A terrorist attack is done against an Islamic mosque. How do famous politicians respond?
No problems whatsoever talking about "the Muslim community".
So, what happens when a terrorist attack is made by Muslims against several Catholic churches and hotels?
What the fuck is an "Easter worshipper"? I have never, ever heard such a term used anywhere before. Nor hasn't many other people either.
Why does it seem so hard for these politicians to use the term "Christian" or "Catholic"? They didn't have any problem in using the term "Muslim". What is the difference?
Well, of course that's just a rhetorical question. I know perfectly well why they have such an aversion to using the word "Christian". It's obviously because in the social justice ideology "Christian" is as much a synonym for "white people" and "oppressor" as "Muslim" is a synonym for "brown people" and "oppressed". In the exact same way as white people can never be the victims of violence by the "oppressed minority" (especially not Muslims), Christians can't either. That's why they just can't admit that Christians, or Catholics, have been the targets and victims of a terrorist attack.
Instead, they invent a new word "Easter worshipper" to describe this situation. They were not "Christians". They were just some random people "worshipping Easter" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Isn't it curious how when Muslims commit terrorist acts, it never has anything to do with Islam, and likewise, it seems, whenever Christians are the victims of terrorist acts, it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. They were just some random nondescript non-denominational "worshippers".
No problems whatsoever talking about "the Muslim community".
So, what happens when a terrorist attack is made by Muslims against several Catholic churches and hotels?
What the fuck is an "Easter worshipper"? I have never, ever heard such a term used anywhere before. Nor hasn't many other people either.
Why does it seem so hard for these politicians to use the term "Christian" or "Catholic"? They didn't have any problem in using the term "Muslim". What is the difference?
Well, of course that's just a rhetorical question. I know perfectly well why they have such an aversion to using the word "Christian". It's obviously because in the social justice ideology "Christian" is as much a synonym for "white people" and "oppressor" as "Muslim" is a synonym for "brown people" and "oppressed". In the exact same way as white people can never be the victims of violence by the "oppressed minority" (especially not Muslims), Christians can't either. That's why they just can't admit that Christians, or Catholics, have been the targets and victims of a terrorist attack.
Instead, they invent a new word "Easter worshipper" to describe this situation. They were not "Christians". They were just some random people "worshipping Easter" (whatever that's supposed to mean).
Isn't it curious how when Muslims commit terrorist acts, it never has anything to do with Islam, and likewise, it seems, whenever Christians are the victims of terrorist acts, it doesn't have anything to do with Christianity. They were just some random nondescript non-denominational "worshippers".
Comments
Post a Comment