Punching at all religions equally is not equitable since one is the dominant religion oppressing others. Also reducing a religion to its book is just a profound misunderstanding of what religion is. And is completely ignorant of the history of homophobia in muslim countries which is largely influenced by the colonial powers occupying it.
And going from “muslim woman” to “she’s like the american taliban” is just racist.
Don’t mix religion and government, that’s how you get nazis and project 2025.
Thats scaremongering that letting a muslim into congress will lead to what people call the “american taliban” simply on the basis of her being muslim. That’s racist.
You keep putting “american taliban” in quotes, but you’re not quoting anyone present. You’re the only one here using that terminology.
You see, from my perspective, I see the candidate’s religion being Islam as a plus at first glance. It probably means they’ll have a better policy on the Palestinian genocide, for example. Or be better for brown people in general.
I think, on lemmy, that’s how most people are going to interpret that headline.
That’s just an atheist pointing out that Islam is no better than the other Abrahamic religions, from my perspective. The way I interpret this is that the fact that she is muslim is being used as a positive spin, when at best it is a neutral spin that doesn’t even need mentioned.
The way I interpret this is that the fact that she is muslim is being used as a positive spin, when at best it is a neutral spin that doesn’t even need mentioned.
Incorrect, since muslims get mentioned on every negative thing in the headlines, therefore not mentioning it on positive things hides the positive news out of the muslim community while highlighting the negatives.
I don’t buy that. The comment is in response to this article. Generalising it doesn’t make it less prejudice. That’s like saying it’s not antisemitic to walk into a* synagogue and start shouting about how all religion is evil.
You made up a completely separate scenario that involves an individual going to a specific location to target a specific group of people.
In this scenario, a person saw a random article in their feed that happens to mention the legislator’s faith. And that person commented generally on all faith (but especially Abrahamic faiths) being dangerous.
They didn’t seek out an article about muslims to target muslims.
If the article was about a Jewish legislator or Christian legislator where their faith is directly mentioned in the headline, the comment’s intent and meaning would remain identical.
The comment about religion is on an article about a religious person, yes. I guess OP could have gone and found a different article that specifically mentions a different religion in the headline, but that would have been prejudiced against that particular religion, yeah? What are we supposed to just pussyfoot around any naming of any specific religion?
That’s true! However, the USA does have a Christian Nationalist problem, and the merging of religion and state is a big problem. That’s what I thought the commenter was saying; merging religion and the state is bad.
I think it’s good that you’re watchful for Islamophobia, genuinely, because it’s really common and it is a real problem. It’s a huge problem over here in the UK, too. I don’t think this is a case of Islamophobia, and I don’t think it’s helpful to treat Islam with kid gloves just because people often disproportionately criticise Islam for all sorts of disingenuous reasons.
The reason, to me, it comes across as islamophobia is that the article has nothing whatsoever to do with her faith, apart from where she’s talked about facing similar marginalisation for her identity. So the OC espousing a stance against the merging of religion and state just comes across as “muslims shouldn’t hold office” as it relates to this post, this article and this woman. She very literally talks about islamophobia she’s faced in life, and OC just turns around and tries to argue she shouldn’t be an elected representative, how is that not prejudice?
Yeah, you can look at their other comments and see that they’re clearly just anti-religion and not Islamophobic. You are the kind of person who lessens claims of Islamophobia or Anti-semitism’s validity by flooding the gate with invalid accusations and make it harder to see valid accusations. Thanks for your hard work.
Where is this specifically islamophobia rather than just anti-religiousness?
Punching at all religions equally is not equitable since one is the dominant religion oppressing others. Also reducing a religion to its book is just a profound misunderstanding of what religion is. And is completely ignorant of the history of homophobia in muslim countries which is largely influenced by the colonial powers occupying it.
And going from “muslim woman” to “she’s like the american taliban” is just racist.
I love that u ended ur point with something you completely made up and didn’t happen.
I get what ur saying in the first half, tho, i just dont agree
Thats scaremongering that letting a muslim into congress will lead to what people call the “american taliban” simply on the basis of her being muslim. That’s racist.
