Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[LilyWhiteSpur]

I'm more worried that a teacher, an educator, thought this was a totally fine thing to do .

 

[JohnZSmith27]

@Eendracht maakt macht @Shamana

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we just respect other people's beliefs? (Or exchange beliefs for race, culture, gender, sexuality etc.)

We should respect other people's right to hold whatever beliefs they want. We definitely don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.

 

[Gehrman]

It is my viewpoint that the actual cartoons don't provide any value. The existence of such cartoons, the definition of blasphemy, can be discussed without such imagery.

I read up on the murdered French teacher you mentiomed. Inexcusable, should have never happened. That said, what point is it to show images of a naked Mohammed with genitals in class? I can't imagine how that has added to the student's learning ffs. What point does that drive home?

I wouldn't know, we can't ask Samuel Paty. Perhaps he was showing them to drive home the point that this was one of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo was gunned down for and then which he was then later beheaded for. As for as I can read he offered all muslims the oppourtunity to leave the class. We saw all these cartoons in our college on this topic so we could see what all the fuzz was about.

 

[dumbo]

I get satirical cartoons (I remember learning about cartoonists like Thomas Nast who covered corruption in NYC). I don't understand the point of showing offensive images without a superseding educational objective. Surely the mere discussion of their existence and the value of free speech can be discussed without, showing the images?



1. The same can be said of many other societal constructs. Democracy for example. But religion and it's merits/demerits can be validly debated in a classroom without showing these images.

2. We can have a discussion on the damaging impacts of child pornography without looking at actual images of child porn. I hate that I had to use such an analogy, but if I was a teacher, I want to expose my students to a wider range of thinking without deliberately offending them. I just don't see the value of actually showing these exact images. Free speech can be defended, students can be encouraged to attack long established dogmas on their own. They don't need to be force fed it.

A little severe with the analogy but the central point about not needing to be exposed to something to have a nuanced understanding of an issue is spot on. The same goes for not needing to see or display to others the stolen naked pictures of Jennifer Lawrence, in order to discuss the issues of privacy that were raised by that case.

As you say, the main question should be whether the value in displaying the images as a point of discussion, outweighs the negative effects (offence, marginalisation of people, threats of violence). Showing a pretty poor, widely offensive cartoon in a classroom of children seems to provide little value.

 

[Moby]

Slowed.

Exchange force fed with "using pork products in the school lunch with no consideration for those who don't eat it, because we are secular and goddammit we can"

Freedom of speech is a valued tenet of society. So is "not being a cnut".

Isn't that the case now? Do schools not have pork items in their menu because muslims go there? Hindus don't eat any meat, maybe all schools should go vegetarian. What about the vegans, they would be offended at seeing any dairy products in the cafeteria so that should be removed as well?

Anyway, the food example is a pretty shit one. All kinds of food would be available anywhere, if someone doesn't want to eat something they can choose not to. There's no issue pf 'no consideration' for anyone while doing that.

 

[Roane]

As for as I can read he offered all muslims the oppourtunity to leave the class.

Where have you read this?

Edit: did you mean Paty?

 

[The Corinthian]

There are a lot and I mean a lot of religious beliefs I would never ever respect. Limit the freedom to draw a picture of someone is one of them.

Could name dozen others.

You could also say radical Muslims don’t respect the believes of secular people to have the right to draw whoever they want. Individual expression of mind is a strong belief too.

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.

We should respect other people's right to hold whatever beliefs they want. We definitely don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.

There is a difference between tolerating and respecting people's beliefs. I don't believe religous belief's are automatically entitled to respect. It's funny that you would try an exchange religious beliefs with things things like race, gender and sexuality.

By all means challenge them, have an intellectual debate or what not.

But willfully antagonising them because you don't agree with their belief is disrespectful.

 

[diarm]

@Eendracht maakt macht @Shamana

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we just respect other people's beliefs? (Or exchange beliefs for race, culture, gender, sexuality etc.)

