There is zero evidence that religion played any role and a lot of evidence that he had a long standing conflict with these individuals for other reasons.
In addition, it is illogical to think it was about religion given that the evidence suggests he had just as much or more of a problem with the non-Muslim religion of 90% of the people around him and all others who parked in that spot. Until there is a shred of evidence suggesting religion as the motive, the ration position is that it had zero to do with religion, just like 99% of all other murders.
First, stupidity does not validate counter stupidity. Second, there is nothing comparable about these situations. This guy was not critical of Muslims in particular, but of all religion and if anything more critical of Christians than Muslims. There were hundreds Christians around he could have killed, but did not, despite all evidence showing he had a more animosity toward them. This is strong evidence against religion being a factor. If a person in a region with relatively few Jews were to selectively target Jews for public ridicule and then, of all the people around them, target the few Jews for violence, then this would be a much more improbable co-occurrence and thus make the victims' Jewishness are more probable factor.
The actual current situation is more like a person who says "I don't like people who eat bread", then they kill someone who, like 90% of people, happens to eat bread, and people claim "He killed them because they ate bread!!"
This case is among the countless that show why ignorance in understanding probability is not just a threat to intellectual progress, but a massive threat to political and moral progress.