You keep putting “american taliban” in quotes, but you’re not quoting anyone present. You’re the only one here using that terminology.
You see, from my perspective, I see the candidate’s religion being Islam as a plus at first glance. It probably means they’ll have a better policy on the Palestinian genocide, for example. Or be better for brown people in general.
I think, on lemmy, that’s how most people are going to interpret that headline.
That’s just an atheist pointing out that Islam is no better than the other Abrahamic religions, from my perspective. The way I interpret this is that the fact that she is muslim is being used as a positive spin, when at best it is a neutral spin that doesn’t even need mentioned.
Incorrect, since muslims get mentioned on every negative thing in the headlines, therefore not mentioning it on positive things hides the positive news out of the muslim community while highlighting the negatives.
I mean, it’s a leftist article being posted in a leftist space, so… no. Doesn’t need to be mentioned here.
I mean, it’s a leftist article that might be visible outside of a leftist space, so… yes. It does need to be mentioned here.
ok bud
It being a response to an article about a muslim woman???
And they mention two other religions, and criticise religion generally. This is not targeted at Islam specifically and exclusively.
I don’t buy that. The comment is in response to this article. Generalising it doesn’t make it less prejudice. That’s like saying it’s not antisemitic to walk into a* synagogue and start shouting about how all religion is evil.
No, it isn’t. You’re just being reactionary.
You made up a completely separate scenario that involves an individual going to a specific location to target a specific group of people.
In this scenario, a person saw a random article in their feed that happens to mention the legislator’s faith. And that person commented generally on all faith (but especially Abrahamic faiths) being dangerous.
They didn’t seek out an article about muslims to target muslims.
If the article was about a Jewish legislator or Christian legislator where their faith is directly mentioned in the headline, the comment’s intent and meaning would remain identical.
“I saw a random place of worship and wandered right in.”
That’s just intellectual dishonesty. Stop coping and grow up.
I’m the one coping? You managed to be that upset at me you replied in two different comment chains.
Ironic and hypocritical that you would call me out for something you did in the same comment chains.
stop coping and grow up.
The comment about religion is on an article about a religious person, yes. I guess OP could have gone and found a different article that specifically mentions a different religion in the headline, but that would have been prejudiced against that particular religion, yeah? What are we supposed to just pussyfoot around any naming of any specific religion?
The US doesn’t have an anti-christianity issue, it has an anti-islam issue.
That’s true! However, the USA does have a Christian Nationalist problem, and the merging of religion and state is a big problem. That’s what I thought the commenter was saying; merging religion and the state is bad.
I think it’s good that you’re watchful for Islamophobia, genuinely, because it’s really common and it is a real problem. It’s a huge problem over here in the UK, too. I don’t think this is a case of Islamophobia, and I don’t think it’s helpful to treat Islam with kid gloves just because people often disproportionately criticise Islam for all sorts of disingenuous reasons.
The reason, to me, it comes across as islamophobia is that the article has nothing whatsoever to do with her faith, apart from where she’s talked about facing similar marginalisation for her identity. So the OC espousing a stance against the merging of religion and state just comes across as “muslims shouldn’t hold office” as it relates to this post, this article and this woman. She very literally talks about islamophobia she’s faced in life, and OC just turns around and tries to argue she shouldn’t be an elected representative, how is that not prejudice?
The last thing we need is TWO shitty fundamentalist religions battling it out.
Usually the Religion isn’t mentioned in the headline, so maybe that’s what prompted them to make that comment?
Except it is often in the headline if the person is islamic…
That’s on the people writing headlines though, not on the commenter
They chose to respond that comment to this article. Whether it was in the headline or not is irrelevant.
Yeah, you can look at their other comments and see that they’re clearly just anti-religion and not Islamophobic. You are the kind of person who lessens claims of Islamophobia or Anti-semitism’s validity by flooding the gate with invalid accusations and make it harder to see valid accusations. Thanks for your hard work.