If this had been the view taken through history, we would still be burning women as witches, taking children from unmarried women to be abused in homes, teaching children to hate other children along secular divides and a whole host of other atrocities that were genuine beliefs propogated by religions.

Part of education is learning to have your beliefs challenged. Learning to accept that other people have different views to yourself and how to deal with that internally.

By making these cartoons a religious taboo, we are allowing the seed to grow within society that it is the people who draw and show these images who are the problem, and not the people who wish to hurt and kill them.

That is a dangerous slope.

It has nothing to do with being anti-muslim and shame on those who are trying to win easy internet points by painting it as that, or equating those who struggle with this issue to racists or mysogynists.

Personally, my issues lie with the catholic church and it is those lessons that shape my views on this, rather than an anti-Islam agenda. We have to learn from the lessons of history and avoiding discussing or looking at something which offends their religious sensitivities, has always done more harm than good.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.



By all means challenge them, have an intellectual debate or what not.

But willfully antagonising them because you don't agree with their belief is disrespectful.

It’s a cartoon ffs.

 

[Smores]

If this had been the view taken through history, we would still be burning women as witches, taking children from unmarried women to be abused in homes, teaching children to hate other children along secular divides and a whole host of other atrocities that were genuine beliefs propogated by religions.

Part of education is learning to have your beliefs challenged. Learning to accept that other people have different views to yourself and how to deal with that internally.

By making these cartoons a religious taboo, we are allowing the seed to grow within society that it is the people who draw and show these images who are the problem, and not the people who wish to hurt and kill them.

That is a dangerous slope.

It has nothing to do with being anti-muslim and shame on those who are trying to win easy internet points by painting it as that, or equating those who struggle with this issue to racists or mysogynists.

Personally, my issues lie with the catholic church and it is those lessons that shape my views on this, rather than an anti-Islam agenda. We have to learn from the lessons of history and avoiding discussing or looking at something which offends their religious sensitivities, has always done more harm than good.

No one is protesting respectful debate. If they were you'd have a point.

 

[Dante]

This is punching down at an oppressed minority.

Just as you wouldn't brazenly display racist content that demeans a disenfranchised ethnic group in society, you shouldn't be poking at a similarly underpriveleged religious group.

Let's be frank here. If there was a holocaust in 2021 Europe, it would primarily target Muslims. This kind of exclusionary action is unnecessary in that climate.

 

[Moby]

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.



By all means challenge them, have an intellectual debate or what not.

But willfully antagonising them because you don't agree with their belief is disrespectful.

You're talking as if the teacher burnt a bunch of qurans or went out and tore down a mosque.

 

[diarm]

No one is protesting respectful debate. If they were you'd have a point.

How can you have a serious debate about the rights and wrongs of religious influence on society, blasphemy and freedom of speech, when this is the reaction to a cartoon being shown?

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

If this had been the view taken through history, we would still be burning women as witches, taking children from unmarried women to be abused in homes, teaching children to hate other children along secular divides and a whole host of other atrocities that were genuine beliefs propogated by religions.

Part of education is learning to have your beliefs challenged. Learning to accept that other people have different views to yourself and how to deal with that internally.

By making these cartoons a religious taboo, we are allowing the seed to grow within society that it is the people who draw and show these images who are the problem, and not the people who wish to hurt and kill them.

That is a dangerous slope.

It has nothing to do with being anti-muslim and shame on those who are trying to win easy internet points by painting it as that, or equating those who struggle with this issue to racists or mysogynists.

Personally, my issues lie with the catholic church and it is those lessons that shape my views on this, rather than an anti-Islam agenda. We have to learn from the lessons of history and avoiding discussing or looking at something which offends their religious sensitivities, has always done more harm than good.

You word my views much better then me.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.

They want their religious rule to apply to non believers and by doing that deny other people their freedom of religion. What's not radical about that?

 

[Dante]

How can you have a serious debate about the rights and wrongs of religious influence on society, blasphemy and freedom of speech, when this is the reaction to a cartoon being shown?

