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.
me when I can’t argue anything of substance against the smarter person but I still want to be willfully ignorant and keep doing the stupid shit I’m doing
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?
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.
me when I can’t argue anything of substance against the smarter person but I still want to be willfully ignorant and keep doing the stupid shit I’m doing
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.