Yup

Fashionably Lefty suburbanites are always bravely facing the applause of their peers by courageously telling Christians who pose no danger to anybody that they need to stop punching people in the fist with their face and smashing people in the knee with their groins.

  • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

    Mark,

    I don’t know where you got this from but I’m stealing it and spreading out to my peeps.

    Thanks for sharing this!

    • Sam Geoghegan

      From a Woody Allen movie, I think Bananas

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    Yeah, this is so going on facebook.

  • Caine

    I had a modification of the symbol’s bumper sticker that spelled out “CONFUSION” then added a line that said “the new way to spell tolerance.”. I’d post it for you but don’t know how to link to photos in comments.

    • Noah D

      Just post the URL of the image itself, it seems to work.

  • Bobby

    I saw one of these the other day in my lefty suburb, but instead of the Star of David it had an atomic symbol, which I guess represents atheism, or science, or something. For some of these folks, “coexistence” apparently doesn’t include Jews.

  • http://irishpapist.blogspot.com/ Maolsheachlann O Ceallaigh

    I can’t help admiring how clever the original Coexist bumper sticker is though!
    Wishy-washy and near-sighted and saccharine, but, you know, clever.
    It’s almost kinda like God(s) INTENDED those signs to form that word!!!

  • Liam

    I remember explaining to a coworker who admired the sticker just how condescending it is. I borrowed from Fulton Sheen who said the command “coexist” is something you tell preschoolers and prison inmates. He then imagined a lover saying to his beloved “We shall coexist until the sands of the desert grow cold.”

  • Patrick

    The (Peace Symbol) supports Islam over Israel?

    • Ted Seeber

      Only by default, because while Israel isn’t very likely to attack Islam, Islam wants Israel wiped from it’s holy lands.

  • An Atheist

    Christianity poses less of a threat to humanity and human progress now, yes, but only because it has been put through the washer of the Enlightenment. It was an even bigger threat than Islam before that, though. Christianity has been somewhat domesticated and neutered in the past three centuries, Islam has not.

    • Ted Seeber

      “It was an even bigger threat than Islam before that, though”

      Then why did Islam win the Crusades?

    • Speculativereason

      “Christianity poses less of a threat to humanity and human progress now, yes…”

      I’m glad you agree.

      “…only because it has been put through the washer of the Enlightenment.”

      Ah yes, post-Enlightenment modernism: the intellectual movement that dethroned the Church with its strict limitations on warfare to give us the three bloodiest centuries in history.

  • http://ginambakkun.blogspot.com Gina

    Mark, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree.

    First, from the Coexist website, the whole point of the various symbols–which can each symbolize multiple groups and ideas, not just one–are there to show that no one group is being singled out; we all must coexist. This throws a wrench into the last statement where the person projects that the image is directed solely at Christians.

    Second, *Crescent Moon* is not a monolithic entity of jihadists intent on killing everyone who disagrees with them. What if someone defined Christianity by its extreme element? Christians would (rightly) be up in arms about such a characterization.

    *Gender Symbols Forming E* can represent gay people, but it also represents gender equality; while many religions have a history of denying gender equality, they are not in essence opposed to each other (thus there is a contradiction within this analysis; they say that the *Cross* is a threat to no one, after saying the *Cross* is a threat to the symbol they assume means gay rights).

    *Peace Symbol* is denigrated as “only” offering nonviolent resistance to *Crescent Moon*, with the implication that such resistance is ineffective. I imagine this would come as a shock to Gandhi and this other peacenik who believed in turning the other cheek…I think his name is Jesus.

    It is absurd to think that someone is a pacifist who then supports the overthrow of the Jews by Muslims. Because, as we all know, pacifists are all about violent annihilation of people groups. I can only conjecture that the person who created this analysis is referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which then implies that by siding with Palestinian people against the Israelis, a person necessarily believes in the annihilation of the Jews. Forgetting that such a view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an oversimplified way to analyze hundreds of years of political and religious antagonism between two groups, let’s just keep in mind that PACIFISTS don’t believe in the annihilation of ANYBODY. It’s also ridiculous to assume that Pacifists necessarily side with Muslims on this issue. Pacifists aren’t any more a monolithic group than Christians or Muslims.

    Accepting this person’s assumption that the Yin and Yang symbol represents taoism, it is a demonstration of this person’s complete lack of religious awareness (bias?) to conclude that those who believe in taoism are insignificant. There are estimates of about 225 million taoists in the world, hardly an insignificant number (http://www.religioustolerance.org/taoism.htm). And of course, the creators of the bumper sticker intended for the yin and yang symbol to represent what the yin and yang symbol represents, which is multiple things such as light and dark, masculine and feminine, good and evil, etc, and the myriad faiths that use the symbol.