This isn't about the cartoon. It's about the obvious intent behind it, and the dog whistle it conveys.

 

[adexkola]

I wouldn't know, we can't ask Samuel Paty. Perhaps he was showing them to drive home the point that this was one of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo was gunned down for and then which he was then later beheaded for. As for as I can read he offered all muslims the oppourtunity to leave the class. We saw all these cartoons in our college on this topic so we could see what all the fuzz was about.

College. I don't know about your college but these images would never be shown in a course that was required to be taken by all students, in my college at least. Elective class? Sure, with major disclaimers, "THIS COURSE WILL FEATURE OFFENSIVE IMAGES" so if you did register you were aware of what you were getting into.

This is a high school. It just was not appropriate material.

 

[Gehrman]

Where have you read this?

Edit: did you mean Paty?

I meant Paty. I don't know with this one. It's very difficult to know excatly how the class went unless a reliable witness told us so.

 

[Moby]

This is punching down at an oppressed minority.

Just as you wouldn't brazenly display racist content that demeans a disenfranchised ethnic group in society, you shouldn't be poking at a similarly underpriveleged religious group.

Let's be frank here. If there was a holocaust in 2021 Europe, it would primarily target Muslims. This kind of exclusionary action is unnecessary in that climate.

Christ, now we are comparing the treatment of muslims in the current UK to that of the jews during the holocaust. The absolute state of affairs in here.

 

[Smores]

It’s a cartoon ffs.

Well this is why you clearly don't understand the issue. A 5 min Google would enlighten you why it's not just a cartoon.

Just because you don't understand or find it offensive doesn't give a right to knowingly offend. This issue can be debated without offense caused, with absolutely no sacrifice to that debate.

 

[sullydnl]

I wouldn't know, we can't ask Samuel Paty. Perhaps he was showing them to drive home the point that this was one of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo was gunned down for and then which he was then later beheaded for. As for as I can read he offered all muslims the oppourtunity to leave the class. We saw all these cartoons in our college on this topic so we could see what all the fuzz was about.

That's nearly worse again.

He's supposed to be educating his students on a topic. So why take an approach he knows will alienate a chunk of his students to the point where they may feel unable to participate? As opposed to teaching it without actually showing the cartoons (which offer nothing to the discussion at hand) and actually having an inclusive conversation that includes those muslim students.

It reads as someone who was more interested in making a point than actually educating his students. Because quite clearly that wasn't the most effective way of having a constructive conversation, which is supposed to be the point.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

This is punching down at an oppressed minority.

Just as you wouldn't brazenly display racist content that demeans a disenfranchised ethnic group in society, you shouldn't be poking at a similarly underpriveleged religious group.

Let's be frank here. If there was a holocaust in 2021 Europe, it would primarily target Muslims. This kind of exclusionary action is unnecessary in that climate.

Challenging religious beliefs isn’t punching down. It has been done to Christianity when by far the majority of the people were Christians. And i’m glad they did it.

I’m sure many Christian satiric cartoons have been shown in classes. In my high school they certainly were.

 

[JohnZSmith27]

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.



By all means challenge them, have an intellectual debate or what not.

But willfully antagonising them because you don't agree with their belief is disrespectful.

But that's not what you asked though. You asked if we can respect others beliefs which we are under no obligation to do.

Take the Muslim protests outside that Birmingham school because they were teaching about LGBT rights. They say it was against their beliefs just like the cartoons. Should we not teach children about LGBT rights as others in the class and their parents might get offended? Should the teachers get suspended or know better than to teach such controversial stuff that is likely to garner negative attention? Of course not. Bending to the will of religious doctrine is never the answer.

 

[duffer]

Remember when the Tories banned Gerry Adams' voice?

Doesn't add much to the central issue here, but still interesting as a random memory of authoritarian-Tory depravity.

As a young kid growing up in the 80s it definitely made the IRA seem scarier.

