Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Yeah but the definitive statement itself is problematic because a lot of people do not share it, if they happen to believe in a deity. I understand that you see it this way from your perspective, but I'm not sure what the goal of openly telling followers of a religion that their religion (or any other) is nonsense and fiction. That in itself isn't conducive to an ontological debate. It's simply a throwaway comment that will offend someone who does have that belief.

It’s mostly the other way around isn’t it? Often with violence to pair.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

If I understand you, you seem to be saying that all religions should be as open to scrutiny as any political affiliation is. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that. (Maybe some people do, but I don't necessarily disagree with you).

The argument as I understood it was if it was alright to provoke followers of a religion knowing that the intent behind making a statement (or in this case, drawing a cartoon) is solely to provoke, rather than enagage in any meaningful debate. My stance is that it isn't.

If you agree with me there, then it seems as though you and I don't disagree with each other but were just having different discussions.

It isn’t solely to provoke though. It’s to teach about blasphemy and freedom of speech.

 

[calodo2003]

I'm saying there's a difference between it happening by a comic/place where their entire business is built on satirical work to antagonize people. It's a bit of a dickheads job, but they aren't meant as an educational institution. It's like arguing whether racist/sexist/gay jokes are appropriate from an R rated comedy movie. Some people will be offended, others will laugh, it is what it is when it happens there. This is a school and that stuff has absolutely no place in an educational environment for kids, and using it should absolutely result in you getting sacked.

It’s modern history & current events. How do these have no place in an educational curriculum?

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

There is actually a pressure on teachers to not show cartoons or other materials that may offend you though, those are generally in the gore and pornography category. Which incidentally are a fruit of the influence of religion on morality and our societies.

If those would serve a purpose then I’m not against showing that images either. I don’t know enough about the subject but I thought pornographic images could lead to sexual objectification so I don’t think they are the same.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Trumpism tapped directly into the christian nationalism as part of the grift, as they obviously saw the potential of playing to that brand of mental deficients on the right.

He also openly insulted majority Christian countries in the leadup to his campaign. The only distinction is that those Hispanic countries tend to be suffused with Catholicism, rather than the denomination he chose to appeal to.

I'm not sure I'm fully in agreement. He seemed to tap into jingoism, rather than Christian nationalism, in my opinion.

 

[Zlatattack]

What class was it? Was it unacceptable for conventional reasons i.e sexual, racist etc.

If it was just a cartoon these people need to get a life.

I believe it was likely to be one of those offensive Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

It’s mostly the other way around isn’t it? Often with violence to pair.

Also wrong, in my opinion. Any religious person trying to enforce his view on anyone is an issue.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

It isn’t solely to provoke though. It’s to teach about blasphemy and freedom of speech.

But you could do the latter without provoking. Which is the crux of the mstter, in my opinion.

 

[calodo2003]

Yeah but the definitive statement itself is problematic because a lot of people do not share it, if they happen to believe in a deity. I understand that you see it this way from your perspective, but I'm not sure what the goal of openly telling followers of a religion that their religion (or any other) is nonsense and fiction. That in itself isn't conducive to an ontological debate. It's simply a throwaway comment that will offend someone who does have that belief.

Who gives a shit how many people do not share it? If this is the case, then those who are Islamic shouldn’t be up in arms about the cartoons because their a small group compared to the world. Let’s be consistent here. Let’s not move the goal posts.
The fairytale of religion is offensive to many. That’s a belief just like the belief in the religion.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Also wrong, in my opinion. Any religious person trying to enforce his view on anyone is an issue.

Yes but when Islam is questioned and ridiculed it is to counter that mechanism. That’s why it’s so important.

 

[Eugenius]

It isn’t solely to provoke though. It’s to teach about blasphemy and freedom of speech.

There's been 12 pages of two-way discussion on this topic in this thread. No one has needed to post the actual cartoons to get their point across.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Who gives a shit how many people do not share it? If this is the case, then those who are Islamic shouldn’t be up in arms about the cartoons because their a small group compared to the world. Let’s be consistent here. Let’s not move the goal posts.
The fairytale of religion is offensive to many. That’s a belief just like the belief in the religion.

