So despite quite a number of people listening to the tape and studying transcripts, no one can figure out what she was trying to say. Plenty of people in the room, who of course could only hear it as it happened, seem to have interpreted it in a way which they found offensive, but who knows if they were right in understanding her words in that way?

It sounded to me as if she started out by talking about people with extreme religious views and trying to reconcile her religious beliefs, which she shares with them, with their attitudes. However it wasn't expressed at all clearly, and whenever she started trying to explain herself she got diverted by challenges from the audience, and the whole thing became very incoherent.

I guess the lesson is, keep it simple. If you want to express complex and contentious ideas, especially to an audience which might be hostile, take the time to figure out very carefully what you're going to say and how you're going to say it.

But even if she had presented a coherent and cogent argument which did not offend the audience, was that the time and place? A musician is there to perform music. An introduction to the songs and perhaps a bit of banter is fine, but the audience isn't there for a political discussion. If she has something to say, she can say it through her music. Just shut up and get on with it.