06-13-2017, 01:24 AM
(06-12-2017, 01:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote:
Your first paragraph. Nothing else is needed. He didn't just randomly pick Islam over Christianity or Judaism. Nobody is attacking other people based on religion.
If for example or maybe when Christians try to force prayer where SSF doesn't believe it belongs, then he will comment on Christians. Not Muslims and not Jews.
Yet SSF says my first paragraph is "not even close."
Something else is needed, because while the vast majority of Americans recognize that terrorism is a problem in the world today, and that much of that directed towards the US from the outside is perpetrated by some Islamists, many, perhaps even a majority, still do not, with SSF, claim Islam itself is an "ideology" which threatens Western values. They do not work overtime selectively attaching atrocities to one religion, describing it as the cause of terrorism which "Westerners" need to understand to protect Western values.
Why do you say "nobody is attacking other people based upon religion"? Remember SSF does not distinguish one group of religious bad actors to attack, separate from the majority of believers; rather, he uses that group to characterize the whole--"mass rape, murder, torture, enslavement and terrorism." If that is not attacking people on the basis of religion, then what would count as such? That he might attack other religions in the right context that hardly means he is not attacking people based upon religion in this case.
And I repeat--my quarrel with SSF is not about whether he "attacks religion." Nothing wrong with that in principle. The issue is how (using a part to tar the whole) and why.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