Well, they give a shit. Because it's offensive to them. What does the size of the people sharing a view have to do with its legitimacy?

You're telling me that I'm shifting goalposts, while going on a tangent and doing just that?

 

[Zlatattack]

33% of the children in the school are probably practicing muslims. Its probably not wise to go againist religious beliefs on drawn images of the prophet.

Having said that Id hazard a guess that maybe 5-7% of the uk pop. is muslim, so they can feck off protesting outside the gates.

It's not just the drawing. Historically there have been drawing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), although its not an orthodox position.

The recent problem has been deliberately offensive drawings.

If you want the freedom to offend, don't be surprised when offence leads to anger.

I in no way justify violent reactions to offensive cartoons of course.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Yes but when Islam is questioned and ridiculed it is to counter that mechanism. That’s why it’s so important.

Is this a serious post?
You and I agree that any religious individual enforcing his view on any non-religious person is unacceptable. To counter the many "unacceptable religious folks", we need to ridicule Islam. And it's "important" to do so?

Does this make any sense in your own head?

 

[Zlatattack]

There's been 12 pages of two-way discussion on this topic in this thread. No one has needed to post the actual cartoons to get their point across.

Excellent point. I think the teacher was a dickhead for displaying the picture. He was at the least insensitive and at worst deliberately provocative.

If we can manage the conversation without the pictures, so can everyone else.

 

[Gehrman]

It's not just the drawing. Historically there have been drawing of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), although its not an orthodox position.

The recent problem has been deliberately offensive drawings.

If you want the freedom to offend, don't be surprised when offence leads to anger.

I in no way justify violent reactions to offensive cartoons of course.

Well the reason why this is so contentious is because the violent reactions keep on happening.

 

[reelworld]

I actually confused that people here are outraged that the parents protested this.
I mean, isn't that the proper response? You felt something wrong, you protest against it peacefully, trying to change the wrong. Isn't that freedom of speech is all about?

 

[reelworld]

Well the reason why this is so contentious is because the violent reactions keep on happening.

Did this case produce violent reactions though?

 

[calodo2003]

He also openly insulted majority Christian countries in the leadup to his campaign. The only distinction is that those Hispanic countries tend to be suffused with Catholicism, rather than the denomination he chose to appeal to.

I'm not sure I'm fully in agreement. He seemed to tap into jingoism, rather than Christian nationalism, in my opinion.

I hate using the native argument, but you are incorrect here. A politician can tap into multiple, potentially competing veins, and succeed with all of them. It’s not a zero sum exercise. Christian evangelicals are perhaps the most aligned group with trump, even with trump’s clear ‘un-Christian’ life. He played right into their deficiencies & they are his most loyal supporters. This wasn’t by happenstance, this was groomed. Jingoism exists over political lines; christian nationalism is a right wing phenomenon.

 

[calodo2003]

I actually confused that people here are outraged that the parents protested this.
I mean, isn't that the proper response? You felt something wrong, you protest against it peacefully, trying to change the wrong. Isn't that freedom of speech is all about?

No problem whatsoever with the parents protesting, the curriculum against which they are protesting shouldn’t be amended because of it.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

I hate using the native argument, but you are incorrect here. A politician can tap into multiple, potentially competing veins, and succeed with all of them. It’s not a zero sum exercise. Christian evangelicals are perhaps the most aligned group with trump, even with trump’s clear ‘un-Christian’ life. He played right into their deficiencies & they are his most loyal supporters. This wasn’t by happenstance, this was groomed. Jingoism exists over political lines; christian nationalism is a right wing phenomenon.

Is that why a lot of traditional right wing Republicans were out off by Trump and his bands of right wing politics? And a lot of non-Christian right wing nuts voted for Trump?

As I said, there's an overlap. Trying to correlate Christianity with Trumpism is extreme, in my opinion.

 

[diarm]

I actually confused that people here are outraged that the parents protested this.
I mean, isn't that the proper response? You felt something wrong, you protest against it peacefully, trying to change the wrong. Isn't that freedom of speech is all about?

Is anyone outraged that the parents protested it?