Utterly ridiculous when I think about it as an adult.

 

[Dante]

Christ, now we are comparing the treatment of muslims in the current UK to that of the jews during the holocaust. The absolute state of affairs in here.

You must not follow European politics if you don't see that's true.

 

[reelworld]

I'm a muslim.

As my understanding, it was Muslims themselves who are forbidden to draw The Prophet, not everybody else. It's not like whenever we see other people draw them, we should get outraged.
The reason for this if I'm not mistaken, because back then when The Prophet is still alive, since he was so revered, there are concerns that any images or depiction of him would make people deify the depictions. So this isn't something in the Qur'an, but it's a rule that come up later because of The Prophet concerns.

As far as showing these cartoons in school, I'm not a fan really, because mainly if I'm a student of that school, I would like the options of not seeing it. As I have a choice of not seeing Hebdo cartoons. Also, I agree with @adexkola . If the teachers wanted to cultivate discussions, alienating the students who actually have connection with the material is a bad move

 

[Dante]

Challenging religious beliefs isn’t punching down. It has been done to Christianity when by far the majority of the people were Christians. And i’m glad they did it.

I’m sure many Christian satiric cartoons have been shown in classes. In my high school they certainly were.

Christianity was the the powerful force in the Western world, run by some of the richest institutions in human history. The Muslim community in the UK isn't.

Job candidates with Muslim names struggle to get interviews. And that's just the start of it. They're very much a disenfranchised section of society.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Well this is why you clearly don't understand the issue. A 5 min Google would enlighten you why it's not just a cartoon.

Just because you don't understand or find it offensive doesn't give a right to knowingly offend. This issue can be debated without offense caused, with absolutely no sacrifice to that debate.

At the end of the day it’s still a cartoon. And that people don’t see it as just a cartoon and go on and threaten people because of it is exactly the reason why these views are rightfully challenged. I for one am happy they did it to the hypocrisy of Christianity for years which is one of the reasons we have a much better society now (in my opinion of course).

Hopefully in years people won’t be so offended by a cartoon and people challenging this could have had a good influence on that. Putting religious beliefs in the taboo sphere certainly won’t take us further.

 

[Smores]

How can you have a serious debate about the rights and wrongs of religious influence on society, blasphemy and freedom of speech, when this is the reaction to a cartoon being shown?

Is this a genuine question? You can't think how these topics can be explored without showing this image?

There's plenty of cases throughout history to use as examples that would no longer be offensive but that's missing the point between content and depiction. You can then contrast those to the modern day and have a genuine debate on both sides of why its offensive and why some think the right to offend is more important.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

I'm a muslim.

As my understanding, it was Muslims themselves who are forbidden to draw The Prophet, not everybody else. It's not like whenever we see other people draw them, we should get outraged.
The reason for this if I'm not mistaken, because back then when The Prophet is still alive, since he was so revered, there are concerns that any images or depiction of him would make people deify the depictions. So this isn't something in the Qur'an, but it's a rule that come up later because of The Prophet concerns.

As far as showing these cartoons in school, I'm not a fan really, because mainly if I'm a student of that school, I would like the options of not seeing it. As I have a choice of not seeing Hebdo cartoons. Also, I agree with @adexkola . If the teachers wanted to cultivate discussions, alienating the students who actually have connection with the material is a bad move

I do think Muslims should have the right to walk away. You always do of course.

 

[Dante]

We're not talking about radical Muslims though are we? We're talking about school kids and their parents in Batley.



By all means challenge them, have an intellectual debate or what not.

But willfully antagonising them because you don't agree with their belief is disrespectful.

This point is crucial to remember. It's why people need to be careful about lumping together underpriveleged groups into a single easily denigrated whole.

The fact @Eendracht maakt macht did so is no surprise.

 

[Gehrman]

That's nearly worse again.

He's supposed to be educating his students on a topic. So why take an approach he knows will alienate a chunk of his students to the point where they may feel unable to participate? As opposed to teaching it without actually showing the cartoons (which offer nothing to the discussion at hand) and actually having an inclusive conversation that includes those muslim students.

