Who is being protected?
- •
When someone answers cruelty with “that is not Islam,” I want to know what they are doing for the people experiencing it.
- •
Maybe they are making a sincere theological distinction. Fine. They still need to address the cruelty and the authority used to justify it. Defending the religion’s name cannot be the whole response.
- •
This is where some progressive conversations lose me. They understand religious oppression when it comes from a familiar majority. When the religious group is a minority somewhere else, they become so careful that the people harmed inside that group almost disappear.
- •
A community can face discrimination and contain people who discriminate. A queer person in that community still exists. So does a woman being coerced, or someone who no longer believes. I want to know where they fit in the protection being offered.
- •
I live in Indonesia. Among the attitudes I encounter, “gay people deserve compassion because they need curing” can pass for progressive. I understand why it sounds gentler than open hatred. I still hear the condition: we will be kind to you while treating your existence as a problem.
- •
That is nowhere near enough for me.
- •
The same thing bothers me when people reserve understanding for their own religion. Their extremist is “misguided,” an individual with a complicated story. Someone outside the group does something wrong and suddenly a whole population is responsible.
- •
I oppose that when Jewish people are blamed collectively for Israel’s actions. I oppose it when Muslims are treated as collectively guilty. I also oppose using either objection to protect a harmful ideology from examination.
- •
My anger comes from how easily the person gets lost in all this. Everyone is defending a name, a side, an explanation.
- •
I keep coming back to the same questions. Who was harmed? What allowed it? What would let that person live freely?
- •
I want those answers to matter more than whose religion comes out looking good.