At this point, there are many, many crucial facts that journalists do not know about the horrible Club Q massacre in Colorado Springs.

This lack of facts has done little to shape the coverage. We do not, for example, know if Mx. Anderson Aldrich is sincere when claiming, in case documents, to be nonbinary. It will, in the meantime, be interesting to see if many mainstream newsrooms choose to deadname Aldrich in their coverage, perhaps by striving to avoid pronouns altogether.

We do know that the alleged shooter was raised in a broken home with multiple mental-health and violence issues. Consider, for example, the father — an ex-con MMA fighter turned porn star (and a Republican, of one form or another).

At this point, it does appear that some journalists — while searching for the “why” in the “who, what, when, where, why and how” formula — have decided to place the city of Colorado Springs on trial and, perhaps, the whole state of Colorado. This was the primary topic discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in).

The key: A return of that dreaded journalism F-word — “fundamentalist.” For more background on this religion-beat disease, please see this GetReligion post by Richard Ostling (“What is 'Fundamentalism'? Name 666 or so examples from recent news coverage”) and this On Religion column (“Define ‘fundamentalist,’ please”) that I wrote in 2011.

Here is the key material from a USA Today story that, in my opinion, goes completely over the top while claiming that, to be blunt, a kind of hate cloud covers Colorado Springs. The headline: “Colorado Springs worked to change its anti-gay image — then its sole LGBTQ nightclub was targeted.”

Most notably, in 1992, religious fundamentalists from Colorado Springs wrote Amendment 2, a measure seeking to amend Colorado's constitution by making it illegal to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measure was approved by Colorado voters that November, earning Colorado the nickname of the "Hate State," according to the Colorado Springs Pioneer Museum. Amendment 2 was ultimately struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.

The city is also the headquarters of Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist Protestant organization whose founder James Dobson is known for his stances against gay and trans rights.

A reminder: The Associated Press Stylebook has long included an excellent, and usually ignored, entry advising journalists on the use of this F-word. If this language has changed in the rapidly evolving online version of the text, please let me know, since I do not have a password.

"fundamentalist: The word gained usage in an early 20th century fundamentalist-modernist controversy within Protestantism. ... However, fundamentalist has to a large extent taken on pejorative connotations except when applied to groups that stress strict, literal interpretations of Scripture and separation from other Christians.

"In general, do not use fundamentalist unless a group applies the word to itself."

This USA Today story perfectly illustrates, in spirit and content, a famous remark about how this term tends to be used by modern academics and, thus, journalists:

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame once quipped, among academics "fundamentalist" has become a "term of abuse or disapprobation" that most often resembles the casual semi-curse, "sumbitch."

"Still, there is a bit more to the meaning. ... In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views," noted Plantinga, in an Oxford Press publication. "That makes it more like 'stupid sumbitch.' ... Its cognitive content is given by the phrase 'considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.' "

It’s helpful to contrast the wording of the inaccurate USA Today story with similar, but much more nuanced, material inThe New York Times, which contains an accurate use of “evangelical.” The Brooklyn reference is especially creative.

Colorado Springs for most of its history was not a particularly religious city. For generations it was a stronghold for a type of Out West Republicanism that prioritized individualism, but in the 1990s the community tried to spur its economy by giving development grants to nonprofit groups willing to relocate to the city. Dozens of evangelical groups moved in, including the hugely influential group Focus on the Family, whose founder, James Dobson, hosted a daily radio show that reached millions.

Influenced by high-profile leaders, evangelicals began flocking to the city the way hipsters later descended on Brooklyn.

Once again, I wish that I had put a copyright on the term “Wheaton of the West” when I first used it in the late 1980s in a column about this trend, while writing for The Rocky Mountain News (#RIP).

Colorado has a history of being a rather libertarian, leave-us-alone state, in terms of its political leanings. That was certainly true in the 1980s, when I lived and worked there. Things get interesting when that political mindset is applied to moral and cultural issues.

I would agree that the Amendment 2 chapter in the state’s history (and the resulting U.S. Supreme Court decision) is important, if the goal is to cover the impact of the evangelical influx into Colorado Springs.

But this brings us, in conclusion, to one of the podcasts’ main themes: Journalists will need to research at least three groups of people in early 1990s Colorado, if the goal is accurate coverage of the Amendment 2 drama and its impact on the state.

Let me stress that, during the months leading up to the Amendment 2 vote, I was teaching at Denver Seminary and, thus, was rarely in the newsroom of The Rocky Mountain News. However, I was writing my national “On Religion” column and I stayed in touch with sources in the legal offices of strategic Colorado religious groups. I base the following remarks on what I learned during that time.

* Who drafted the Amendment 2 language? It is accurate, I was told, to say that evangelicals wrote the text for this ballot initiative. However, not all evangelical activists have the same convictions about law or matters of church and state. The key is that the goal was to create one standard for law in the state, preventing clashes, let’s say, between liberal Boulder and more conservative cities and towns.

* Who backed Amendment 2? There were religious and cultural groups that supported the ballot initiative to varying degrees, even though their leaders were not pleased (to say the least) with the wording, especially the phrase I have put in bold type below:

Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

The main goal of Amendment 2 was to state that sexual orientation did not equal race, in terms of laws granting “special protection” in the state. I talked with Catholic and Jewish lawyers and/or activists who thought the word “discrimination” — which tends to have specific legal, but culturally vague, definitions — was not the best term to use in this case. Ultimately, this wording was directly linked to the SCOTUS decision erasing Amendment 2.

* Who voted for Amendment 2? In the final days before the vote there were strategic television ads that, to be blunt, featured Black and Hispanic Coloradans saying words to this affect: “I don’t think anyone has proven that sexual orientation is the same thing as race.” Thus, it’s impossible to address the Election Day victory for Amendment 2 without looking into turnout in Black and Hispanic communities in Denver and across the state.

With these factors in mind, go back to the USA Today story and read the “fundamentalist” passages again. That word does not accurately describe Coloradans in Camps 1, 2 or 3.

Just saying.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.

FIRST IMAGE: Logo posted at One-Colorado.org