you can be right about religion’s connection to right-wing politics and bigotry, but referring to someone as an angel because they do something wonderful doesn’t even imply you believe angels exist or that you are religious at all (let alone devout or dedicated to religion). This makes your reaction feel out of place given the context, both in how extreme it is, and in how it responds to a casual reference to someone being an angel as if they had just sworn loyalty to the Bible.
hm? I’m confused … how would checking usernames change anything?
EDIT: just to make it explicit:
/u/ganksy@lemmy.world refers to Kaepernick as an “angel” for donating for an independent autopsy of a Black man found hanging from a tree. It is clear from context gansky did not mean a literal religious meaning of “angel”, but meant it in the generic way people mean someone is kind or good (like how “angelic” might mean beautiful, sweet, etc.) - it loses the theological meaning and is being applied in a secular way.
Then /u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.world (display name: Cosmoooooooo) responds to that use of “angel” with righteous anger about the connection between religion and bigotry, implying that describing someone as an “angel” for doing good is tantamount to “supporting religion” and thus supporting bigotry.
I respond to /u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.world explaining how this seems like an overreaction, and that it doesn’t seem reasonable to think someone referring to a nice person as an “angel” is any kind of endorsement of religion, let alone religious bigotry.
What I don’t see is where I responded to the wrong person … what am I missing here?
you can be right about religion’s connection to right-wing politics and bigotry, but referring to someone as an angel because they do something wonderful doesn’t even imply you believe angels exist or that you are religious at all (let alone devout or dedicated to religion). This makes your reaction feel out of place given the context, both in how extreme it is, and in how it responds to a casual reference to someone being an angel as if they had just sworn loyalty to the Bible.
An entirely different person called him an angel. Maybe check usernames before typing out a whole ass paragraph?
hm? I’m confused … how would checking usernames change anything?
EDIT: just to make it explicit:
/u/ganksy@lemmy.worldrefers to Kaepernick as an “angel” for donating for an independent autopsy of a Black man found hanging from a tree. It is clear from context gansky did not mean a literal religious meaning of “angel”, but meant it in the generic way people mean someone is kind or good (like how “angelic” might mean beautiful, sweet, etc.) - it loses the theological meaning and is being applied in a secular way.Then
/u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.world(display name:Cosmoooooooo) responds to that use of “angel” with righteous anger about the connection between religion and bigotry, implying that describing someone as an “angel” for doing good is tantamount to “supporting religion” and thus supporting bigotry.I respond to
/u/DreamAccountant@lemmy.worldexplaining how this seems like an overreaction, and that it doesn’t seem reasonable to think someone referring to a nice person as an “angel” is any kind of endorsement of religion, let alone religious bigotry.What I don’t see is where I responded to the wrong person … what am I missing here?