The anti-religious bumper stickers always tickle my funny bone. I think that's mostly because the people who place them on their vehicles would sooner worship politicians (hint, hint: guess who?) than be caught worshipping an entity they can neither touch or see. What I find belly-jiggling is that they find it all too convenient to use religious symbols or figures or psalms in order to express an opinion about an issue.
For example, in order to chastise and waggle a knowing finger at all religions, there's the "Coexist" bumper sticker:
Clever on the surface, but ultimately ignorant and graphically retarded.
The designer just shrugged their shoulders and thought, 'Ah, who cares if the peace and man/woman symbols aren't really religions symbols, it works in the graphic. Besides I'm too lazy to look up other religious symbols that might make a better 'O' and 'E.' I can still use the Christian cross, the Jewish star and the Islamic moon and star in the same word and still make my point! Whatever that is...'
And is the point of this bumper sticker?
Aside from the graphical inaccuracies, there's the greater inconvenience in acknowledging the fact that it's incredibly ignorant of current events. See, nearly every major and current conflict or war in the world was started by—you guessed it—Islamists.
Lest you think I'm full of Shiite, here's a quick recap of current conflicts: Sudan? Islam. Chechnya? Islam. Afghanistan? Islam. Pakistan? Islam. Palestine? Islam. Lebanon? Islam. Iraq? Islam. (Yes, that may be over-simplifying or glossing over Israeli aggression in some instances, but this is a matter of 'original sin' in starting said conflict.)
Now, take some time and cite a current modern conflict started by Christians, Jews or Buddhists. Go on, no hurry. I'll wait.
Still thinking, huh?
That's cool, get back to me when you think of one.
So who's really not 'coexisting' with whom, Mr. Oh-So-Smart-Religion-Hating Graphic Designer?
How about leaving on the Moon and Star for the 'C' and using regular fonts for the rest of the word? Then a point would be made.
Here's another favorite:
Cute, huh? See how the writer used Jesus to point out Christian hypocrisy in supporting wars, insinuating that we should 'love our enemies'? I actually think this one makes a good point in that regard: As followers of a peaceful and loving God, war should be the last option.
Here's the deal, however: While I don't profess to know what Jesus may or may not think on the matter of war, I get the feeling Jesus would have a darn hard time 'turning the other cheek' or letting his beard be plucked' or 'loving the enemy' if he knew millions or thousands of people were being massacred and buried in mass graves like the Jews in WWII. Or in the killing fields of Cambodia. Or in Saddam's deserts. Or if humanity itself were threatened by any entity other Jesus' dad, dear old God.
Who knows, Jesus might even admire the extreme accuracy of modern weaponry in targeting the bad guys of today. (Of course, some of those cowardly fucks like to use women and children to hide behind posing a gut-wrenching dilemma even Jesus might have trouble dealing with.)
Finally, there's this one I saw in the parking lot at work (sorry, no picture):
"If religious groups want to be in politics, they should pay taxes."
Hmm, does that go for all nonprofit groups—like, say, the Sierra Club? Or the Nature Conservancy? Or MoveOn.org? Or just pick your favorite liberal nonprofit group that's heavily involved in lobbying for their interests. Should they pay taxes too? I'm thinking 'no' here. We just want those meddling Christians to pay! Bastards!
I think the final chuckle I get from all these is this: Professed and alleged tolerant and liberal people have no problem whatsoever openly expressing their intolerance and ignorance.
And in other news, water is wet.