The Myth of Coexist

I’m sure if you live in a metropolitan area or a college town you’ve seen this bumper sticker before--coexist.  Five of the seven letters represent different religions and the other two letters represent peace and the sexes.  Since it so overwhelmingly refers to different religions it’s been branded a symbol of religious tolerance. 

I always thought that the order was interesting.  The letter “C” which is a crescent moon for Islam is exclusively accompanied in the prefix by “O” which takes the form of a peace sign--a symbol that is associated with the political Left.  In case you were unaware, the peace sign is semaphore representing the letters  “N” and “D” which stand for one of the original mantras of the Left, Nuclear Disarmament. 

It seems appropriate that they keep each other company on the sticker just as they seem to keep each other company in life.   Perhaps there’s common ground.  I’ve certainly noticed a fanatical, totalitarian kindred spirit if you will.  Islam wants to control how you pray and how you dress.  The Left wants to control everything else--two peas in a pod.

           I don’t think it’s quite that simple though.  More specifically, I don’t really see Islam defending the Left but I find the Left is almost constantly defending Islam.  When America went to war against Islamic terrorists who was the biggest detractor?  The Left.  When Israel tries to defend itself who makes excuses for their fanatical Muslim attackers?  The Left.  When the first and only American president to have a Muslim background is elected what side of the political spectrum is he from?  The Left.  And when the building of a mosque is proposed on the sacred ground of 9-11 who seems to be its loudest cheerleader?  The Left.

But why?  It’s not reciprocated.  Islam almost seems like the older, cooler kid that puts up with the younger, doting kid because the Left seems to worship them, but at the end of the day Islam is actually kind of embarrassed to be seen together.  So, I wonder why the Left is always going to bat for Islam.  Is it because blacks make up 25% of Muslims in this country and blacks are big supporters of the major Left party, the Democrats?  Is it because the Left generally has contempt for traditional Christianity and views Islam as an anti-Christianity of sorts?  By backing the religion of Middle Easterners are they trying to exploit the voting potential of yet another ethnic minority?  Maybe it’s a knee-jerk reaction to conservatives opposing strict forms of Islam--therefore, prompting the Left to offer its endorsement.  Or perhaps it’s just because conservatives tend to like Israel and Muslims don’t.  So, the Left, opposing conservatives, are forced to favor Muslims.  I don’t know. 

At any rate, it seems to be the most self-defeating alliance since Roosevelt backed Stalin.  If, hypothetically, Muslim influence grew to the point of instituting Sharia Law who do you think they’d go after first?  It wouldn’t be the modestly dressed conservatives who oppose abortion and the proliferation of pornography.  Rest assured, it would be the Left.  They’d stone half of New York City and LA in the first week.  Say goodbye to every gay friend, bartender, and boutique owner you know.  The theocrats would be burning paintings, books, and movies in bonfires that would make the Acton fire look like the cherry of a cigarette. 

But these possibilities seem to completely elude the Left.  When it comes to the mosque controversy they’re the project’s biggest defenders, continuously citing the first amendment.  I find this rather amusing.  When it comes to a Leftist and an Islamic Radical the only question I would have concerning the constitution is:  Which one’s spit would land on our government’s founding document first?  Does anyone really think that the Islamic radicals promoting this mosque care about the first amendment?  If you were to ask a group of political cartoonists they would probably say no.  Radical Islam doesn’t want to coexist alongside other religions or forms of thought.  It wants to dominate.  And the idea that its zealous elements should be treated like every other religion when it acts like no other religion is something I’m still trying to wrap my head around. 

Nevertheless, President Obama defended the proposed mosque, prompting a national discussion on his own faith.  Using the coexist symbolism, a good amount of the public thinks he’s a “C” which means Muslim.  The largest portion thinks he’s a “T” which means Christian.  The truth is he’s neither.  If anything, he’s an “O” which means that his religion is the Left.  The church events he attended over the last 20 years are barely indistinguishable from the political events he attended.  It appears his faith isn’t in Muhammad or Jesus Christ, but in Leftist social planning.  His continual references to collective salvation seem to have more to do with politics than with God, although his defense of Islam, like many on the Left, is steadfast.

The call to coexist, albeit warm and fuzzy, actually exemplifies one of the greatest misconceptions that the Left tirelessly promotes--that man is basically harmonious.  The fact is that Islam has been at odds with almost every other religion represented on the “coexist matrix” and the Left has endlessly fought against traditional Judaism and Christianity since the dawn of the 20^th century.  Perhaps the greatest enemy of coexistence is the bigotry of radical Islam and Leftist thought.  Maybe it would be more realistic to drop the prefix and urge the world to simply exist.  However, the one thing the designer of the coexist slogan got right was placing the “C” and the “O” together.  We may never quite know why the Left carries so much water for Islam.  Perhaps they think appeasement is the way to go since it’s worked so well for Europe.  Or maybe, it’s the only way to have an idiotic bumper sticker make any sense.