I'm certainly not. Everyone is free to protest what they like. I'm far more concerned that schools and teachers are censored from showing the cartoon in the first place.

 

[Gehrman]

Did this case produce violent reactions though?

If he wasn't under police protection I think it would be quite likely. There is several reports of death threats.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

No problem whatsoever with the parents protesting, the curriculum against which they are protesting shouldn’t be amended because of it.

Ofcourse it should, if it fails to accomplish its goal of effectuating a useful debate about free speech and instead solely offends millions of people.

 

[Zlatattack]

Well the reason why this is so contentious is because the violent reactions keep on happening.

It's like me saying @Shamana is a savage and then walking up to you and saying really abusive things about people you love.

There's a good chance you might react, and then I'll have proven my point.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of use just accept that people will abuse someone we love and there is nothing we can do about it. A tiny minority will react.

That's just life.

 

[The Corinthian]

There's been 12 pages of two-way discussion on this topic in this thread. No one has needed to post the actual cartoons to get their point across.

An excellent point.

 

[Gehrman]

It's like me saying @Shamana is a savage and then walking up to you and saying really abusive things about people you love.

There's a good chance you might react, and then I'll have proven my point.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of use just accept that people will abuse someone we love and there is nothing we can do about it. A tiny minority will react.

That's just life.

It's no longer similar with other religions in western secular societies. Certainly not in Europe. And I wouldn't attack you Zlatan, I would just tell you to find a hobby.

 

[calodo2003]

Well, they give a shit. Because it's offensive to them. What does the size of the people sharing a view have to do with its legitimacy?

You're telling me that I'm shifting goalposts, while going on a tangent and doing just that?

You're not seeing the disingenuousness here? You’re saying it’s not okay for a smaller group to be offended by religion, but yet that smaller group can’t be critical of religion? You specifically used size as a defense, yet a specific religion is smaller than the world’s population; by your specific logic here, that one religion shouldn’t be able to dictate terms to the rest.

You don’t see the issue here?

 

[bosnian_red]

It’s simply teaching modern history of an emotional topic. Why does that not matter? It’s one quick lesson about what actually exists in real life, the good or bad. It’s something that they already know about it. Why act like it’s not there? Why not be able to discuss it? I’ll bet the majority of these islamic students could much more easily & rationally discuss this than their parents. Why stifle that?

What's the modern history worth teaching about it? You don't teach everything in schools. Going through primary school between 2000-08 and high school between 2008-2012, not once did I get taught about school shootings, serial killers, terrorist attacks etc. It's not stuff you need to teach. It serves no benefit. There is so much you can take from history that is actually worth teaching, and so much that is best left in the past as an embarrassing part of humanity. Parts about racism/sexism that we were taught were always about how bad it is, how it's offensive, stories about how so many people were oppressed, deprived of whatever, etc. In what category does showing an insulting cartoon fall under? How does some guys cartoon that was meant to offend constitute as any sort of teaching material? I'm genuinely curious what teaching value you think can arise from it. Because what I see is a lesson saying "say what you want, however you want, to whoever you want, regardless of if you're being respectful, tolerant or not. That way of living is guaranteed to lead to many quick beatings and not many friends. There's no positive there. You don't play the racist songs in class when teaching about slavery in the USA and racism. There's way to teach everything without being straight up disrespectful or showing the media that is disrespectful to a large amount of people.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

You're not seeing the disingenuousness here? You’re saying it’s not okay for a smaller group to be offended by religion, but yet that smaller group can’t be critical of religion? You specifically used size as a defense, yet a specific religion is smaller than the world’s population; by your specific logic here, that one religion shouldn’t be able to dictate terms to the rest.

You don’t see the issue here?

Are you actually reading what I'm typing? At no point did I say that it's not okay for people to be offended by anything.

I never said that the number of people who believe in something add to its credence, and I welcome you to show me where I did.

 

[bosnian_red]

You're not seeing the disingenuousness here? You’re saying it’s not okay for a smaller group to be offended by religion, but yet that smaller group can’t be critical of religion? You specifically used size as a defense, yet a specific religion is smaller than the world’s population; by your specific logic here, that one religion shouldn’t be able to dictate terms to the rest.

