can bring up one in ancient China. And let’s not even get into what the Old Testament said that the Israelites did to those who didn’t share their belief in One God.

    The point is not what a group has done 100 or 500 or a 1000 years ago, but what they do and believe today. Today, not even the looniest member of the Christian Right is interested in restarting the Inquisition. Christianity has broadly accepted the idea that you must become a Christian by your own will, or you aren’t really a Christian. Those who aren’t Christian must be allowed their own beliefs, or they can’t have a true conversion. That does make it at least one of, if not the most tolerant faiths on the planet, and most assuredly not the one you should be lecturing about tolerance.

    • Thank you for this.

      I wasn’t trying to bash Christianity, just stupid arguments for Christianity. Unfortunately comment threads nearly always bring out the dumb in some people. So, well done, in crafting a serious argument.

    • Ignore history and you’re doomed to repeat it.
      A ‘Christian’ nation – America – attacked another ‘Christian’ nation – Serbia – to defend a Muslim population. Then 9/11 happened and the first ‘Christian’ nation invaded two Muslim nations.
      ‘Cause Americans are just too monumentally stupid to pay attention to history, ’cause, like, hey, that was hundreds of years ago, and so keep repeating the same stupid mistakes.
      So much for Coexistence, and the ‘peacefulness’ of either ‘Christians’ or Muslims.

  20. Is S really that small? In this country, yes. Worldwide I’m not sure.

    Living, as I do, near Berkeley I get a bellyful of these bumper stickers. The only upside to them is that they identify the car owner as a complete moron, which serves as kind of a safety warning.

  21. and let’s get to the basic point:
    if you really believed that your religion is the way to save your and anyone else’s soul, and otherwise you’re damned, then coexisting with other religions is evil–you are obligated to try and convert people.

    so of course the coexistence means Christianity is illegitimate, because it says it is the path to salvation. (islam, too, would be illegitimate, but these bumper sticker owners don’t care about that part, do they?)

    coexistence is only meaningful if you don’t believe in salvation in the first place.

    • Moreover, “Coexist” says “I have given up trying to convince you, and I am now seeking terms”. It responds to the Qur’an’s “pay the jizya” with a resounding “how much?”

      This is why I called out Jonathan’s “priest” as a heretic by the standards of T. Whatever she’s a priest of, it’s not Christianity.

      • Episcopalian, for the record.

        And the rest of this is nonsense. No Muslim as ever asked me to pay a jizya, and I’d be very surprised if any of the ones I know ever do. A call for peace and understanding is not a call against Christianity. It is, in fact, the call of Christianity.

      • I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. I do charity with both my money and my time. I bear witness with my life and my words and my works as best I can. I confess my sins and try to repent of them. I read the scriptures, though not as often as I should, and pray nightly, or nearly so.

        How is it that you can move from me not buying that Muslims are, one and all, dedicated to killing me to declaring me no longer Christian?

      • Jonathan,

        How about asking your Muslim friends if they know what the term “jizzya” means and if they think the practice is okay?

        Ask your Muslim friends if they’d want to be a dhimmi in a Muslim country. The last time I asked a Muslim that question, he replied, “Of course not!”.

        Ask your Christian friends what they would do if their child converted to Judaism. Then ask your Muslim friends the same question.

      • I remember that, and I’m weirded out by it, but I defer to the judgement of her Bishop.

        As to abortion and homosexuality, I’m anti the first and pro rights for the second. About that second, I’ll say only that I don’t see any support in the Gospels for the treatment of homosexuals that more conservative Christian churches adopt. I won’t however, say that they aren’t Christian churches if they don’t agree with my reading of Scripture. We see through a glass, and darkly, and all we can do is the best we can do.

  22. Pingback: Safety Warning « Buttle’s World

  23. Pingback: COEXIST « Left, Right, and Centered

  24. Actually, if you take the “C” out of the picture, the rest of the letters could probably manage to coexist just fine.

  25. ok im a christian and i feel this is the most incredibly ignorant thing ive ever read against Islam! no where in the Quran does it support Jihad of the sword except in a matter of self defense, NO WHERE does it say suicide is ok. NO WHERE does it say they want to kill jews christians or anyone else. christians jews and muslims serve the SAME God. Muslims feel that the others are misguided in their faith, but that doesnt mean murder them

    • Well, yes it does actually. And it also says MO is the perfect man -do as he does and orders you to do. Then take a look into the Sunnah, the record of MO’s words and actions: murder, mass murder, torture, theft, rape, enslavement – you name it. MO was a big time thug and Allah says Muslims are supposed to emulate him.

    • You must have never read the Qur’an and the Hadith or you are simply willfully ignorant. Others have quoted the usual passages that certainly do call for conversion at the point of the sword, or failing conversion death or dhimmitude (at the discretion of the good Muslim who happens to be holding said sword at any particular moment). For every passage commonly quoted on this aspect of Islam there are at least two or three more similar passages that call Muslims to the that task that aren’t as routinely quoted. The concept of Jihad as a personal struggle to improve one’s self is at best vastly overstated and at worst a pure fabrication out of whole cloth by western scholars in order to make Islam more palatable for western consumption. I suggest you first study the Qu’ranic concept of “abrogation” (where early, generally more peaceful passages in the Qu’ran are superseded by later more violent and aggressive passages). With that understanding in hand, simply read the Qu’ran and the Hadith and try to give me a rational argument that the Qur’ran does not support Jihad of the oh so literal sword.

  26. You can feel whatever you want but I would argue that you are ignorant of reality. Islam is not what you say it is, WOW, it is what muslims say it is. Some percentage of muslims embrace savage violence and some percentage of muslims, while not violent themselves support the violence of their fellow muslims.
    That is not an intellectual problem of interpretation, that is a concrete problem in the real world that needs to be dealt with.

  27. I hate this bumper sticker too, for all the reasons you state, but mostly because I think it sets the bar awfully low. Is that all these people really want? For us all to coexist? Because that is what we do…everyday…we exist…together…her on earth. Hello!

    • Brava, nichole!
      The bumpersticker is essentially meaningless and pointless. It indeed sets the bar too low – as you say, we already ‘coexist’ isn’t that evident in how well we all get on! But, we can improve on that can’t we! Instead, how about ‘forgiveness and mercy and grace’? POPQUIZ: Which world religion promotes those virtues?

  28. WOW so ignorant Says,
    You really are ignorant. Read the Koran, the very book you are defending contradicts the hippie drivel you type.

  29. Has nobody commented on the fact that the bumper sticker essentially says “f… the Buddhists” by their exclusion? Not very tolerant, methinks.

  30. As I’ve read through the comments posted here I’ve come to a conclusion. Every one of the “you’re the intolerant one” comments proves Jake’s point: The bumper sticker, and the concept underlying its message are all based on a heightened sense of idealistic b***s*** that has no connection to reality.

