I had to write a second thought this month because this conversation is essential to get straight because the fallacy is creating a lot of unnecessary confusion while America is being attacked. Dictionaries were created to eliminate this type of confusion that is pervading America today. It is the reason gay people should not be allowed to get a marriage certificate without some type of redefining of the purpose of the certificate. I'm referring to terrorism and the unnecessary confusion about religion. Terrorism has a definition just like religion. And when an attack occurs, we can apply that definition accordingly based upon what was agreed in our dictionaries for the purposes of communicating. However, whether you call the South Carolina shooting a terrorist attack or the San Bernadine shooting a terrorist attack is irrelevant. The South Carolina terrorist group was a one man lunatic that has been ended. I don't care if he claims to be Christian or Muslim or a KKK member. He needed to be stopped because of his principles. However, the San Bernadine terrorist group is still alive and growing because it was not just two lunatics. The principles of these two lunatics are still very much alive in a larger group of lunatics. And the moment your principles condone the killing of another group of innocent people it does not matter whether it is defined a religion or not. The Charleston shooter cannot proclaim a holy war because neither Christianity nor KKK preaches these principles. However, that larger group of lunatics that I was talking about has proclaimed a holy war in the past because its principles specifically preach the killing of nonbelievers. And that is the difference.
And if you stop reading this discussion and proclaim to know where I'm coming from without hearing me out, then you are also part of the problem.
I've been saying it all along that the biggest problem with some people in America is their inability to distinguish, define, and classify situations (the devaluing of Math and Science in schools argument again…). It's seems that the problem with some people is that they search for one similarity and if they find it they immediately assume that the two situations are the same. In order for two things to be the same, all of the characteristics must be similar. A quick Geometry lesson on SAS, SSS, and ASA for determining congruence between triangles might help solve this problem, but most of these people have already failed this class or "passed" it according to today's standards. Besides, a law cannot be written to define every possible situation that will occur in life, but these people believe it can. People must be able to think in order to classify situations as being within the law or not. Secondly, these same people would rather spend time arguing about the classification of something rather than fixing the problem. I don't care if any of the shooters are classified as terrorists. The only thing that matters is stopping any and all groups who have these types of principles. The moment a group of people use Christianity or the KKK as a method to recruit people with the intention to do harm that group needs to be stopped, not the religion. We don't stop the religion because the religion was not founded on the bad principles that sprang up from the cult. The difference with radical Islam is that the original "organization/religion" specifically preaches these principles. And this is the identifying characteristic that tells you the religion itself needs to be stopped. Religion has nothing to do with establishing an organization with illegal principles. If a group of people develop a denomination of Christianity based on illegal principles, then yes that organization needs to be stopped and religion has nothing to do with it.
Let me try to explain similar situations in which one the religion is to blame and the other the religion is not to blame. If I kill somebody because my Christian church persuaded me to commit the act, then I'm a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I'm Christian has nothing to do with it because Christianity does not preach this. However, my church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it's a Christian church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles. If I kill somebody because my Muslim church persuaded me to commit the act, then I'm a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I'm Muslim has nothing to do with it because the Muslim religion does not preach this. And the fact that I'm a radical Islamist has nothing to do with it because the Islamic religion… Oh, wait, yes, the religion does preach this. My radical Islamic church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it's a Muslim church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles.
Being a bad person or group of people does not mean that the organizations that they say they are associated with are bad, but being a bad organization with bad principles does. Do you really think the Charleston shooter was a Christian? Saying I'm Christian and being Christian are two different things. My actions dictate the truth. Jesus warned of wolves in sheep's clothing, and even told us that we will know the tree by the fruit that it bears. It is time America returns to our founding philosophy of blaming what deserves blame. Yes, a genetically modified plant could be dangerous just like a natural plant. But it is possible that some genetically modified plants are perfectly safe; yet, in this instance liberals have zero tolerance without ever looking at all the facts or judging each genetically modified plant separately. Isn't it ironic how those who cast stones towards bigots are the most ferocious bigots?
Now is a good time to illustrate the biggest cause of arguments between the two political parties. At times I see Republicans making the same pigheaded mistakes of donkeys because some people can't distinguish a "red flag/stereotype" from the main purpose or a direct cause. I believe it is because some people don't realize that in one instance an observation can be a "red flag", while the same observation can be the purpose or direct relationship in another instance. For example, women have more "red flags" than everyone (haha) even though they are always screaming about bigot rednecks. That was kind of a joke and not the example, but I do want to focus on "red flags" from the male perspective. Let us take a single mother with two or three children for the example. One man may not want to be with a crabby, bothersome wife and will use the fact that the woman is a single mother with many children to assume she would make a bad wife. In this instance, the man is stereotyping because we know nothing about why the woman is single. This scenario is nothing more than a relationship (a stereotype) that could very well be true. Now take me on the other hand, I don't want children. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't want a premade family to take care of and support. So for me, this same instance becomes the actual cause or direct relationship as to why I don't want this woman for a wife. I am not stereotyping, I am exercising choice using what I do not want as the main purpose for my decision. All of the problems in America are based off of some people's inability to distinguish the differences I just described. Therefore, associations, relationships, and one event in a series of events are being erroneously used as proof, which leads to regulations and laws that cause problems. Or not being able to distinguish the main purpose of the argument/problem leads to violent, unnecessary disagreement.
Now is an even better time to point out something that the liberal side of Democrats always does. They pick a bad characteristic that they themselves exhibit and then try to transfer their own blame to the Republicans by finding a similar characteristic in something the Republicans have done. I believe I've heard Psychologist label this type of behavior before, but I cannot remember. I have many liberal friends who do the exact same thing to me, we call them hypocrites. They complain about something in us that we really don't do, but they do all of the time to a much deeper extent. They then go around complaining about us, when in reality they are much bigger culprits of the complaint. Once again, it is due to the inability to distinguish situations that may have some similar characteristics but are really very different from each other. For example, when the two political parties were arguing over the debt limit I felt that the Democrats accused the Republicans of their own behavior. Democrats were acting as if Republicans were throwing a temper tantrum like little kids. But it would be the same thing as a parent telling their child, "no we can't put more money on the credit card, so stop crying and stomping your feet." And then when the parent refuses to put more money on the credit card the child tells the parent "stop throwing a temper tantrum and acting like a little baby because I am telling grandma to get me another toy with your credit," all the while stomping their little feet and crying. Now you tell me who is throwing the temper tantrum.
The point is that some of our politicians can't distinguish between a bad person or group of people and a bad religion or collection of principles. Personally, I don't care what words we choose to use when discussing this problem. "Americanly", the words do not matter and are irrelevant; what matters is the conveyance of understanding. And we all need to understand that the problem needs to be solved.