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

[MH1]

24. I absolutely agree with your post. But -

the question I'm raising with my OP is whether there is a negative effect when headlines and news ledes link a harmful attitude to a specific religion. (Particularly when no such link has even been proven, as is the case with last night's event.)

My premise - albeit tentative - is that the use of a term like "radical Islamic terrorist" overgeneralizes the motivation to Islam, when really the motivation is the hatred of gays; and in doing so, reinforces the attachment of moderate Muslims to the idea that they must be anti-gay to be "good" or "true" Muslims; which is thus counterproductive to the secularist enlightenment many of us wish for. (I wonder if any social studies have been performed on this question?)

It may be that the hatred of gays was inculcated in the shooter by his religion. But is it really religion, or is it culture? When a woman in Pakistan has acid thrown in her face for some perceived misbehavior, many here will say it isn't due to the religion of Islam, but rather the "culture" she and the perpetrators are part of. I think the reason for that, is that many people see a clear geographical/demographic link to such incidents, which suggest that it is isolated to certain cultures rather than a practice common to all Muslims. If this is a valid argument, then if it can also be shown that being violently anti-gay is similarly not common to all Muslims, then why not consider it cultural as well? And then what would we call that "culture"? I am suggesting we call it what it is, "anti gay". (Or maybe a better term with the same meaning.)