    That’s why morons argue who was the bad guy during the Crusades and think that allows somebody named Muhammad to have a heightened sense of grievance 1000 years later.

    This post and the comments that have followed it prove why “Progressives” are brain dead to reality

  31. Pingback: Coexist? « Wiser Time « Marc Whitman’s Blog

  32. Pingback: Coexist? « the nix fix | the whiz dumb of tom nixon

  33. The entire argument is pathetic and blatantly ignorant. The coexist movement is about the desire to live in harmony with one another regardless social and religious differences. Thus the movement calls for intelligence which leads to understanding and acceptance of each other.

    The author of this argument obviously is anti-Islamic as his whole argument revolves around possible conflicts started by Islam. The Koran and the Bible both share messages of intolerance and hate as well as love and brotherhood so to say “historically, T has brought about more tolerance…than any other movement” is ridiculous and idiotic statement and way of thinking. Jake you FAIL sir.

    • The desire to coexist is noble. Ignoring the fact the one particular religion’s scriptures calls for its adherents to convert non-believers by force or, if they refuse to convert to either kill them or subjugate them as second class citizens, and the fact that present day followers of this religion demonstrably believe this scripture to be binding to this to this day is terminally stupid. Would you expect Jews to attempt to co-exist with Nazis in Germany in 1943? What would you expect the outcome of such an attempt at co-existence to be? What would you call a person that attempted such a strategy? Attempting to co-exist with other peaceful groups of people is beautiful. Attempting to co-exist with people who wish to kill you is insanity.

  34. Finally someone else annoyed by those bumper stickers! On a very basic level sure I’d like everyone to get along. Unfortunately that isn’t the way things work :)

  35. Pingback: Bumper Sticker Logic « noot

  36. You have a narrow-minded view of what these views represent *especially* the Christian movement. I like how you’ll nitpick the fundamentalists of each view yet fail to distance yourself from the likes of Fred Phelps. Maybe everyone should take your stance and equate the fundamentalists with the mainline subscribers of that view.

    It’s clear you miss the point of the sticker.

    • Do I have to put in every post that I don’t approve of Fred Phelps? Would that even have made sense in this one?

      Dude, you just read one blog post. Don’t act like you have exhaustive knowledge of my worldview. That’s very intolerant.

      • EXACTLY! Don’t pretend like you have any understanding of what these views represent other than what you hear about on the news or read on the box of a happy meal. Your worldview (as espoused by what you know of these icons) is laughable. Don’t pretend that since you wrote one blog post that your worldview (and especially, your religion) have any more merit than those of any one else. That’s very intolerant.

  37. Also, the ‘equality of the sexes movement’ is not some plot brought forth by ta gay/lgbt agenda. So ignorant.

  38. “getting along” is futile if all of the parties involved aren’t willing to agree to it. The reason Muslims are pointed out as the problem is because they have no intention of “getting along” with other religions. It is a basic tenet of their belief that they are superior to all others and thus will subjugate those others to second-class status if given the opportunity.

    America (and Britain, among others) is already experiencing an apartheid in places like Dearborn MI where Muslims are separating themselves socially, culturally, and literally from non-Muslims. Don’t be so naive as to belive this trend will somehow stop on its own. Britain will be majority Muslim in two generations at the current rate. And then dhimmitude will be locked in.

  39. These stickers don’t make me “mad” – but they do annoy me – since they imply several falsehoods.

    1. That we have any use at all for C, X, I, S, or T in our modern (non-cave-dwelling, sheep-herding, etc) world.

    2. That C and T (and parts of X) aren’t really the biggest problem facing our society (without either there’d be a LOT more people walking around, especially in places like NY and Iraq) today.

    3. That your irritating sexual preference is somehow on par with fanatic religious conviction (it’s not nearly as interesting – I mean, why not put Mets fans in there too).

    That the mere suggestion to “get along” made the intended recipient of the message so incensed is testimony to how incredibly narrow-minded and dangerous they are.

    The futility of preaching through bumper-stickers ought best be left to those who perfected the art in the first place…T.

  40. Sadie, the point is that those who display such bumper stickers are willfully naive. It’s like a guy in a t-shirt about helping the poor expressing shock that some meth head broke into his house and stole his Xbox.

    I go out of my way not to antagonize people on account of their religion (because as Emo Phillips once said, there’s so many GOOD reasons to antagonize them), but I’m not going to pretend that wishing good will toward others means that they’ll magically wish good will toward me.

  41. I think the biggest threathment for the World is all existing wrong Religion.
    Look at the History and you found many Genozid mostly Christian Religion kill many Race (Inkas, Redskins, Africans etc.)

    JUDASIM, CHRISTIANITY will be used for Imperialist Act, new Name Globalisim.

    ISLAM, Buddasim and Hinduism defend Globalism


    • I agree, no more imperialist absolutism, can’t we all just get along. We should absolutely be against those who promote religious and philosophical absolutes…. Wait,… was that an absolute statement?

    • Thanks Ken. I need a good laugh after the insanity I’ve read in here. I mean Zorn did suck so Shanahan has a loooong way to go. Best of luck to him though.

  42. Pingback: I always see this bumper sticker … « DaTechguy's Blog

  43. What most people forget is that all of this fighting is over something absolutely not one person can prove or disprove exists. People want to smite by virtue of something that isn’t even tangible. And I’m Catholic. I know my beliefs are meant to guide me and keep my decisions and actions in-check, not so I can smother, degrade, rule, devalue, enslave, murder, or accuse other people of being inferior, ignorant, malicious, passive, stupid, greedy, or whatever other stereotypes are out there.

    Religion is meant to keep you from thinking too highly of yourself or acting selfishly at detriment to others, but there are numerous people that have repurposed religion to meet their own agenda or superiority complex. These people exist in absolutely every single organized religion…and even some atheists are extremists. Anything in excess is dangerous. And the bottom line is: There isn’t a single one of any of you that can prove a danged thing you insist is “so.” We’ve all got it a little bit right.

  44. You’re taking it out of context. The sticker isn’t about everyone getting what they want, it’s about learning to except instead of hate. It could pretty much be summed up by a peace sign.

    You might like the one that spells out Peace in different religious symbols better, or the one that says tolerance.

    You can find them at

    • not only that but the “author” clearly has a faulty understanding of what these icons represent.

    • You’re right: It’s the spirit of the sticker not the actual letter of the sticker (as in “spirit vs. letter of the law”) that is the whole point of the sticker.

      But it is interesting to dissect it by fundamental (or at least most vocal) stance.

  45. Pingback: Mount Ararat Blog » Blog Archive » COEXIST?

  46. “You’re taking it out of context. The sticker isn’t about everyone getting what they want, it’s about learning to except instead of hate.”

