As John McAdams sums up the story so far:

It all started with a parody from Tom McMahon, who was aggravated by the extremely smug and intellectually slovenly bumper sticker in which a variety of religious symbols spell out “COEXIST.”

McMahon produced a parody bumper sticker with Nazi and Communist symbols substituted.

His point, of course, was that some religious views are simply impossible to coexist with, and must (like Nazism and Communism) be fought.

Charlie Sykes picked this up and ran it on his blog, and then the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee jumped in, demanding of Sykes and Sykes’ boss that the symbols be removed.

 ***

The good news: WTMJ management has got my back on this one. The JS quotes TMJ's GM:

We support Charlie, just as we do anytime that he writes about or discusses sensitive topics that are likely to incite pretty heavy feelings. This is one of those sensitive areas. It deserves to be discussed, and needs to be discussed."

He says he's letting Charlie handle the criticism from the Interfaith Council on his blog.

“I let Charlie respond to them. I stand by Charlie’s response."

"What do I think about it? I guess everybody has the right to disagree and be offended if that’s really what the issue is. We also have the right as a radio station to discuss sensitive issues and topics, and this is one of those.”

***

Rick Esenberg offers sensible commentary:

One criticism is that, to make the parody work, he had to replace the Star of David with a swastika. Marcus White argues that this is "distasteful", "ignorant" and "always offensive." This would be the case if the message was some equivalence between Nazis and Jews. But Mr. White has to know that this in not what McMahon intended or what any reasonable person would think he intended. He needed an "x," for Siva's sake, The notion that this is "always offensive" is either intentionally obtuse or reflects a medieval belief that symbols have innate powers apart from the message they convey. It's as if the totem has been defiled and the gods will respond in wrath....

Esenberg also answers another point:

It is because of these faithful and peaceful Muslims that we ought to be careful to limit our criticisms to those factions within Islam who do, with apologies to Mr. White, believe that their faith commands murder and misogyny.

But those factions exist and they are rather large. Islam has a problem and it will still be there whether or not we pretend that it isn't. As the left correctly points out, terrorism is not a cause, it's a tactic. I wish the enemy wasn't an ugly version of Islam adhered to by millions of people. But it is. I don't see how you respond to a problem by deliberately misunderstanding it. By positing an equivalence among faiths on the question of coexistence, the bumper sticker does that.

One final point. Marcus White's belief that coexistence requires that TMJ take down the parody actually reflects what has made coexistence with Islam in Europe so difficult. Coexistence in a diverse society requires understanding that other people who do not share your views will say and do things that offend you and you do not get to make them stop.

 ***

Meanwhile, John McAdams offers perspective on the agenda of the Interfaith Council:

Is the Interfaith Conference a protector of religious tolerance, attentive to slights against diverse faiths?

No, they are a bunch of liberal bureaucrat/activists who dislike Sykes simply because Sykes is a conservative.

Their leftist politics is not some sort of secret. They advertise it all over their web site.

They are, for example, supporters of socialized medicine. Not only did they sponsor a showing of the Michael Moore film “Sicko,” they strongly supported the “Healthy Wisconsin” proposal in the recent state budget battle.

But the most interesting stuff is this, especially given the Conference's purported concern for "Anti-Semitism":

Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the Interfaith Conference statement is the claim that the parody bumper sticker is somehow anti-Semitic. Yet the actions of the Conference raise serious questions. For example:

When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media. Today, the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee will be sponsoring a Shah talk, taking place at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church.

And further:

. . . Shah’s love for his fellow man was not manifest, when, just a few years prior, in June of 2001, he spoke of a wild conspiracy regarding Jews retaking the Saudi city of Medina. He said, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet’s city of Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”

You can find further information on Shah here. Local Milwaukee columnists Cary Spivak & Dan Bice raised a variety of questions about Shah in a 2006 article.

But Shah’s group, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is a member of the Interfaith Conference!

The simple fact is that the Interfaith Conference lacks any credibility in attacking Sykes, or making any assertions about religious tolerance.

They are simply a bunch of liberals and leftists who dislike Sykes because they don’t like conservatives.

 ***

Others who've commented:

 Owen Robinson has been dealing with this issue for a while now. He had also postyed McMahon's parody:

Being a particularly provocative and insightful point, it spread around the blogosphere.  Here’s my post about it, but I was one of about a bazillion bloggers who decided to post it.  And why not?  It made for a lively discussion and that’s what makes blogging fun.  Free speech, robust debate, sharp points, etc.  The discussion under my post was lively and entertaining.

Typically, a bunch of liberal bloggers and the perpetually offended decided to use McMahon’s parody to smear him and conservatives as antisemitic because McMahon’s parody bumper sticker replaced the Star of David with a swastika.  This has been a standard play for liberals.  If you don’t like what someone is saying, then call them an antisemite, racist, antidentite, misogynist, or whatever else to try to intimidate them into shutting up.  It’s a cheap tactic, but it’s been successful enough in the past to make it a favorite of some folks. 

***

Patrick Mcilheran gets it.

Patrick Dorwin also draws a line against political correctness

Amy also won't be bullied

Mary, from Freedom Eden, comments:

In a letter to the station, the Interfaith Conference deemed the mock sticker to be offensive and inappropriate to have on the website. The Interfaith Conference requested that WTMJ remove the post.

Sykes responded. He said, "No."

Good answer.

McMahon's version of the sticker doesn't promote hate.

I interpret it as doing the exact opposite. It highlights the danger of allowing evil to go unchecked. The Interfaith Conference's interpretation completely misses the altered sticker's meaning.

***UPDATE

Jessica McBride compares the "Coexist" flap to the phony soldier" smear.

She does a nice job desconstructing the chop-logic of the left on the issue.

***

And then there is the genuinely silly:

Jim Rowen thinks it's hypocritical to defend Tom McMahon's bumper sticker spoof after I had criticized Miller for its support of the leather fetish parody of 'The Last Supper:

Secondly, in case it gets forgotten, Charlie was among those leading the recent charge against Miller Brewing for its use of Last Supper imagery in ad for a Gay Rights celebration that people like Charlie found offensive.

Of course: A poster mocking "the Last Supper" by depicting Jesus Christ and his apostles as leather-bound fetishists = a parody of a smug liberal bumper sticker. Obviously, they are one and the same... as least for some folks. 

The rest of Rowen's post is also worth reading both for the "we really do hate conservatives and all their ilk" rhetoric and for his pious belief that anytime a group like the Interfaith Council speaks it is the bound duty of conservatives to fold like a house of cards.

It all makes you wonder: is the left capable of making an argument that does not  involve (1) calling conservatives Nazis, (2) playing the victim card, or (3) using the word "hypocrisy"?