The Irony of "Co-Exist"
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 5:30PM | Dave Strunk 
I saw this bumper sticker twice in a matter of a few minutes today while driving. I see it often, and occasionally I muse upon it. That's usually a questionable activity, since no sincere or serious debate can occur while shouting. And that's what a bumper sticker is, a sound-byte shout on the back of a car. But for a brief moment, allow me to muse upon the irony that is, "co-exist."
Now, admittedly, the proponents of "co-exist" probably don't mean co-habitation and tolerance to be the world's highest virtue. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't. I won't presume anything. But I do know that the bumper sticker sympathizes with the American zeitgeist of tolerance. One point is certain: the implication is that all of these religious, social, and biological symbols represent larger world movements and regardless of what each religion claims, everyone should get along.
Now allow me to read into the sticker further. I'm not trying to set up a straw man here. I'm merely trying, through a medium altogether different than the bumper sticker, to get to the very root of the statement (Since there's no premises in this syllogism, I can't really call the sticker an "argument" in the classical sense). The stronger implication of the sticker seems to be that all of these world religions have equally valid truth claims and proponents of those truth claims should see that a bigger virtue is to make peace and to co-exist. At its core, "co-exist" is about asking us to set aside our differences for the sake of peace.
So what's the irony? The imperative to "co-exist" is itself a truth claim, over and against some of these other religious truth claims in its very lettering. The command to "co-exist" and the desire for tolerance is itself a religion, so to speak. For example take Islam, represented by the crescent in the C above. The Quran has two seemingly contradictory messages: one is to be nice to Christians and Jews and the other is to eradicate all non-muslims. Many Islamic and non-Islamic scholars say that the theory of abrogation means that the texts commanding violence supercede the texts that command peace. But I don't want to make a statement in one way or the other about the Quran. What I'm saying is that the co-exist crowd, by their very imperative, is actually wishing a morality standard on Islam that Islam wishes not to practice. Despite the desire to overcome modernistic fights to truth claims in the co-exist camp, they have fallen guilty of their own command. In a desire to co-exist, they claim the upperhand, which is the very thing they are trying not to do.
And another brief point bears stating. Let's go beyond Islam for a minute, because that was a controversial example. Am I to co-exist with unrepentant murderers and genocidal cultures? Or rather, should I challenge them with every bit of moral good I can marshall? It seems to me that challenge is a higher moral good in those instances than to co-exist.
So allow me to move this forward. Peace and tolerance are admirable goals, but it is a goal of a specific moral code. One cannot escape the reality of moral imperatives. We don't get peace by pretending to ignore every one's moral codes because everyone has a moral code. The difference, then, is not in superceding a moral code but determining which of these religions or worldviews contains the best, the highest, and the most truthful of moral codes. And some of those moral codes have way more beautiful ethics than the weak and modest goal of co-existence.
And for my money and life and eternity, I'm going to stick with the T.
Bumper Stickers, Co-Exist, morality, truth
Reader Comments (8)
I've seen those bumpers stickers everywhere. Every time I see one, the lyrics from a Christian rapper's song called "Truth" comes to mind. "...If what's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me, what if my truth says your's is a lie? Is it still true?..." Makes you think doesn't it?
Dude, quit trying. You are not C.S. Lewis. I bet the amount of time you try to sound like a great Christian philospher the more you throw away time to serve others. I bet you care more about trying to sound smart than help your neighbor. Haven't yet read anything about helping others, it's always something about you being a "judge". Done reading this self loving views.
Dave, first time responding to a blog. The last time as well.
Congrat on the baby. Didn't think you had it in you... Just kidding.
Also, at the end of the day it's just a bumper sticker. I think reading too much into it is the real danger. Just my
humble ( and perhaps a little more liberal opinion).
Love, Darren Welch
P.S. Chekka Marshmellow
P.S.S. Celtics are killing me tonight and thus I resort to reading.
P.S.S.S gav ggavvv gav
p.s.s.s.s there was an angry elf posting before me
Just reread my post, I didn't mean I won't ever post again, just meant I am likely not to because i'm not good at this. Also didn't realize other people could read my comments. Thought they went to you for approval before posting. Didn't meant to sound so harsh. Love you strunk.
Yo:
You provide a great example of what's not appreciated by anyone on a blog comment: ad hominem, false dichotomy, and anonymity. Your logic was merely against my character, and I don't know if I know you or not but I'll give you a small peek into my character: I do struggle with horrible sin in my life. One of those sins is pride, and the desire to sound intelligent, and be esteemed in the eyes of others. Hear me out: that's sin corrupting my very humanity and I wish I didn't deal with it, and it's one very strong reason I believe in Jesus because I have no hope apart from him. But though I've admitted that, this blog post was not motivated by those temptations.
And that's where the false dichotomy comes in: why are my only choices commenting on philosophical issues of the day or loving others? Can't I do both? Yes, I can, and I do earnestly try. I'm just trying to figure out why you are so enraged by that effort. Care you not for both truth and others? I do, and I think Jesus does too. I'm trying to promote a view of Christianity and a relationship with Christ that matters in the public as well as the private sphere. I have such a big view of Jesus' sovereignty over Creation that I think the truth of Christianity can speak into all of that- into interpersonal relationships as well as bumper stickers as well as government, ad infinitum.
And so, I don't appreciate the gutless anonymity or the character attacks. They aren't real arguments and they have no place in discourse. I hope you see that your comments are insulting and guilty of their own standard: not judging.
Darren: nice to hear from you, bro, and I take it all tongue-in-cheek. You're a good friend for reaching out though we haven't talked in a while.
Dude. Well put.
I also find it interesting that the imperative communicated by this bumper sticker has already been fulfilled. That is, the message communicated here is "exist alongside one another." This is already happening, in America at least. Granted, it's not a perfect coexistence; but, I can't think of one instance in my life, whether I agreed with my neighbor or not, where I refused to exist along side someone becuase of their beleifs. Coexistence is happening all around us.
So, it seems that this one word bumper sticker is somehow poorly worded. It would be better, for the sake of the intended message, to take all the symbols on this sticker and make them read, "AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER." That's what "Coexist" proponents are really getting at.
And, as you already said, this flies in the face of those who are instructed by their very faith to in fact agree with one another.
Just happened past this in a search, and loved it.
In fact, I've been bothered by this for some time. The idea that we can judge others by claiming that they don't take "co-existing" seriously enough seems to be gaining ground. As a Christian myself, I'm quick to point out the difference between loving others and agreeing with them.
David, thanks for your thoughts. Indeed, the negative reaction many have to critiquing "co-exist" is rather instructive. I want us to love everyone no matter whom they are. Others think that loving=accepting whatever their views are. The former is virtuous. The latter is ridiculous and impossible. I just don't want to co-exist with a Nazi. I may try to love them, but they may be in for a good deal of truth in the form of justice.