    If we excepted Islam, there wouldn’t nearly so much violence and hate as there is.
    Moral equivalency represented in the sticker, implying that each of the above groups needs to learn co-existance in equal measure, is ignorant and inane.

  47. T has systematically tried killing C e and i. or do none of you know about the crusades or the Bible’s law about homosexuality or the salem witch trials? i’d pick C oter t anyday.

    • I would say you are a fool then. Name where christian religious leaders have advocated systematically exterminating muslims, homosexuals, and pagans in recent times.

      fred phelps does not count due to being a kook by pretty much everyones standards.

  48. Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » DECONSTRUCTING THOSE “Coexist” bumper stickers….

  49. To Sadie:

    Myself and those of similar mindset are not not “anti-Muslim.” We are anti-Islamist; against those who purport a belief in stoning of adulterers, chopping off of hands for petty thievery, honor killing of daughters who bring shame upon the family….

    Your response to this will be that I (and those of similar mindset) am intolerant, racist (Islam is not a race), and do not understand what Islam truly means.

    Quite the contrary: Islam in its purest translation to English means submission to god’s will. As well, Muslims believe that the scripture of the Koran is God’s literal word. Thus, when the Koran tells us that the Jews are evolved from monkeys and pigs, that’s God talking. When it tells us to “slay the unbeliever” and heaven awaits: ditto. That’s God’s will. Submit to it.

    My disgust for Islam is derived from Hume’s tool of empiricism. Observe every predominantly Muslim nation and you see dysfunction, intolerance, and abject cruelty practiced by the powerful upon the powerless. Many years ago, I had the opportunity to visit both Israel (where I could buy a beer and talk to a pretty girl with impunity), and Saudi Arabia (where my movements were restricted, and I was allowed neither, among a great many others, of the 2 luxuries I enjoyed in Israel). I also visited Jordan and Egypt and witnessed much of the same inequality and poverty (caused not by rampant Western imperialism, but rather a tribalist mindset that rewarded the corrupt and violent, and punished the weak and virtuous).

    A survey of young Muslims in the US finds that 1/4 see some justification for suicide bombings.

    The number is 1/3 in Great Britain.

    I doubt you will find few, if any, professed Christians or Jews who would hold such an opinion. (In predicting your response to this I will assert that the most extreme elements of the world’s other faiths amount to an infinitesimal number of believers who are uniformly rejected by the almost complete majority of that faith’s adherents.)

    I don’t hate individual Muslims (I do detest what much of their faith indulges in). I wish them the all the success and fruits that the American Dream offers; from a nice home and support of the community, to internet porn and crappy Chinese made goods.: all the good and bad that America has to offer. I just want the b***s*** to cease. I want to coexist in the truest sense of the word.

  50. There’s an animated version somewhere online that has the Islamic “C” gobbling up the rext of the characters, much like the PacMan video game.

    “Why does everyone seem to forget that the Christian Crusades were in response to the ‘Muslim Crusades’”

    And why does everyone forget that the last crusade was 800 years ago. Can Islam say the same for its crusades (also known as terrorist bombings)?

  51. Zimriel Says:

    “ae, that’s a “tu quoque” argument.”

    It most definitely is not. Attacking someone who has kept attacking you and is an ongoing threat is only an offensive in an ongoing war. It does not make you the overall aggressor.

    Had the attacks been against a then peaceful former adversary… then yes, you’d have a point…. but they were not… so you don’t…

    “Christianity brought about more “tolerance” in a context of religion, and – relative to its pagan antecedents – it did no such thing.”

    The tolerance of pagan Europe is a bit… exaggerated. Most Christians know the stories regarding the lions. While it is true that Christian Europe was not very tolerant at times, it did ‘evolve’ into tolerance.

  52. Pingback: "COEXIST" Bumper Stickers define - Message Board

  53. Forget about 800 years ago.

    Today is what counts. Today is where E and T and X are all in danger in most Muslim countries. You don’t hear about T majority countries oppressing thei peoples. Try Saudi Arabia that bans other religions, kills gays, and won’t even let women drive. Worse, go to parts of Indonesia where the local govt implements Sharia and allows massacres of other religions.

    The only tolerant ones on this sticker are X I S T.

    • The Marines were sent to force the Bey of Tripoli to cease pirate attacks on American shipping. As your link points out, the American government at the time was tired of paying protection money (Jizya) to the local muslim rulers and tried to establish a treaty allowing us to coexist. It didn’t turn out so well.

  54. Was the concept of religious conversion by violence known, at all, prior to about 630 AD?

    The wars described in the OT were contests over land and resources.

  55. Pingback: DBKP - Death By 1000 Papercuts - DBKP

  56. Do Hindus exist? Doesn’t look like it. Well there aren’t many of them anyway, at least among the Esperanto speaking liberal elites who made and display the sticker.

  57. Frank Drakman,

    I know you probably consider yourself much smarter than any of us “cave-dwelling” believers. I’d be happy to pit my intellect against you anytime. You just might be surprised how many believers out there aren’t “sheep,” but are actually intelligent, thoughtful people.

    My educated mind awaits your “intelligent” response…

  58. If someone already mentioned this, then it bears repeating, and I’m too lazy to read every post. The Crusades, as wars and such go, is/were one of the more historically defensible actions taken. I don’t believe the crusaders as holding any Godly authority. And some of the specifics (we’re talking about war here, folks) is rather unpleasant. But it was essentially a response to those wacky Muslims of yore. Do correct me if/where I’m wrong.

    • It essentially radicalized the region–you might remember that Jews, Muslims, and Christians had lived in relative peace and harmony for some time.

      The Crusades weren’t about Christian or Muslim values, but the pressures of politics, the rise of empires, the fall of empires, and plethora of second and third sons with little or no inheritance coming, and the rise of moneyed class of merchants who were eager for markets, as well as the rise of banking houses.

      The Crusades were a pressure valve that loosed a great many knights and men at arms against a foreign enemy, and gave them purpose, as opposed to letting the pressure build and their eventual pointing at one another. Without the Crusades, Europe would have been embroiled in brush fire wars and conflicts for just as long, and without the profits seen by some.

      In that, it could be seen as defensible, in that Europe didn’t eat itself, but as a conflict based in a response to those “whacky Muslims” not so much. It was not about religion as much as using religion as a prop to hide politics. Using religion as an excuse isn’t the same as defending the faith.

