If there is one bumper sticker that I have seen the most of besides political ones it is certainly the “Coexist” sticker. There is something about this sticker that really annoys me. A reflex that does not exactly invoke tolerance for the person with the sticker.
Though why is this? The tolerance sticker like many things invokes a truth, but at the same time invokes an error. Now of course you can’t expect a one word bumper sticker made up of religious symbols as a full statement articulating fully what the owner of the sticker wants it to mean. It certainly is rather clever in the use of religious symbols to spell out the word and that leads to its popularity. But the symbol for smarmy people who put this on their bumpers seems to be missing. The message really is “I’m tolerant, your’e not – get with the program.”
There is also a “Can’t we all just get along?” vibe and again there is a larger truth there. Religious tolerance properly defined is certainly something to be promoted and strived for. The original design came from a Polish graphic designer Piotr Mlodozeniec who designed it for an art contest for a museum in Jerusalem. It was popularized when U2 started using it on a backdrop on one of their tours. Considering the religious clashes that have occurred in Ireland you can see why it appealed to them.
Now you can’t psychoanalyze someone from their bumper sticker, but you can look at general outlooks and make some guesses at what might motivate someone to choose this sticker. The fact that these stickers are sometimes combined with other left-leaning slogans helps to make these guesses. Though once I saw a “Coexist” bumper sticker with a “Nobama” one. From my armchair view my guess is that a large group of the coexisters are either not religious or of the “spiritual not religious” type. They are rightly scandalized by religious intolerance especially when it involves violence. Though at the same time know little about actual religious intolerance. For example I doubt if there is a large intersection between coexisters and those that are upset about the religious intolerance of the HHS Mandate. The fact that Muslim dominated countries severely restrict other religions is also something that pretty much passes them by. This view is grounded also in religious indifferentism which is another implied message of this bumper sticker. All religions should get along because they are all equally made up.
This idea of tolerance is something other than how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it.
Toleration in general signifies patient forbearance in the presence of an evil which one is unable or unwilling to prevent. By religious toleration is understood the magnanimous indulgence which one shows towards a religion other than his own, accompanied by the moral determination to leave it and its adherents unmolested in private and public, although internally one views it with complete disapproval as a “false faith”.
In fact if you told a coexister that you liked his “forbearance in the presence of an evil” sticker I am certain he wouldn’t like that definition.
Mostly what annoys me is that the call of tolerance falls far short. I am called to love my neighbor, not just tolerate him. I am also called to love my enemy and not just tolerate them. But the false view of tolerance sees no allowed enemies. I am called to love those of other faiths and when possible to bring the Gospel to them. That type of fiery love is dissipated in the luke-warm water of tolerance.
If you look for the word tolerance in the Catechism you won’t find it and you certainly don’t find the false view of tolerance that levels all belief.
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”
That tolerance definition is a gem! Thanks for finding it.
In my loooooooong experience with Tolerance Pushers. . .the ones who shout “tolerance!” loudest are usually the first to shout “hang ‘em!” when someone disagrees with them.
Fr. Philip Neri, OP
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”
G.K. Chesterton
I LOVE this quote. I am going to make my GK Chesterton bumper sticker now…
amen
Bonus! A shared pet-peeve. You’ve eloquently nailed it.
Right up there with the “Darwin” stickers that put feet on the bumper sticker version of the ancient Christian Icthus-fish
Thanks, Jeff. From now on, I will try to assume people with “Coexist” bumper stickers are U2 fans. From, you know, back when being a U2 fan wasn’t as smarmy as putting a “Coexist” bumper sticker on your car.
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered “I am he
“That champions total liberty.
“Intolerance being, ma’m, a state
“No tolerant man can tolerate!”
— Phyllis McGinley
What is the “i” in co-exist?
I am woman hear me roar?
Actually it is the middle letter of sin, pride, and anxiety. Whenever “I” is the center, it is bad.
[...] Coexisting with People who have Coexist Bumper Stickers – Jef. Miller, The Curt Jester [...]
Here in Oregon, one of the least-churched states in the union, those stickers flourish like dandelions. I’ve had a few frosty run-ins with such bumper-sticking folks while peacefully praying at 40 Days for Life. Oy vey…
“Right up there with the ‘Darwin’ stickers that put feet on the bumper sticker version of the ancient Christian Icthus-fish.”
–Jay
I was going to put my “Like science? Thank a Catholic” bumper sticker next to one of those.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Karl Raimund Popper
here is a good rebuttal to this bumper sticker
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RkxFSRhHEnU/TObZ8TSpkII/AAAAAAAABec/amDJ5jQxuRQ/s1600/coexist_explained.jpg
This sticker always reminds me of the scene from the movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” when Sarah points our that he bf having many symbols of completely contradictory beliefs tattooed on him “does not make him a citizen of the world…it makes him full of crap.”
I have never seen the supposed “homosexual” and “pagan’ symbols before. The only version of the COEXIST sign I have seen in Australia consists of
C = crescent moon =Islam
O = om symbol = Hinduism
E = normal E
X = star of David = Judaism
I = normal I
S = yin/yang symbol = Buddhism
T = Cross = Christianity.
This is far less objectionable than the version you have here, in fact I rather like it.
Coexisting and tolerance are two different words with different meanings. Coexist is not equal to tolerate.
The “coexister” is more about live and let live; the “tolerant” is about judge and THEN let live (way harder)
Love and acceptance are the key here. Compassion and respect.
I dont’ understand why this has to be such a splinter for some.
This lovely idae of a happy coexistence becomes an issue only if you seek or want to control other peoples spiritual devotions.
Just one more thing. the coexist thing is good in the sense that we need to live together in harmony on this planet as best we can. Seek to be at peace with all men – that is a good thing. But the truth is that Coexist ends at death. Only Christ can get one to heaven.
This article is neither amusing, nor insightful. Anyone who can react so badly to the notion of tolerance (which is not what coexistence specifies anyway – rather the need to live with each other in a spirit of understanding and cooperation) falls so far to the right of any stance that might be considered worthy of discourse that I am repelled by the very notion of attempting to do so. If only I were more tolerant, perhaps I wouldn’t wish to see such a fool struck down by the God this “Jester” professes to love.