Mark Steyn writes about the "religion of peace":

I found myself behind a car in Vermont, in the US, the other day; it had a one-word bumper sticker with the injunction "COEXIST". It's one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives, one designed principally to flatter their sense of moral superiority. The C was the Islamic crescent, the O was the hippie peace sign, the X was the Star of David and the T was the Christian cross. Very nice, hard to argue with. But the reality is, it's the first of those symbols that has a problem with coexistence. Take the crescent out of the equation and you wouldn't need a bumper sticker at all. Indeed, coexistence is what the Islamists are at war with; or, if you prefer, pluralism, the idea that different groups can rub along together within the same general neighbourhood. There are many trouble spots across the world but, as a general rule, even if one gives no more than a cursory glance at the foreign pages, it's easy to guess at least one of the sides: Muslims v Jews in Palestine, Muslims v Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims v Christians in Nigeria, Muslims v Buddhists in southern Thailand, Muslims v (your team here). Whatever one's views of the merits on a case by case basis, the ubiquitousness of one team is a fact.

The muselums dont want to get along they want to whipe out chritianity and force themselves on everyone on the earth

How symbolic that the intermediary between Islam and both Jews & Christians is the broken cross. Most of these pluralists probably got the lecture in their childhood -- "It takes two to make a fight." Sorry, but it only takes ONE to make a holy war.

- Eric.

Is there any chance whatsoever that the person with the bumper sticker was trying to send a message to Muslims, rather than to Judeo-christians? Or even trying to send a message to Hippies, who also have a problem with the idea of co-existence (in practice)?

Since it was only a one-word sticker, unless there's a context to read it in (i.e., Pro-UN stickers, anti-Bush stickers, or even pro-Bush stickers), it's pretty arrogant to assume that this person was necessarily pro-Muslim...

No one was saying that the bumper sticker is pro- (or anti-)Muslim. Steyn's point is that it's naive.

And my point remains that it's naive to think that the person with such a sticker is naive, rather than a person that's trying to make a point or a statement.

Perhaps if it said "Coexist, or else", and had a picture of the WTC, or maybe a picture of a MOAB, then it would have had more meaning, more context, and therefore more accurate judgement could be passed upon the driver of the car. Instead, Steyn chooses to call the driver a "Western progressive" with a "sense of moral superiortiy".

Perhaps his "Jump to Conclusions Mat" doesn't have the correct foot-squares on it?

It's as naive (un-naive, I guess) as those who would argue that the kid who throws the first punch and the kid who hits back are equally culpable, and both should be subject to detention.

The one that irritates me the most is rampant here in Seattle:

'War is terrorism'

It makes me want to haul out the scissors and rearrange around the transitive verb.

'Terrorism is war'

Wait...Rand...you're trying to say that a BUMPER STICKER is naive? And this water of which you speak, is it wet?

I gues 1300 years of attempts at world domination just don't sink in with some people. Naive is the kindest thing I could say.

Actually, if you re-read the passage, Steyn doesn't jump to conclusions about the person displaying the "COEXIST" bumper sticker. Instead he says, "Its one of those sentiments beloved of Western progressives." (I would have put "progressives" in quotes, because statism is to progress what junk food is to dieting.) Mr. Breen makes a valid point that the message can be interpreted in a benign way; but it's one of those points that, while true "in vitro," are so rarely true "in vivo" as to render them insignificant. It's like seeing a "PEACE" sticker on the bumper of a passing car . Not knowing the owner of the car, I might very well give him the benfeit of the doubt and allow for the possibiility that he might be a fellow libertarian: in other words, that he knows a world without coercion would be a peaceful one. But what are the chances of that? The greater possibility is that he is a typical "liberal" bubblehead who hates instruments of coercion (i.e., guns) but loves coercion itself (when used in "progressive" causes, natch); and is a pacifist when it comes to nations defending themselves against aggression, but a two-fisted, butt-kicking Rambo when it comes to the State making war against its own citizens.

The bumper sticker is a nice projective test to see what lurks beneath those few grams of gray matter. Everywhere you see boogeymen who don't support your immoral wars being waged across the Arab lands.

And Allah forbid if someone would like for us to merely coexist, Allah forbid!

Bilwick's (valid, IMHO) point made me think of the remark "The race is not always to the swift, but that's a good way to bet."