      Sacking your hosts because you can’t be bothered to make the trip to Jerusalem even less…

  59. All of this proves, unfortunately, that the beginning argument is true. Throughout the various posts and comments here are underlying tones of elitism and, *drumroll*, intolerance. Those who make comments outlining their beliefs are immediately slaughtered, so to speak, by those who consider themselves both intellectually and morally superior. Each tries to find a negative role in history that was played by some figure or other of some religion or other and places the role in the status quo, where such things do not belong. Though history has had a hand in contemporary beliefs and practices, the contemporary need not assume the historical.
    It all boils down to this: we are not coexisting. Even when we put silly bumper stickers on our cars, go to church, picket some event, vote, or write ridiculous comments on one man’s observations. Just think about it. None of you needed to say anything. You could have rolled your eyes and moved on. But you decided that your views were important and that they needed to be recognized everyone else. Just like I am doing now, unfortunately (I thought I’d point that out before someone felt like a winner)
    This lack of peaceful existence, even over the internet is ugly and is not ideal, but utopias are for science-fiction novels. We live in the real world. It’s time we accepted it.

    • How DARE you be intolerant of intolerance!

      Everyone! Let’s kill the unbeliever!! BURN HER!!! Of course, that’s the usual way humans co-exist…a common enemy to fight.



  60. As a graphis professionall I beg to disagree with its awesomeness. It’s childish and naive.

    If you replaced the Islamic crescent “C” with a hammer and sickle, the “O” with an Aztec sun-calendar, the “E” with a Greek Sigma like as used by the Euro-currency, and the “X” Star of David with an a swastika, the “I” with a ICBM missile, leave the Buddhist Yin-Yang “S” in there but for heavens sake get the “S” overlay off it – we don’t need to be visually bludgeoned to get it, and the “T” can stay, whatever – and it would make equal, utter nonsense.

  61. The “Coexist” bumper sticker sends a powerful message — that you believe all violence is wrong and have no concept of self-defense. This information is especially useful to carjackers and burglars, but Coexisters understand that poor people need to steal because racism and social injustice have denied them the chance to make an honest living.

    • “The “Coexist” bumper sticker sends a powerful message — that you believe all violence is wrong and have no concept of self-defense.”

      That’s the kind of misinterpretation that’s going to get you hurt.

  62. Pingback: Coexistence « Mama Bin Cranky

  63. Oddly enough, you can witness all of these faiths together, in every state in the union. You just have to head into your local Unitarian Universalist Society.

    None of these faiths are mutually exclusive, and the People of the Book have a great deal in common, if they’d leave their politics and prejudices at the door. It does require some effort, but it boils down that effort being our own, and coupled with others. There are interfaith efforts across the globe, and simply because the task isn’t easy, does that mean that it’s unworthy?

    • Sure, you can witness non-practioners of all these faiths together at the local UUA. However, this is because the UUA has so diluted the meaning of each faith that they are ‘compatible.’ What is the point of a group that says, ‘we’re all right,’ when these great world religions all philosophically contradict one another? Truth is not relative.

      • I think that you may have a skewed vision of what UUs do.

        Meeting practicing members of other traditions is what it is about. Not to dilute, but to learn from one another–and that goes for atheists as well. Learning where we agree, and there there is ALWAYS healthy discussion on points of dissension. But, UUs have managed to come together, with disparate faiths and ideas to concentrate on our commonality, not just focus on those differences.

        Learning from one another makes those Societies stronger. The ties of community, even in the face of difference is what it is about; not “dilution” but strength, respect, and joy in our respective shared faiths.

        Sharing our faiths and our beliefs is a terrible thing? That is perhaps the saddest thing I’ve read here.

  64. My acceptance of others stops when they threaten my family. I get tired of peace this, peace that. I’ve been around long enough to understand that peace is easy to achieve – simply never resist. While peace is easy, freedom is hard.

  65. Pingback: Daily Right 1/6/10 « The Quantum Conservative

  66. A minor quibble. The Bahá’í portion of the “I” are considered apostates by the “C”s…and subject to oppression and death, just like the “X”s and “T”s..

    In fact the Bahai are especially problematic, having arisen in Persia (Iran), and having claimed that Muhammad has been superceded by the most recent messenger Bahá’u’lláh.

    Party tip…Don’t invite Cat stevens to a perty if Seals and croft are there.

  67. Tolerance of the minority does not equal persecution of the majority–Christian paranoia is manufactured propaganda, and it’s making everybody sick of you. Cut it out.

    • Perhaps some, but it does make me sort of sad that many Christians have forgotten the tenets of their faith, or the lessons of their own martyrs.

      Mind you, as a Buddhist, I have a great deal of respect for the lessons that Jesus sought to instill in his teachings. But, in the end, anger at a faith is useless. A faith encompasses lessons and teachings, but in the end, we have to hold individuals accountable for their actions. And Christiandom isn’t responsible for the actions of a few. There are millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others who embody the teachings of their faith, who quietly abide and perform their duties as citizens, and to their faith, and without conflict or ire. They do so without expectation of reward or recognition, and without fanfare.

      Ultimately, we can’t judge folks by a capital next to their name, what church they attend, what school they went to, or anything so piddly. You have to judge folks by their actions. Plain and simple. Not their words, not the feelings that they try to invoke with those words, not the rending of their garments or the gnashing of teeth, but their own actions. Plain and simple.

      Listening to folks shout to the heavens about their faith? That’s like listening to a politician shout about his service to the country. Never mind all that noise, and look and judge folks as individuals, and we’ll get along better.

      No bad faiths, just occasionally bad people. Or rather, selfish and sometimes deluded people. And certainly dangerous folks on occasion. But in the end, we have to look at the individual as opposed to the faith or nation.

      • I said only that I have a great deal of respect for the Christian faith. Though, it has to be said the same for Judaism and Islam as well.

        I presumed to point out the actions of individuals are far better to single out than faiths. Faiths are made up of individuals, and judging a faith on the action of individuals is dangerous. It leads to simplification and a reductionism that makes for poor decision making.

        Is the entire Catholic Church tainted by the actions of the IRA? Is all of Islam to be held accountable for the actions of Fundamentalists? Are Baptists as a whole responsible for bombings at clinics or shootings? Are all Mormons to be held responsible for the chaining of child brides to Fundamentalist LDS ministries?

        Is it judgmental to point out that faiths should not be held in contempt because of the actions of a few? If that were the case, would it be fair to assume that all Christians were intolerant of homosexuals because of a few?

        I think that you projecting a bit of that judgment, when I’ve asked folks to keep in mind that individuals are responsible for their actions, not faiths. Faiths. Not simply Christians, but faiths in general, and there is the rub: your own judgement has tainted the very argument you attempted to make.

  68. Pingback: I’m tired of your bumper sticker.

  69. Pingback: “Coexist” and “War Is Not The Answer” bumper sticker irks me every time I see them. | tomllewis

  70. Pingback: A Coupla Catholic Guys… » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog

  71. Dave Says @ January 6, 2010 at 8:43 pm:

    Wins the Thread !!

