06-14-2016, 08:11 PM
I think it's well known that I like Obama (btw I agree with Lucie that he's an atheist which only helps me like him), but I disagree with him on this and it's symptomatic of a major issue we're having in this country. Words mean something. Calling something by it's proper name is important as shared language and experience matter. Using the proper words promotes greater understanding. I've often told people I've been involved with professionally that I can write up a description of the same crime and, simply by using different, still accurate, wording I can make the situation seem much less serious or I can make it sound like a serial killing.
I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh. Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy. However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US. He opens the door for opportunists to make these attacks about something they aren't. The ACLU lawyer who blamed this on right wing christians is a prime, and insane, example. Yes, the far right are not friends of the gay community, but they don't condone killing them. You get a pastor who rants about them, some even say they deserve death, but these instances pale in comparison, both in scope and intensity, with what goes on in many (most?) islamic countries every minute of every day. Obama is wrong to conflate this killing with gun control more than, or even equal to, the dangers of religious extremism. He is wrong to attempt to minimize the connection as it muddies the water and allows others to inject their pet issues into the subject.
Bottom line is, if Obama was honest about these attacks the dialogue regarding it would be a lot more focused. A focused dialogue is more likely to bring a larger group of people to a consensus. A consensus is more likely to accomplish meaningful action and change. It's not that complicated and the correct words absolutely do matter.
I get why Obama shies away from the term, he's trying not to alienate islamic allies in the region who are aiding in the fight against Daesh. Even for those that aren't actively assisting it makes sense not to give them the impression that the US considers all of islam to be the enemy. However, in so doing he minimizes the cause behind these attacks in the US. He opens the door for opportunists to make these attacks about something they aren't. The ACLU lawyer who blamed this on right wing christians is a prime, and insane, example. Yes, the far right are not friends of the gay community, but they don't condone killing them. You get a pastor who rants about them, some even say they deserve death, but these instances pale in comparison, both in scope and intensity, with what goes on in many (most?) islamic countries every minute of every day. Obama is wrong to conflate this killing with gun control more than, or even equal to, the dangers of religious extremism. He is wrong to attempt to minimize the connection as it muddies the water and allows others to inject their pet issues into the subject.
Bottom line is, if Obama was honest about these attacks the dialogue regarding it would be a lot more focused. A focused dialogue is more likely to bring a larger group of people to a consensus. A consensus is more likely to accomplish meaningful action and change. It's not that complicated and the correct words absolutely do matter.
