I agree. My only complaint is titles like "More demands from Islam" and the idea that we're in a war on Islam. And we have to understand that to Joe Muslim in the Middle East when we say "War on Islamic Terrorism" that sounds like a "War on Islam." Those are the situations when "political correctness" is actually warranted because we have political allies who we can ostracize if we're not careful.

I agree that the government and government officials should work to be precise in the terms they use to describe the overall effort for the reason that you mean.

But in any cases in which theology is tied to the aims of a group that engages in terrorism or a group that opposed the US generally or even freedom generally, then I don't think that members of the public or the press are obligated to ignore the religion of the members of the group.

And to be honest, even in cases where the behavior of the group, like Danish or French "youths" who rioted in the last few years, may not be directly tied to their religious views, it's still probably worth reporting the religion of the group so that when people try to address the long term causes of problems, they don't neglect an aspect fundamental to the problem. (If your religion contributed to your failure to assimilate into the culture fully and you face economic problems as a result of this, we're not going to get any place without addressing religion one way or another, even if it's just to address the failure of truly multicultural thinking to take hold with employers.)

Full disclosure: I didn't even watch the original linked video. Just like it embarrasses me when I run into conservatives who think Obama is a Muslim, it embarrasses me when people fail to appreciate the complexity of religion in public life. The desire to practice your religion freely may not best be described as a "demand" in most cases.

People who are working to be sensitive to the interests of Muslims but have no problem with suppressing the desires of members of other faiths to publicly declare or practice their faith drive me nuts too.

(I know people who would feel like a Christian wearing a cross or having a religious calendar on her desk would be pressing her faith on others in an unconstitutional way if she happened to work for the government, but that a similarly employed women who wanted to wear a full burqa should be accommodated. )

Sure there can be discussion, since as long as people continue going off that "itz teh muzlimz!!!" they are oversimplifying the issue and/or exercising a bit of self delusion in thinking that it's only the fanatics of one ideology that are a threat. One, it means your missing out on other threats, and two by simplifying so you turn it into the "Muslims are a threat" not "fanatical extremists are a threat".

Really now? I'd beg to differ there given the murder-by-neglect of tens of thousands of Americans each year because of a health service and industry devoted fanatically to capitalism... but hey why quibble when there's a handy different looking and thinking person to play the only threat to American lives ;)

Ironically created scads more willing recruits in the process... self delusion and over simplification of a threat can be a dangerous thing because it can create a bigger mess - but again that's just my opinion.

Well McCain is the lesser of the conservative "evils" in the running for the US prez - I think most Red Tories would support him happily over Huckabee (social conservative and evangelical) or Ron Paul (bat crazy Libertarian - pretty much the opposite of Red Tory)... but in the end most Red Tories would rather see Obama elected I think since he'd be easier to deal with given his distance from certain lobby groups, and it'd hopefully mean a crash and burn for the Republican party - the ripple effect of which my purge the republican, neo-con, and libertarian taints infesting the Conservative party up here.

RACooper,

You really thing the US health care system equals murder by neglect rather than suicide by fried food and ignorance?

At best I think it's that - at worst I'd argue willful murder for a profit really when you look at the whole drug and insurance debacle you've all got going on down there.

For what it's worth, I think it's a real hard argument to actually make well. How loosely do you have to define murder to even start making it?

Of course I have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on, but I think your perception of the actual effects of our "whole drug and insurance debacle" might be a little overblown if you are going to equate it with willful murder.