Skip to content


January 8, 2010

Today is my birthday. At this moment, I’m spending it  alone in my room and writing this post to kill time while a Lord of the Rings mod for Total War downloads on my desktop computer. The only thing that is saving me from complete loser status is the promise of inebriation tonight and possibly tomorrow.

Alcohol is preventing me from feeling pathetic. Oh, the irony…

Today’s subject is….bumper stickers.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the “COEXIST” bumper stickers that decided to rise in popularity over the last couple of years. For those of you who live under a rock (but still mysteriously have an internet connection) here it is.

Cute, huh? Personally, I’m neutral towards it. Granted, it certainly beats out the unfortnate peace sign that has been whored out and exploited so often by advertisers that it resembles a teenage prostitute in Somalia. However, I’m never a big fan of putting preachy shit on my car. I try not to wear my political or religous beliefs (or lack thereof) on my sleeve. I only have one bumper sticker for my automobile at the moment and it reads “Too Much Is Always Better Than Not Enough”. No argument there.

Anyway, I was browsing through Fark yesterday when I came across this blog post. I was intrigued at first. A dissertation on the Coexist stickers? The cynic in me could not resist.

Before we go any farther, I suggest you go back and read all that this gentleman has to say on the subject. I’ll wait.

Finished? Does your head hurt? Of course it does.

Let me start by saying that, apart from my reverential treatment of any song by Lady Gaga,  I am not religious. I try to avoid any discussion involving religion because it rarely remains civil for long and soon devolves into name calling and ignorance and begins to resemble a schoolyard argument over which Pokemon is superior. However, I cannot stand ignorance in any form, which this writer appears to have in spades.

Let’s break this into a list, shall we? His words are in bold.

1. “E = “Gender equality” (=the LGBT agenda)” – Try as I might, I’m having a lot of trouble seeing how women’s rights are equated to the “LBGT” agenda. Also, why do people (read: Homophobes) feel the need to refer to it as their “AGENDA”. They simply want the same treatment as heterosexual couples. As far as I know, nobody is pushing for Elton John to be elected president or our national anthem to be changed to It’s Raining Men.

2. “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.” – Just so we’re clear, that means all practicing Muslims are radical extremists that want to kill anyone that disagrees with them.

3. “O doesn’t allow for effective resistance or defeat of C.” – And it is our job to contain and destroy all these nasty Muslims. Anyone want to take a wild stab at what this guy’s religious beliefs may be?

4. “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 is about the point where my head started hurting.

5. “X’s existence is threatened not only by C but also by O, who invariably supports C over X.” – Not only is this a gross oversimplification of the situation in the Middle East, but it also doesn’t make sense. Exactly how does pacifism hurt Judaism?

6. “I and S are statistically insignificant and are mainly on there to complete the bumper sticker.” – A host of countries in Asia would like a word with you, sir.

Lastly, and also the one that sent this post from “dumb” status to “my fucking god, how can anyone be this dense?” status:

7. “Historically, T has brought about more tolerance– “coexistence” if you will– than any other movement.”

Unless this post was written in some strange alternate universe where The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, and the Westboro Baptist Chruch never existed, I feel that every single thing that the author says from today to the day he dies should be immediately dismissed and anything he believes, up to and including the color of the sky, should be considered suspect. I hate people, sometimes.

Le sigh.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. your mom permalink
    January 8, 2010 3:40 pm

    haha this is so good. it entertained me. but you’re right about this 🙂
    i also share your reverence to anything and everything lady gaga.

  2. Flatness permalink
    January 9, 2010 3:19 pm

    I read some of the responses to that guys blog. I noticed that a some people said that the Christian Crusades happened in response to Islamic Crusades. They tried to point out that Christian Pilgrims would (in the end) end up dead if they tried to enter the holy land after the Seljuks took control of Jerusalem (and a numerous other holy sites).

    Its no lie that this did happen but such actions were dwarfed in comparison to the things Christian Armies did to the Muslims. The First Crusade saw the massacre of Jerusalem’s entire (nearly) population of Jews and Muslims. Looting, rape, and torture was committed on a massive scale. Yet when Mr. Saladin (forgive spelling) took back the Holy City the entire population was given free passage.

    In addition to Jerusalem the Christian armies also were responsible for mass murders at a host of other holy sites and towns. I won’t name them all but they are easy to look up. The Christians launched NINE Crusades against the Muslim world. The only two Muslim “Crusades” or Jihads are . . . well fuck . . . AFTER THE CHRISTIANS TOOK JERUSALEM!

    The Muslims in Iberia (Spain for you not-so-sharp-people) was not a Jihad but more so the expansion of the Moorish Empire. The Seljuks were not on Jihad when they raped the Byzantines at Manzikert. The Ottomans were not on Jihad when they laid Siege to Vienna more than once . . . the Ottomans main concern was not the spreading of Islam per-say but overwhelmingly more due to the fact that they wanted a greater empire. I don’t recall the British or the Romans or the Macedonians or the Persians ever trying to expand their empire on the basis of spreading their religion.

    Yes, Islamic nations in the past have tried to expand their boarders-the best defense is a good offense? The Koran says that Muslims should coexist with other religions-granted not all people are rational and thats when you get the crazy people with the bombs. History shows that Islamic nations have been under attack from Christian nations much much longer than Christian nations have been from Islamic nations.

    Finally think about this: Who started the two biggest wars in history? Who is responsible for the greatest genocide ever seen? And who invented the fire-and-forget weapons?

    If you don’t know the answer to this question then you have a lot of reading to do.

  3. January 9, 2010 3:23 pm

    Golf clap for Mister Flatness.

  4. Flatness permalink
    January 18, 2010 12:33 am

    FYI, bitch, Mew is by fat the more superior Pokemon. I know it to be a scientific fact and I will fight you to the death to defend this belief. =)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: