Of course it's relevant. The father was sympathetic to radical Islam. I don't think patrolling mosques was suggested at any point around here? I also did not at any point say the guy was affiliated with ISIS. You can't just brush over the fact that there are young Muslims in the West being swayed by ISIS propaganda and acting out in violent ways.
And yes, for the millionth time, we're all aware that happens with Christianity and violence from the intolerance many Christians have. However, that's not the topic of this thread. Constantly bringing it up everytime radical Islam is discussed serves zero purpose.
It has a great purpose, it keeps the scope of this in check. Perhaps you don't like it because you would prefer to believe the answer is as simple as doctrine? Well glossing over the fact that it inspires Islamophobia, what good does it do you? What can you actually do with that information?
Let's be frank, terrorism always has been the new communism. When we're talking about a population that for decades saw communism as the world's greatest threat despite being unable to define the word, is it surprising that the same thing can be done with terrorism? Pointing out all these incredibly loose ties to Islamic terrorism does what good? We can't stop people from worship, we can't gag free speech, so what is the benefit of pointing out the terrorism in this? To cast suspicion, to go "Look our common enemy," and then act like that keeps us safe. Sorry if you drank the Kool-aid, but most people can see through our own brand of propaganda to see that showcasing "radical Islam" or terrorism in this case does absolute no good. Zero benefits.
You're right: the answer isn't as simple as doctrine. It's not simple at all. Worse, there may never be an answer. As long as man lives, he will kill his own kind.
But the Omar's claimed allegiance is relevant, if for no other reason than that it creates a more thorough profile. If that Mateen had lived, you can bet he'd have had his entire life put under the microscope, and the prosecution would not have hesitated to employ his allegiance in developing his character to the jury. And you can bet that the defense would have done the same.
I think it's rather presumptuous, condescending and cynical to assume that people are so unquestioning that discussing Omar's religious past will incite Islamophobia. Clearly, they're not that simple. What we can say is that this man claimed allegiance to ISIS, and that many other lone killers and bands have claimed allegiance prior to committing heinous acts, which indicates one possible pattern; one which does not incite an irrational fear of Islam, but a rational fear of ISIS.
Let's face it: they're influential enough that you men in America are claiming allegiance to them. And yes, those young men are unstable, but if it's not as cut-and-dry as a religious problem, then it's not as cut-and-dry as a psychological problem. This is we create the profile. There are nuances, a complex array of factors. Psychos don't need reasons, but it's intriguing when they use them. We can't say that ISIS really pushed Omar that far, but we can't also say that without a violent strain for a socially isolated man to finally attach his rage and frustrations to, that he would've definitively picked up a gun.
You don't have to stop religion or gag free speech to open up a dialogue about a particular religion's violent strains and offshoots. Pointing out the "Islam" in Islamic terrorism allows us to examine if there's anything in the religion that allows them to justify their violence tomthemselves and then take educative action against it. As a Christian, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad Christians. As a US citizen, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad US citizens. As a white man, I have every responsibility to rebuke white racists. As a person with a family, I have every responsibility to rebuke bad family members. And I take that responsibility unto myself.
But why is it that Muslims conveniently get to deny responsibility and distance themselves from these murderous freaks? Because we're afraid of offending someone? In an informed and open society, there's no need to be offended. Non-Muslims aren't saying that Muslims as a whole are at fault for this, any more than black people are saying white people as a whole are at fault for Sterling or Castile, or St. Louis. It's about saying, "hey, we're noticing you've got bad people in your family. Please, keep working on spreading the positive message before we have to do something about the ones who missed it."
It's not a blame game. It's about collective responsibility. And we have to take collective responsibility for our species, our religions, our races, our nations, our cities, and our families. The sooner we see that, the sooner we can get better at helping to reduce these numbers, even if they're never going away.