    Not that I’m into competition or any un-coexistential-like concepts such as: excellent, very good, good, bad, very bad, execrable; or very silly.

    That would make those who didn’t win the thread feel like they weren’t completely equal in terms of passion, wit and sagacity, not to mention street-smarts.

    Because that would be a false choice entailing a judgement as per the value of one’s particular street. Or avenue. Or cart-path.

    It’s a journey.

    Slainte, Dave !!

  72. The problem with the sticker is that it lacks a symbol for reason and the Enlightenment.

    THOSE are what brought “coexistence” to the world, not Christianity or any religion. It was the secular republics of the Enlightenment, in particular the erstwhile “melting pot” known as the United States, which told the religionists to leave each other (and the rest of us) the hell alone… or else.

    Contra Kant, it was and is reason which sets the moral limits of faith, not the other way around.

    And they did it in less than a century too, a damn sight better than Christianity did in 1300 years of hegemony.

  73. Hey Bloggerdouche.

    You are a fucking moron who completely ignores all the suffering Christianity has brought on the world. You Interpret things through your own narrow-minded and bigoted world view.

    Love, The Internet.

  74. So basically we shouldn’t be tolerant and try to achieve a peaceful coexistence with other religious groups because a small portion of their people are not trying to coexist with us?

    I should tell my Somalian neighbors that I can’t coexist with them because some fundamentalist nutballs are mad at us.

    I should also tell my gay friends that it’s OK if they don’t get married because we Christians are actually tolerant of them, even if we deny them basic civil rights and liberties.

    I should tell the members of the Methodist Church I belong to that being anti-war and pro-peace is wrong because it doesn’t offer a way to defeat Islam. Even though we’re not at war with Islam – we’re fighting fundamentalist nutballs.

    I should tell the African Americans in my congregation that we shouldn’t fight for equal rights or justice because we’re already tolerant enough.

    Would it not be that many Islamic countries are not tolerant because of political reasons (in order to keep order, power and control) and not because of purely religious reasons?

    So 6.3 million Confucianists and 2.7 Taoists don’t count? We shouldn’t be tolerant of them or coexist with them?

    I’m praying for you my friend. May your heart and mind be opened.

  75. If by “more tolerant” you mean that Christians believe that any non-Christian will burn in fiery torture and intolerable pain and suffering for all of eternity, then yes I guess Xianity is more tolerant.

  76. In Bratunac, Imam Mustafa Mujkanovic was tortured before thousands of Muslim women, children and old people at the town’s soccer stadium. Serb guards also ordered the cleric to cross himself. When he refused, ‘they beat him. They stuffed his mouth with sawdust, poured beer in his mouth, and then slit his throat.

    Almost from the first, the Serb-led war was accompanied by an assault against the Muslim religious and cultural tradition, an assault whose impact has become clear as scholars examine the pattern of destruction. Muslim clergymen have been dispersed, imprisoned or killed, according to a variety of Muslim sources. National libraries and religious seminaries have been destroyed. And Bosnian scholars estimate that well over half of the mosques, historical monuments and libraries that comprise a six-century old religious and cultural heritage have been wiped out.

    … the film was shown in which the notorious Scorpions were seen killing children, after having first been blessed by Father Gavrilo.

    The violence in Bosnia was a religious genocide in several senses: the people destroyed were chosen on the basis of their religious identity; those carrying out the killings acted with the blessing and support of Christian church leaders; the violence was grounded in a religious mythology that characterized the targeted people as race traitors and the extermination of them as a sacred act.

    Roy Gutman, A Witness to Genocide: the first inside account of the horrors of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Bosnia

    So much for Christian tolerance.

  77. Honestly. I read this, and I cannot believe how much fighting there is. And most of the people here are Christian. That certainly doesn’t make us (and yes, I’m also Christian) to be the most tolerant people around.

    Let’s be honest. Christianity IS a religion of tolerance and peace. The problem is, most Christians ignore that part. And all the other parts they either don’t remember or choose to ignore.

    You want examples of Christians being intolerant? Take a look at Fred Phelps. How is behavior like THAT ever going to make people want to embrace the religion? Most people I know aren’t as bad as them, but I’ve seen and heard a lot of other Christians make similar comments. Jesus said to hate the sin but love the sinner. All I ever hear Christians say is that ‘so and so is going to hell for ________.’ It’s a good thing that Christians aren’t the arbitrators of who actually GETS into Heaven, because no one would. I’ll let God decide, since, you know, God is the one that is supposed to decide.

    And of course, the Bible is the word of God. All Christians follow EVERY passage every time. Except for the Old Testament. I’d like everyone that has worn a poly cotton blend to form a line to the left to be stoned to death. Also, people that eat catfish or shellfish. Gonna have to kill everyone in retail too. They work on Sunday, the sabbath. If that ain’t a stonin’, I don’t know what is.

    So that brings me to the Muslims for which so many people have had anger. It is absolutely true that EVERY Muslim I have ever known or seen has tried to kill me because I am not Muslim. Oh wait. No they didn’t. It may well be in the book, but call me crazy folks, but I have a feeling that just like how Christians follow only certain parts of THEIR books, 99% of Muslims skip parts of their book too.

    The bumper sticker isn’t about how everyone fights. That’s what actually happens. Look at this thread. It’s that we should all at least TRY to live together. I know Muslims are catching a LOT of flack these days because there are some extremist members of their religion. It’s a sad thing. But it’s really not that much sadder than some of what I see Christians do every day. There are good people in every religion. There are bad apples in all of them too. It shouldn’t be all about ‘My religion is better than your religion.’ Because in the end, no one really knows whether our religion is ‘right.’ Me? I’ve already said I’m a Christian, so that’s where I’m putting my bet. But I’ve seen a LOT of Buddhists that are PRETTY sure they’ve got the right one. Oh, but they don’t have the proof that I do. Except they probably do. Same with Muslims. Or Hindus. Or Baha’i. If ANYONE can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they know what happens when we die, let me know. I sure don’t know for sure. That’s why I put my FAITH in God. We wouldn’t call it ‘faith’ if we knew for sure. It’d sure make all these petty arguments a lot easier.

    • Very much so.

      Focusing on the differences and those who hold a lot of anger and hate isn’t going to bring us any peace, nor is it going to give any of us much hope.

      Every faith holds its own path, but on those paths, we all share an amazing amount of commonality. My Christian and Jewish friends bring me great insights, and I treasure them. I like to think that when we come together, we learn more about our own faith, as well as that of our neighbors. That insight, and that perspective helps us in our own journey.

      The quibbling over WHO is RIGHT is perhaps missing the point that spirituality isn’t about who is right and who is wrong, but where we go with the lessons we’ve learned, and what we DO with them.

