[bots]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Of course there is a chance, but in the same way I didn't mention they were probably white, I don't see why anyone needs to mention they are potential Muslim. I am saying that as we don't know the identity of the vandal, or the motivation behind it, why do we need to dwell on the race or ethnicity or religion of the person who did it?

You seem to think I am against any kind of criticism of ethnic minorities, despite me calling a religion many of them follow gross, multiple times.

Mentioning the issues of Islam is fine when it's related to the topic at hand. When it's not, when it's mentioned as a way to try and score points, it' comes across as racially motivated hatred.

Of course there is a chance it was done by someone who following Islam and hates gays and wanted to erase what they thought was a symbol of them. My question is, when it was done in a town where just 1.84% of the population is non-white, why did you mind go to "it must have been a Muslim" first?

I do think it's worth dwelling on when there is an entire culture out there that thinks its ok to throw gays off buildings. The more that culture is brought into the country, the more incidents you are going to get. It's simple statistics. It seems insane for people to tie themselves in knots trying to ignore it