    The Earth/Fire/Water/Air symbol that this person think represents paganism is also not statistically insignificant, since there are millions of animistic and pagan adherents the world over.

    Lastly, the *Cross* or Christianity, historically HAS been a threat to many of these groups and even to those within its ranks. There is no reason to think that Christians can’t be (and is currently) agents of evil, just because we believe in a good God.

    To find out more about what the Coexist sticker actually represents, go to the source and find out what the creators intended: http://www.coexistbumpersticker.org/

    I’m not saying that there aren’t problems and oversimplifications with the original bumper sticker; only that this analysis gets it way wrong.

    • Ted Seeber

      “Second, *Crescent Moon* is not a monolithic entity of jihadists intent on killing everyone who disagrees with them. What if someone defined Christianity by its extreme element? Christians would (rightly) be up in arms about such a characterization.”

      Then why aren’t they? I’ve heard Christians defined by their extreme elements, such as Rev. Phelps and the Westboro Baptists, for the last 10 years. They call us bigots and hate mongers and worse. Yet I’ve yet to see the same response from Christians that I see from Islam when somebody draws a cartoon of the Prophet.

    • MattyD

      Well said, Gina. It’s pretty pathetic to me that Christians would deride a fairly benign attempt at morality made by non-Christians.

    • http://www.communionantiphons.org Andy, Bad Person

      What if someone defined Christianity by its extreme element? Christians would (rightly) be up in arms about such a characterization.

      then

      Lastly, the *Cross* or Christianity, historically HAS been a threat to many of these groups and even to those within its ranks.

      Hmm. So you don’t judge “the Crescent” by its most extreme elements. Only the Cross.

  • http://www.communionantiphons.org Andy, Bad Person

    Christianity poses less of a threat to humanity and human progress now, yes, but only because it has been put through the washer of the Enlightenment.

    It’s a hell of a washer that leaves bloodstains like that.

  • An Atheist

    Catholicism reconquered Spain from the Muslims by means of genocide, so I would call that a draw overall.

  • Kevin Fraser

    “An Atheist” – assuming that is, in fact, your real name – total the body counts caused by nationalistic atheistic regimes of the 20th century. Compare with all deaths from all wars combined in all known human history.
    As a follow up, total all Christians killed in the 20th century precisely because they refused to renounce their Christian beliefs. Compare to sum of all Christians killed similarly in previous 19 centuries.
    Try them ratios on for rational bottom-line comprehension.
    PS in the year of the “Spanish Inquisition” (so-called by people who aren’t aware there were actually three) recording the largest number of executions by secular authorities as interpreted by Jesuit tribunals, there were almost exactly 5,000 executions duly under Spanish law recorded. In the same year in England alone (not counting other countries) there were over 60,000 executions of Catholics.
    Only if you are a truly open-minded atheist (I qualify because there truly aren’t that many) may I suggest reading Thomas Woods’ “How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” as a primer to overcome the English Protestant lens of so called “history” accepted as complete by western academicians. Someone as open minded as an authentic atheist could have no possible objection to any such scholarly reading. No matter what your religious convictions are (atheist, Catholic…) this book will open your eyes to the gigantic edits that have been carried out over the centuries. Good luck too!

  • An Atheist

    @Kevin there was a bigger population and more deadly technology in the 20th Centuhave ry. The. Wars of Religion, in percentage terms, reduced the population of Germany alone by a full third (see how these jobs Christians love one another, indeed)l And that’s ignoring the bloodbath that was the reconquest of Spain and the Spanish crimes in Latin America (all for the Prince of Peace, of course!) I shudder to think what the medieval church would have done with machine guns, bombers, and nuclear weapons.

  • Kevin Fraser

    But is “An Atheist” open-minded enough to read Woods’ considerable scholarship? Or does he feel a Facebook face-off is a more rational, complete, balanced, and comprehensive approach to answering the most weighty questions possible, in terms of human life needlessly lost.

    Admit that the religion called atheism is the most dogmatic of all, by proving me wrong and reading Woods book!

    What if reading it would cause you to learn something new?

  • An Atheist

    I don’t read Confederate apologists.

  • Kevin Fraser

    I think you are providing an illustration if how Atheist dogma requires you to judge all books by their covers. I get that. How can you get away with calling yourself an atheist if you reject atheist dogma otherwise?

    Hey, you’re the self-proclaiming rationalist prejudicially rejecting newly discovered history which questions the establishment.

    Good luck with that.

  • An Atheist

    NNo, I am judging it by its author, a reasonable thing to do. Look, pal, I am a historian by training who specializes in the Civil War and American slavery. Woods promotes the crackpot “lost cause” view of the war. That’s enough for me not to trust anything he writes. Try to get someone a little more serious from your side besides a southern nationalist.