  78. This sticker is a load of bullhockey. “X” has a centuries-old agenda of destorying all the other letters in order tofullfill their talmundic fantasies. They must and will be stopped, unfortunately with a great loss of life. Hopefully not with total destruction of innocent countries and peoples who want nothing to do with the pschopathic megalomaniacs.

    We shall see.

  79. see, this deconstruction of the bumper sticker proves the point of why the bumper sticker exists.

    religion is evil.

    deal with it and move on.


  80. A post where someone
    a) states that their religion is like really really tolerant
    b) states that other religions and points of view are really dumb/evil/intolerant
    to my mind somewhat misses the point of the bumpersticker.

    To paraphrase the big man himself. “Dude! Don’t be banging on about their specks! You’ve got the Amazon rainforst in your own eye, complete with hippies protesting at the logging.”

    (Jesus was all into metaphors and stuff)

  81. Actually, the ‘C’ always reminds me of a Pacman thingy ready to devour the rest of the characters.

    Nothing like the real life situation, mind you…..

  82. Pingback: Bumper Sticker Hermenutics » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

  83. I have a neighbor with 4 bumper stickers on the back of his/her car. One is this Coexist one. Right next to it is “I’ll love your elephant, if you kiss my ass.”

    Couldn’t sum up the E mindset any better myself…

  84. I see you got a lot of visitors to your blog. Hope you made some good money. After all, that’s what religion is for anyway.

  85. .

    Dear Mrs. Jake,

    The graphic falls down on the Yin Yang. I could see making the border a very thin red “S” to stand out as a border, but to actually put in a big “S” into the yin Yang as the graphic shows is just wrong. It defeats the cleverness of the rest of it.



  86. Uhm, dude…. there’s a lot more Confucianists and Taoists than there are Jews. We Red Sea Pedestrians are a very small minority.

    There are more *Sikhs* than Jews. SIKHS! Which is probably why there’s more Lion’s Clubs than there are… uhm… well, lions are a pretty iconic Jewish animal, too, so this joke is going nowhere. But, anyway, dude… SIKHS!

    (I’ve found a lot of people grossly overestimate the %age of Jews in the world, often by an order of magnitude or more. If you live in any major US city, it’s easy to get a distorted view of the demographics.)

    • That’s very interesting Lizard. I wonder what the numbers of Jews in the world would be if the Socialists hadn’t spent the better part of the 20th century trying to eradicate them, with Muslims taking up the cause in the later half. They seemed to peacefully coexist with most people until that time.

  87. Tom Lehrer said it best a long time ago.

    National Brotherhood Week

    Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
    And the black folks hate the white folks.
    To hate all but the right folks
    Is an old established rule.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
    It’s fun to eulogize
    The people you despise,
    As long as you don’t let ’em in your school.

    Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
    And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
    All of my folks hate all of your folks,
    It’s American as apple pie.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans ’cause it’s very chic.
    Step up and shake the hand
    Of someone you can’t stand.
    You can tolerate him if you try.

    Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
    And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
    And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
    And everybody hates the Jews.

    But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
    It’s National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
    Be nice to people who
    Are inferior to you.
    It’s only for a week, so have no fear.
    Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

  88. Pingback: Coexist? | Worth Reading

  89. BTW for those claiming “Christianity” did this or that, is being dishonest with themselves.

    “Christianity” can’t actually DO anything. Man however, in the name of Christianity can.

    And if Man does things in the name of Christianity, that Christianity does not teach, who’s the blame to be put on? Man.

    In all these incidences, the fault lies with man itself. Human nature corrupts.

    Why you don’t see many anti-Christian, or religious people saying this is because if they blame man-kind, they cannot separate themselves from these actions, and feel superior in the process.

    By using Christianity as a scape-goat, or in a self defense mechanism, they can put blame on something, without being part of it.

    There have been many wars fought over money, power, and greed too.

    The common denominator is mankind. We screw everything up eventually.

    • That’s just a good old fashion excuse for not taking responsibility.

      You use Christianity and Christians interchangeably.

      See Christianity is nothing but a set of ideas and stories.

      Saying that “Ideas” can’t actually do anything is a complete logical fallacy.

      Christians are people who interpret those ideas and stories. They interpret the bible to mean whatever they want it to on a given day.
      Whether it be superiority over another religion or denying gay people marriage for archaic reasons.

      • Yes, yes. We are all well aware of how tolerant Muslims and other religions are of gay people. Do you even hear yourself?

      • AGAIN if Christianity doesn’t teach these bad deeds HUMANS do in it’s name, it’s not Christianity’s fault. Regardless of the obvious chip on your shoulder you have against it. Not taking responsibility is blaming Christianity instead of putting blame on the people who made said decision.

        “Saying that “Ideas” can’t actually do anything is a complete logical fallacy.”

        Ideas cannot do anything. That is not a fallacy. It takes someone taking that idea, and putting it into action that causes something to happen. SIMPLE cause and effect. And again, when those “ideas” don’t match up with what Christianity teaches, then it’s even a further stretch to blame it.

        “Christians are people who interpret those ideas and stories. They interpret the bible to mean whatever they want it to on a given day.”


  90. “X” has no interest in co-existence either, except with “T” so that “T” can keep funding its oppression of “C”.

  91. “E stands in direct opposition to C, X, and T, and accuses those who speak against them of hate speech. Also, they’re trying to edge X and T out of public schools in favor of their own agenda. (They’re afraid C will be offended, so they get less trouble.) E is actually very, very intolerant.”

    This isn’t exactly true. I’d say there is just as much hate speech from either side from the fringe of both.

    As for X and T if you’ve read the bible in hebrew and greek you get a different perspective. E is not incompatible with X and T that is if you read what the hebrew and greek say literally. Its only when we expand the words beyond their original meaning that these ideas are at odds.
    Besides that there are two things I can’t get anyone to answer using the canon in any translation. Answers need to come directly from the bible, not speculation.

    What was the sin of Gammorah? And Divorces is well described, what is the mosaic law definition of marriage? And if the sin of Gammorah is homosexuality and not idoltry why did Jerimiah and Isaiah compare Israel to Sodom and Gammorah but not mention homosexuality?

    If you have an answer for these please point out the verses. I’d appreciate responses refrain from using non-biblical arguments like “marriage is between a man and a woman” this is no where in the bible. The best you can do is in the garden of eden adam was married to eve thus we think that is what God intended. If that is your answer please use Gen 2:23-24 instead or Matthew 5:32,19:9 where Jesus quotes it, but be warned that is a really weak argument for the definition of marriage and I want the mosaic law definition. Remember Jesus also said the mosaic law was not abolished.

