Debating Coexistence

I'm glad Mike Plaisted wrote this post regarding the COEXIST debate, since it more or less covers my thoughts on the topic, especially this part (emphasis mine):

The bottom line on this whole imbroglio is that Sykes, McMahon and all their various defenders are, shockingly, against coexistence. "...there are some things – evils -- that we cannot simply ‘coexist with.’ These would include Communism and Nazism," writes Sykes. Fine, and the COEXIST sticker implies nothing like that.... To these deluded few, Islam - the faith of billions that happens to include a small minority of violent nut-bags - is the enemy.

To be sure, violence is hardly an issue that's unique to Islam. Religion, in fact, has been long used as a means for justifying violence, just as it's been long used to justify peace.

When the idea of "positive Christianity" developed in Nazi Germany as a means for justifying the extermination of the Jewish population, for instance, mainstream Christian churches rightly denounced it in the name of peaceful coexistence with Judaism.

And contrary to the claims that calls for coexistence ignore terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam by a small and shrinking percentage of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, the COEXIST message -- originally created for a museum in Israel -- is as much intended for those Muslims who support violence as it is for the many more peaceful followers of Islam and the followers of the other religions whose symbols are depicted in it.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the COEXIST message should be the sole or even primary means for combating terrorism; no one has suggested that.

But the message is helpful in that it serves as a reminder of the ultimate goal in combating terrorism and other violence perpetrated in the name of religious faith.