Would it be helpful to call radical, violent anti-homosexuality what it is,

[MH1]

16. Several points.

1. Absolutely religion matters. I'm not a fan of any country basing its government on a religion. It seems to be a recipe for the most fundamentalist, nasty and unforgiving interpretation of the religious texts to be institutionalized in that country's laws. This pattern is not limited to Islam either. (Although at this point in time, I would agree that Islam may be the most broad reaching in this approach and therefore the most evil in terms of sheer numbers of people subject to these harmful ideologies.)
2. The topic is what language we use in the media to refer to violent, ideological actions that occur in the US. Sorry if my OP was not clear on that point.
3. What about Uganda?

I want to be clear, I am NOT a fan of Islam as it occurs in its more virulent forms. Neither am I a fan of Christianity in its more virulent forms, either. Yet I call myself a Christian, because there is a solid portion of the Christian world that does not adhere to the beliefs of its more vile adherents. How in the world the haters can act that way and call themselves "Christians", I have no idea. My point is that to marginalize the hateful beliefs, I think it might be helpful to stop tying the hateful belief to the religion, as if anyone who follows that religion must hold that belief. My point is simply about the adjectives we use to describe the terrorist or the terrorist action, not about the more in-depth discussion of the event.