    • If you have an answer for these please point out the verses. I’d appreciate responses refrain from using non-biblical arguments like “marriage is between a man and a woman” this is no where in the bible. The best you can do is in the garden of eden adam was married to eve thus we think that is what God intended. If that is your answer please use Gen 2:23-24

      It’s going to be hard to convince you of anything if you deny even the surface-level stuff. Gen 2:23-24 is the very first instance of God putting people together in marriage, and he does it with a man and a woman. If he meant for marriage to be more open than that, he did a poor job of getting that across to us.

      Aside from that, we have 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 where homosexuals are listed alongside fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers who are “unrighteous” and who “will not inherit the kingdom of God”.

      Or 1 Timothy 1:9-10 where homosexuals are listed with the lawless and rebellious, the ungodly and sinners, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, immoral men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and “whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”.

      And also Romans 1:26-27 where it is described “women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural” and “the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men” as “degrading passions” “indecent acts” and those partaking will “receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error”.

      Frankly, there is just no way an objective person can read the bible and come away from it claiming that the bible doesn’t describe homosexuality as a sinful act. You really have to twist the words and come up with alternate definitions to think these passages are referring to anything else. This doesn’t justify ‘hate’ crimes or give us the right to right to treat homosexuality differently than any other sin, but it’s absurd to claim that the bible treats it as normal and respectable behavior.

  92. Pingback: Yes, thank you

  93. Pingback: Who really wants to Coexist? « Wide as the Waters

  94. Pingback: » Deconstructing ‘Coexistence’

  95. Pingback: Why that smug Coexist bumper sticker is a fraud. | Daily Danet

    • “No hate like Christian hate.”

      Have you ever heard of irony? Cause that’s a pretty good example. Also hypocrisy, since you are advocating “tolerance”.

      “You are a fucking moron who completely ignores all the suffering Christianity has brought on the world.” Again, is this tolerance? Sure smells of undying, unquenchable hated to me. That’s the kind of hate that makes people strap bombs onto their chests and fly airplanes into buildings.

      “You Interpret things through your own narrow-minded and bigoted world view.” You are just full of fun quotes that disprove your own position. Apparently, there ain’t no hate like Socialist hate. Leftists of all kinds are easily the least tolerant and most dangerous people in the world. I would side with any religion ahead of Socialists like you.

  96. I find it hilarious to watch all the religious groups arguing on this thread prove the whole point that this world would be soooooooo much better off without religions.

    I’m an atheist. I’m going to just sit back and laugh while all of you bicker over the trite little details about which imaginary friend is better.

  97. I am embarrassed and ashamed that people claiming to be my followers actually have a problem with a sticker that tries to promote peace and tolerance.

  98. I think you missed the point of the bumper sticker. The point is to tell alert all these religious groups that there are people of other beliefs in this world and that we should all learn to coexist and respect each others beliefs.

  99. Did I hit a nerve Matthew Groom?

    I am not sure what socialism has to do with this but it is interesting that you choose to parrot rightwing talking points like a good little ignorant christian.

    You know that Jesus was a socialist right?

    Keep being ignorant.

    Keep oppressing people different than you while claiming that you yourselves are oppressed.

    Keep trying to legislate your own twisted sense of morality.

    That’s the Christian way.

    • It’s funny, really, because since you are a Left winger, and clearly in favor Socialism, that you would try to defend such demonstrable evil. I may be an atheist, but that doesn’t mean that I think it’s okay to murder and oppress millions of people like you leftists do. I think the best word for that is “evil” since ever culture that has ever existed had a word for this concept. But of course, I’m the ignorant and intolerant one, because you hate all Christians with an unmatched ferocity and you assume that anybody who doesn’t hate Christians must be one.

      Jesus was about charity, not socialism, which is about force. Jesus didn’t threaten to imprison or murder anyone who wouldn’t pay their taxes. Jesus didn’t put people in Gulags and Concentration camps, Socialists do that.

      I’ve never oppressed nor have I claimed to be oppressed. I did play a rather small role in liberating a country of oppressed Muslims once, but that was a few years ago. Not could understand my “twisted sense of morality”, but I defend people regardless of their religion. I’m just not so “ignorant” as to believe that only one religion is responsible for “… all the suffering…” in the world. That’s your job.

      • You “Liberated” Muslims by killing 100,000 of them. Good job.

        You are not excused. Because if there is a hell you and every other rightwinger will be front and center.

      • That number (it can’t be called a statistic since it’s a pathetically transparent lie) has been thoroughly discredited, not that you would do or could do any research or anything. What’s the biggest sacrifice that you’ve ever made of yourself for another human being? You are likely as lazy, selfish, petulant, and indolent as you are apathetic and naive.

        Oh, and if there is a hell, I expect to see you there along with all of your idols like Mao, Che, Hitler, and Stalin.

      • You show me your source, and I’ll show you mine. Remember what I said about you being too lazy to research anything?

        I know Stormfront probably is a favorite of yours, since you are a National Socialist, but I don’t think I’ve ever been before just now.

        I swear, I’ve eaten wild pigs that were smarter than you are.

  100. I don’t know what’s sadder about this – that your depictions of the conflicts between these groups is so misguided, or that you would, as a Christian, take the position that the peaceful coexistence of religions is somehow a bad idea.

    To begin with:
    C is bound by the Koran to honor the religions of the book – at the very least, T and X. Some don’t, but most do; you’re far better off being T or X than atheist in most muslim nations. The conflict between X and C is not a religious conflict; it is a political conflict over the state of Israel. C has no beef with T either, though some C individuals, as well as some muslim states, have a conflict with America (which is in no sense a representative of T) over our unwavering support X when X commits grievous acts against some members of C.

    O posits, I think accurately, that most members of C, as well as T, X, and E, are probably decent people, or at the least, that their decency or lack thereof is not a product of their affiliation to that group.

    Your description of E makes me feel positively ill. The idea that E somehow opposes T is just absurd. Increasing gender equality is a mark of the progress of mankind. E does not oppose religions, though religions often oppose E. Further, you say E is driving X and T out of public schools? Which X, or which T? I am X. I don’t want T taught to my children. Nor do I want Hassidic X taught to my children. I have no doubt my Hassidic neighbors do not want reform X taught to their children. Which is why X should not, and is not, and never was, in public schools to begin with. Not to make your kids gay, and not to make your kids muslim. How sad that you think so poorly of your neighbor’s intentions.

    O does not invariably support C over X. I am X, and also O. Half of the Israeli population is O. And it’s not clear to me that T actually supports X, or merely thinks that X is somehow necessary for the return of their messiah.

    X’s existence is threatened by conflict with some members of C, yes. Not because of C – the distinction is important – but because land promised to C was given to X and no viable long-term solution to that disagreement has been found. This increases hatred between C and X, and may well threaten the existence of X. But in our recent history, T threatened X. Evangelical T’s have recently decided that X is their friend, which is a charming improvement over the pogroms.