It reads as someone who was more interested in making a point than actually educating his students. Because quite clearly that wasn't the most effective way of having a constructive conversation, which is supposed to be the point.

It's like reading books about racism that contain racism and racial slurs. Some teachers might thinks it better that students are allowed to read or see the "forbidden" or offensive material. I think if you offer the students the oppourtunity to leave, I think you have done enough. The discussion on blaphemy is not just limited to Islam but all religions that contains blasphemy and punishemnt for it. In our class we weren't just shown the muhammed cartoons, but also all the cartoons that JP and Charlie Hebdo made of other religions.

 

[Roane]

But that's not what you asked though. You asked if we can respect others beliefs which we are under no obligation to do.

Take the Muslim protests outside that Birmingham school because they were teaching about LGBT rights. They say it was against their beliefs just like the cartoons. Should we not teach children about LGBT rights as others in the class and their parents might get offended? Should the teachers get suspended or know better than to teach such controversial stuff that is likely to garner negative attention? Of course not. Bending to the will of religious doctrine is never the answer.

The Birmingham teachers case was interesting. In that he had been fired from a non muslim majority school before for the same thing but it wasn't mentioned.

 

[reelworld]

That's nearly worse again.

He's supposed to be educating his students on a topic. So why take an approach he knows will alienate a chunk of his students to the point where they may feel unable to participate? As opposed to teaching it without actually showing the cartoons (which offer nothing to the discussion at hand) and actually having an inclusive conversation that includes those muslim students.

It reads as someone who was more interested in making a point than actually educating his students. Because quite clearly that wasn't the most effective way of having a constructive conversation, which is supposed to be the point.

If he allows them to leave the class and no need to return again, then it's bad.
But if he shows them only at the beginning of the class and let the muslim students to come back in after it was shown and let them join the discussion, would that be better? The muslim students already know the cartoons are offensive and they can give their point of view with the rest of the class when they're back in

 

[adexkola]

You're talking as if the teacher burnt a bunch of qurans or went out and tore down a mosque.

Why can't a teacher burn a Quran in class?

 

[Roane]

It's like reading books about racism that contain racism and racial slurs. Some teachers might thinks it better that students are allowed to read or see the "forbidden" or offensive material. I think you offer the students the oppourtunity to leave, I think you have done enough. The discussion on blaphemy is not just limited to Islam but all religions that contains blasphemy and punishemnt for it. In our class we weren't just shown the muhammed cartoons, but also all the cartoons that JP and Charlie Hebdo made of other religions.

Were you shown the ones which they were forced to remove or the sacking of Sine?

 

[The Corinthian]

It’s a cartoon ffs.

"The swastika is just a few lines on a page, ffs."

 

[adexkola]

I'm more worried that a teacher, an educator, thought this was a totally fine thing to do .

I can't believe so many are missing this point.

"If you are offended you may leave the classroom"... Yeah forget about educating those who just left, eh?

Moronic.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Is this a genuine question? You can't think how these topics can be explored without showing this image?

There's plenty of cases throughout history to use as examples that would no longer be offensive but that's missing the point between content and depiction. You can then contrast those to the modern day and have a genuine debate on both sides of why its offensive and why some think the right to offend is more important.

Isn’t that exactly why you should show it. We have x cartoon that was deemed offensive in the 19th century . We got y cartoon that’s deemed offensive now. Show both cartoons.

What is the fundemental difference could be a question to start a discussion? The Muhammed cartoon is a great example to show historical perspective.

 

[The Corinthian]

You're talking as if the teacher burnt a bunch of qurans or went out and tore down a mosque.

Not following you here. I'm saying the teacher can respectfully challenge long held beliefs, without crossing over into a territory that offends people.

Context matters. Showing these types of cartoons is a sensitive topic. Nothing wrong with debating it with a bit of sensitivity. These are kids in school after all.