Muslim legislator running for governor says Georgia deserves leaders who reject scapegoating trans people
https://www.advocate.com/politics/ruwa-romann-georgia-governor-candidateOpen linkView original on lemmy.blahaj.zoneSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.blahaj.zonehttps://www.advocate.com/politics/ruwa-romann-georgia-governor-candidateOpen linkView original on lemmy.blahaj.zone
74 replies
Don't rely on religious people to back LGBTQ, as most of the LGBTQ hate comes from religions like islam, christianity, and judiaism. Their holy hate books support their LGBTQ hate, and have for thousands of years.
Don't mix religion and government, that's how you get nazis and project 2025. The muslim or jewish versions are no better.
She's not mixing religion and government. She just happens to be a Muslim who is also a politician. But if that itself is a problem I wonder if you say this to every Christian and Jewish politician too?
She seems like one of the rare few religious people who actually gets it and cares, but I agree with being wary of religious politicians in general, because most do NOT get it and do not want to.
They did mention project 2025 and Nazis, to be fair, as well as specifically calling it Judaism and Christianity. I'm not sure the implication that the person you're replying to is islamophobic is fair.
Yes it is, because comparing a muslim to project 2025 nazis simply on the basis of them being muslim is islamophobic. It also ignores the fact that most homophobia in MENA was introduced by colonialism. That trans people can transition in even theocratic muslim states like Iran and so on
I do not think the person you're replying to was saying Islam is the same as Nazism just because it's Islam. At all. I totally agree that Islamophobia is a big problem and it's pervasive and insidious, and I think it's great that you're vigilant to it, but I just honestly don't think this is a case of it.
There's no reason to bring it up though. There are no indications that she is right wing whatsoever. On the contrary, she seems to be an ally to trans people.
I think they really believe that LGBTQ hate is inherent to all muslims, which is Islamophobic.
Ah, you know what - that quote you've picked out might be where we're mostly disagreeing here. I read "their" as in meaning "religious people", rather than Muslims specifically. The previous sentence says not to trust "religious people", and points to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
If by "their", the commenter you're replying to is only referring to Muslims, then I yeah I think we're looking at Islamophobia. Otherwise, I don't.
They probably are referring to "all religious people" unfortunately that's a common misdirect in the "rationalist" community, which has gone incredibly mask off with their islamophobia. Richard Dawkins even called himself "culturally christian" while waxing on about the superiority of western "civilization". I sadly don't have the time to get into it, but if you look at the story of "the amazing atheist" and Lawrence Krauss you get a good picture of how the "rationalist" community harbors deeply reactionary sentiments hiding behind "we just hate all religions equally".
People have said the same thing about Zohran Mamdani btw, despite him being extremely vocal about his support for trans rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEvVSpN0BXg
This is just islamophobia. People are people, I take them at face value.
Where is this specifically islamophobia rather than just anti-religiousness?
It being a response to an article about a muslim woman???
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
muslim mentioned
islamophobia disguised as "rationalism" activated!!
Agreed. Look at the most Nazi state, Israel.
Conflating zionism with judaism is antisemitic. Conflating Islam with the political extremists using it as cover is islamophobia.
I don't understand your response.
Israel is a country
Israelis are citizens
Nazi is evil
Israelis are acting like Nazis
Israelis are evil
I don't see any politics, religion or prejudice in that.
the comment its replying to is talking about religious politicians.
Oh, right. baka infers...
Hmm, I'm a little dull this morning.
Get some coffee 😁
This is referring to Georgia the state in the USA, btw.
Nope. Do t trust anyone from a religious background. Muslims are just as bad as insane Baptists and they are all as bad as the Zionists. They all are violent and should be considered a danger.
For violent crime the through line is less religious background and more writing shit like this ^