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.”

Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus the question “What is truth?” Though it was more of a statement than a question.  During the political season the question “What is truth” can be answered as something there is little concern for.

This poisonous political period can feel like an oppressive fog that permeates everything.  There is little or no concern for truth so we get everything from exaggerations to outright lies and we shrug it off as “just politics.” We have come to expect that politicians are not intimate friends with the truth and just as long as we support part of their agenda we are willing to put up with it.  The ends don’t justify the means except when they do. We want zingers more than truth.

Now as an admitted political partisan myself I certainly would say that one side of the political divide is abusing truth more than the other.  That does not mean that I will pass by departures from truth for partisan reasons.   Something we almost never get is a politician accurately  speaking  about a policy of their opponent. Showing concern that first they understand it before critiquing it.  I guess when things are compressed down to a soundbite  the compression algorithm used removes truth for compactness.  I think of  the care that St. Thomas Aquinas took in the Summa Theologica to accurately state objections before answering them.  St. Thomas Aquinas said “All that I have written seems like straw”, but what he had written contained no straw men.

What makes me reflect on this is the reaction to a statement from Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

This was seized on immediately to make him a supporter or rape. Any honest person not wanting to pin everything with an agenda would see that this was a badly worded answer that conflated rape as being the will of God. I have a hard time of seeing how somebody can so misread this other then bad will. At worse you could see him as confusing God’s ordained will vs. His permissive will not a support of rape.

When I wanted to find the actual quote of Richard Mourdock I had to wade through dozens of articles regarding it to find one that actually printed the quote in whole. If his statement was so indicting of him you would think they would print it for all to see.

On the other hand considering Todd Akins previous remark I think we need to send Republican Senate candidates to some kind of school as to how to articulate themselves regarding abortion and the rape exception. It is almost always painful to hear a politician articulate themselves on this. I must applaud Richard Moyrdock for his pro-life conviction that didn’t take the normal pragmatic route. Really though if he had stated it better, there would have probably still been some news concerning it.

The President of course took little time to mischaracterize Mourdock’s remarks for political gain. Unfortunately this is to be expected since I do not see our President as much of a lover of truth. I wish I could think of Gov. Romney as a lover of truth, but I do no delude myself this way.

It seems odd to me in this Presidential election where there is so much that divides the candidates policy wise that so much is wasted on something other than valid critiques of policy. As a political junkie it is easy to forget that many are not so engaged in what is going on and politicians would rather sway them with zingers and soundbites hoping it will get into their narrow window of political engagement. The first victim of war is truth, and the same goes for political campaigns that increase the victim count.

All I know is that I need to be much more of a prayer junkie than a political one.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center reported that one-in-five adults have no religious affiliation. They call this group “Nones” which adds no clarity. Especially since this group includes atheists, agnostics and “nothing in particular.” All three groups are on the rise with the “nothing in particular” garnering the largest increase. Of that 20% they report on six percent are made of of atheist and agnostics with agnosticism being the larger group. By the news reporting I heard it was made to sound as if the 20% was pretty much made up of atheists.

Now obviously we have to NIP (sorry some acronym humor here) in the bud.

I find the question interesting since it is so indicative of society. “Are you looking for a religion that would be right for you.” Crouched in terms of relativism instead of in the terms of looking for the truth. I am though rather surprised that of this group of those who choose “nothing in particular” that such a low amount are seeking.

Also interesting that Protestant’s of all stripes for the first time are less than 50% of the population. Catholics have held steady, but I would guess that immigration plays a larger part in that than some other factors.

I would be interested in a comparison between this study and what is going on in Europe and what factors are different. Certainly the religiously affiliated is higher in the United States than in most countries of Europe.

The the unaffiliated is growing and at higher rates among younger people seems to be a cultural indicator that will surprise nobody. I wonder how much of this segment considers themselves “spiritual but not religious?” There has always been quite an independent stripe among American believers and I believe Protestantism has some effect in that. When everybody becomes their own interpreter than pretty soon you can cut out the Church as the middle man. Protestant ecclesiology also kinds of lends to this with the fracturing from first national churches, to regional churches, to neighborhood “non-denominational” churches. A soft deism can develop where you might recognize the existence of God, but you live a life where this has no practical effect. Though that schism between belief and action is certainly well known among believers. The fracturing of Christendom into so many fragments also provides a barrier to belief. Jesus’ High Priestly prayer to the Father “that they may all be one” is one we must continue to constantly pray.

After having read Ross Douthat’s excellent Bad Religion it is also well worth noting that it is not like from the beginning the US was totally religiously affiliated with a slow drain off towards secularism. While church attendance rates have certainly dropped in the last century there have been a certain ebb and flow.

Instead of a call to holiness there seems to have been a dropped-call. A call I know I should answer, but when I see the Caller ID of Holiness, I would rather not pick up since talking about holiness is much easier than living it.