    You don’t think T poses as much of a threat as any of the others? If Glenn Beck got on the radio tonight and told all of his loyal T listeners that it was time to cut the tall trees and kill their C or X neighbors, you think they wouldn’t? You show me an “Armed society is a polite society” wingnut and I’ll show you a T.

    But it’s all beside the point. The idea that you could generalize about the nature of a man’s soul by the religion to which he adheres – which, by and large, is the religion he was born into – is just silly. How many molesters does it take, for example, before we identify T as the Religion of Child Molestation? There were far more molesters in the Catholic Church than there were suicide bombers on planes on Sept. 11th.

    Or, as another example, how many Christians writing blogs about their evil enemies before we identify T as the Religion of Hating Thy Neighbor?

    There are interfaith organizations, peace organizations, reconciliation projects, projects to rebuild civilian infrastructure destroyed in these silly conflicts. There is so much good to do for the world – but you do this??

    Way to go, T.

  101. Wow, what a blatantly prejudiced blog, obviously in favor of T. If you are not a member of T, then speak up, but we know you are, because ONLY a T would believe the lies you put forth.

    1. The majority of C does NOT want to kill anyone. Yes, most of them wish to convert all others to C, but death is only considered a good idea by less than 1% of C. It’s just that C is the largest group of those you mentioned, so 1% of C is a huge number.

    2. O is not against resistance, it did a great job for Ghandi and MLK. Also, despite your foolish, bigoted opinion, many O are OK with violent self defense. Yes, most are not, but sorry, no you DON’T get to paint all you disagree with a single, broad lie.

    3. Your interpretation of E’s goals is INCREDIABLLY false. They have an agenda and they push their agenda into our society – JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER GROUPS, INCLUDING YOUR OWN T. Saying they are trying to get all other agendas out, when you yourself are clearly writing something against all other agends is at the very least HYPOCRITICAL. I.E. you personally just did the very crime you accuse them of doing.

    4. X’s existence has never been threatened by O, E,I or S. It has however been threatened by T, which burned people for being X. Historically C has helped X a lot more than T has. But yes, in the past 80 years or so, C has targeted X. That makes C and T both inferior to O,E, I and S.

    5. Statistiically insignificant? You do realize that S outnumbers X. Your total ignorance here demonstrates you need to go back to school. And shut up until you learn something.

    6. The bumper sticker is NOT aruging against T, it is aguring in favor of co-existence. It is arguing against YOU and YOUR personal hatred of C,O,E,X,I and S, not against T. But as your are too ignorant to know that S outnumbers X, you don’t know enough about T. P.S. as a matter of fact, T has personally advocated death more than C. And I am not talking about the Crusdaes, but instead talking about the Inquistion and Conquering of the New World. T burned alive and used other methods to kill I and X to your . Then years later, some arrogant pea-brain says “The ‘I” is statistically insignificant, so we don’t have to talk about them.”

    Oh yeah, I was right, you are too ignorant to listen to.

  102. historycat said…When Pope Urban II called for the first crusade the Muslims were protecting Christian sites. When Pope Urban II called for the first crusade the Muslims were protecting Christian sites. They were rebuilding the Church of the Holy sepulcher for us when Christians attacked.
    Yes, they, the Mohammedans, rebuilt it after ransacking and destroying much of it some years earlier. The rebuilding was used by the Mohammedans as chip to gain the opening of a mosque in Constantinople.

    historycat said…If the Muslims did control the region, why would they want to keep out the pilgrims? The Christian Pilgrims were a huge source of income for the Muslims. They made money off the pilgrim trade. They loved having Christians come visit.
    Yes, they loved to enslave them and ransom them off as a source of income. This is all common knowledge. Same practice they used against the United States during the Barbary Wars.

    historycat said…It was the Christian Kings who wanted to take control of the region. Taking this territory for their own economic and social benefit. When it doubt follow the money.
    And the “money” says you are wrong. There was nothing to gain monetarily by the Europeans. Do you have any idea how much it costs to move an entire army by land from Europe to the Middle East. Vast undertaking with no possibility of a return on investment. Not to mention the Mohammedan aggression already going on for hundreds of years into the West.

  103. Yea, a few hundred million Taoists is insignificant…you know how i know you are an idiot?

    Your wife must be proud

  104. I must call Shenanigans.

    “C wants to kill E, X, T, and (by implication) O. If they achieved the world they wanted, I and S would also no longer exist”

    I know a dozen or more “C’s” and they want to kill no one. Nice folks, to the person. I also know people who fit every one of those letters and we all coexist amazingly well.

    Much like someone on the outside could look at the KKK (a Christian Organization) or any of a number of fundamentalist Christian organizations (Fred Phelps, anyone) and decide that “Christianity is evil and full of crazy people who want to kill us”, looking at the squeaky wheel of radical Islam does a tremendous disservice to the everyone else who is Muslim.

    All these people arguing about history- look. 300, 1000, 2000 years ago life was cheap and everyone was killing *everyone*. Holding a grudge or being empowered in your cause because of something that happened long ago is what *keeps* the violence moving forward.

  105. Translation – Only Judaism and Christianity are good and all the others are horrible and liberals suck.

    Ok, we get it. Nobody wants to coexist with you either, but we’re forced to.

    • Actually, I want to. But I’m a liberal, relaxed and groovy atheist. I want to coexist with everyone. Him included. You included. ;)

  106. Pingback: It Does Seem Kind of Smarmy » hrrf

  107. Pingback: BANG! PREGNANT! « Corbin Has A Blog

  108. Pingback: COEXIST? @ happilyUs

  109. Pingback: Coexist? « Gary on Politics

  110. Pingback: Coexist? Sure. Let’s. : insignificant thoughts

  111. Pingback: Can’t We Just Coexist? No, No We Can’t. : Slobokan's Site O' Schtuff

  112. Pingback: Blogstitution » Blog Archive » Coexist?

  113. Pingback: Yeah, The Coexist Bumper Sticker Pisses Me Off Too « Tai-Chi Policy

  114. Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » What Coexist Really Means…

  115. Pingback: » Coexist? I Don’t Think So…

  116. Pingback: Have You Seen This Bumper Sticker? « Revivalandreformation's Blog

  117. Pingback: COEXIST, Indeed. « Goodness Is Cool

  118. Pingback: Have You Seen This Bumper Sticker? (via The Masters Slave) « The Cross Is All

  119. Pingback: E.U. Releases ‘Coexist’ Propaganda Poster with Hammer and Sickle atop Star with Various Religious Symbols | Happolati's Miscellany

  120. Pingback: 500 – Wiser Time

  121. Pingback: Coexist? |

  122. Pingback: There Is No Pope in Islam : Catholic Stand

Comments are closed.