  • An Atheist

    IOW I wouldn’t trust a book on religion written by David Duke, either.

  • Kevin Fraser

    Let me get this straight. You chime into Mark Shea’s blog under the imaginative nom de plume “An Atheist” (capitalization noted) to proclaim the receding “threat” of Christianity as a function of a version of history you dogmatically stipulate as canonical and therefore comprehensive.

    I indicate to this strict rationalist some very large body count by motive over time ratios, to hint at the degree of killing of Christians for their Christianity, particularly egregiously in the 20th century.

    The religiously atheistic dogmatic rationalist ignores the mass of numerical data indicated for further study, in order to consult his back-to-the-future crystal ball or something and construct a picturesque new condemnation of “the medieval church” based on pure fantasy bolstered by nonsense.

    Although Woods’ book would present him with intriguing new avenues for fantasy. No harm in playing history-fantasy games, I suppose. I just wasn’t expecting anyone to present it as evidence.

    I suggest reading a scholar who, with his colleagues, asks why the whole of academia hasn’t in a full half-century and more, yet included the slightest hint of the cutting edge of thr past 50 years of research into science history, in any course syllabus, anywhere.

    No examination of claimed new information in 50 years does seem a bit odd to me, particularly when it is coming from a profession supposedly dedicated to learning.

    Then it occurs to me. Maybe the rationalist -who claims to be an academic- literally has no clue what I’m talking about. This would serve to demonstrate an instance of Woods’ thesis. Or maybe just mistaken identity.

    Not wanting to create a scene, perhaps I can ask if this
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods

    Is this the Thomas E. Woods whose work you are condemning here out of hand as “crackpot” or is it merely one of his kin you condemn?

    If so, then sorry about the misunderstanding, my bad, and is this Thomas E. Woods I’ve indicated listed on your atheistic rationalist dogmatically forbidden authors list as well?

    You see I have no affiliation with this Thomas E. Woods or his book except that I found it vastly illuminating in a paradigm-shift sort of way, after some years in a major university’s Fac. of Ed. observing, then uncomprehendingly, the clear subterfuge his book’s thesis illuminates.

    I suppose if you had googled maybe…

    thomas woods catholic church built civilization

    Then all this could have been avoided and you could have proven another Christian wrong for thinking you’re a dogmatically motivated atheist by getting the book from your library and opening your mind that much more.

    If course if it’s the same Thomas E Woods as you condemn, then I’m not going to hold my breath about this free-thinker coming around anytime soon.

    And another Atheist publicly demonstrates that he lives by dogma above all else.

    So again, prove me wrong. Expand your horizons. Speak truth to power and all that. Read Woods’ forbidden book.

    Go on. You don’t think lighting will strike you or something do you?

  • Kevin Fraser

    I mean… Could you imagine? Talk about ironic randomness!

  • Kevin Fraser

    Sorry. Make that “the heartless irony of randomness.”

    Yes, that rather scans better, I think.

  • Bruce in Kansas

    @Kevin Fraser: The Thomas Woods of “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” is the same Thomas Woods of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History”, which does in fact promote a view of the American Civil War that subordinates the issue of manumission to that of states rights. He cites Lincoln’s support of the Kirby Amendment during his first election, for example. The reception of his books in academia have not been overwhelmingly supportive.

  • Kevin Fraser

    Does that prove the new information he cites in his book about the Catholic Church’s role in many points of history is fiction?

    • Bruce in Kansas

      Of course not. But insisting that An Atheist read an author he finds not credible as a trained historian is not an effective way to make your point. If you provide some other sources of information, such as Archbishop Noll’s “Civilization’s Builder and Protector”, or Kenneth Clark’s “Civilisation” or sources cited therein, your argument would be more effective.

      • Mark Shea

        I don’t have dog in this fight, but I do note that we have no reason at all to believe An Atheist is a trained historian.

  • Ted Seeber

    I would also point out Thomas Woods is in the Mises institute and is on record denying Apostolic Authority in the realm of economics- a science that could certainly use a little ethics and theology.

    I would instead point him to _ Civilization’s Builder and Protector_ by Archbishop John F. Noll, which covers the same ground.

  • http://g Hezekiah Grxarrett

    An atheist,

    You’re a foolish bugger, I’ll grant you. If you think that the Enlightenment has neutered Christianity, might I suggest you expose yourself to a broader swath of humanity than you find in your suburb or trendy Hipster urban enclave?

    Even here you can find a Christianity which rejects your Endarkenment. And I daresay we still pose no threat to anyone.

    You provincial little twit.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X