You don’t see the issue here?

Why would anyone be offended at someone else's belief? Isn't that pretty much the same thing as people getting offended by a random guy couple in a different country getting married? All the resistance to same sex marriage? How is the afterlife and religion that someone else believes in affecting you, or offending you?

 

[calodo2003]

What's the modern history worth teaching about it? You don't teach everything in schools. Going through primary school between 2000-08 and high school between 2008-2012, not once did I get taught about school shootings, serial killers, terrorist attacks etc. It's not stuff you need to teach. It serves no benefit. There is so much you can take from history that is actually worth teaching, and so much that is best left in the past as an embarrassing part of humanity. Parts about racism/sexism that we were taught were always about how bad it is, how it's offensive, stories about how so many people were oppressed, deprived of whatever, etc. In what category does showing an insulting cartoon fall under? How does some guys cartoon that was meant to offend constitute as any sort of teaching material? I'm genuinely curious what teaching value you think can arise from it. Because what I see is a lesson saying "say what you want, however you want, to whoever you want, regardless of if you're being respectful, tolerant or not. That way of living is guaranteed to lead to many quick beatings and not many friends. There's no positive there. You don't play the racist songs in class when teaching about slavery in the USA and racism. There's way to teach everything without being straight up disrespectful or showing the media that is disrespectful to a large amount of people.

This is the whole crux of the debate. Many feel that it should. If you can’t see the debate potential of a cartoon, this is a fruitless debate. This isn’t being straight up disrespectful, it’s offering context. It’s creating thought about the matter.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

This is the whole crux of the debate. Many feel that it should. If you can’t see the debate potential of a cartoon, this is a fruitless debate. This isn’t being straight up disrespectful, it’s offering context. It’s creating thought about the matter.

And somehow you've failed to demonstrate how and why offending people has "potential", to use your word.

 

[Simbo]

The controversy here is still, and always will be, that something so simple as a drawing by complete nobodies can spark such offense. In 2006 200+ people died in mass protests around the world because some tiny Danish newspaper nobody cares about printed a cartoon.

It is completely, utterly and totally bonkers. They should try seeing it from our point of view, but is that as difficult as us seeing it from their point of view? Islam is simply incompatible with non-islam.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

There's been 12 pages of two-way discussion on this topic in this thread. No one has needed to post the actual cartoons to get their point across.

Would be better but don’t think it’s allowed and I personally don’t feel the urge either.

 

[Gehrman]

The controversy here is still, and always will be, that something so simple as a drawing by complete nobodies can spark such offense. In 2006 200+ people died in mass protests around the world because some tiny Dutch newspaper nobody cares about printed a cartoon.

It is completely, utterly and totally bonkers. They should try seeing it from our point of view, but is that as difficult as us seeing it from their point of view? Islam is simply incompatible with non-islam.

It was Denmark, not the netherlands.

 

[Sandikan]

It's like me saying @Shamana is a savage and then walking up to you and saying really abusive things about people you love.

There's a good chance you might react, and then I'll have proven my point.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority of use just accept that people will abuse someone we love and there is nothing we can do about it. A tiny minority will react.

That's just life.

Spot on.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be mixed up with freedom to offend.

It's pretty easy to understand why what this teacher was wrong, and I expect he'll be exceptionally lucky not to be sacked.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

The controversy here is still, and always will be, that something so simple as a drawing by complete nobodies can spark such offense. In 2006 200+ people died in mass protests around the world because some tiny Dutch newspaper nobody cares about printed a cartoon.

It is completely, utterly and totally bonkers. They should try seeing it from our point of view, but is that as difficult as us seeing it from their point of view? Islam is simply incompatible with non-islam.

Was a Danish newspaper I think?

 

[calodo2003]

Are you actually reading what I'm typing? At no point did I say that it's not okay for people to be offended by anything.

I never said that the number of people who believe in something add to its credence, and I welcome you to show me where I did.

These are your words -

Yeah but the definitive statement itself is problematic because a lot of people do not share it, if they happen to believe in a deity.

You are implying that a statement is incorrect because the belief isn’t shared by a lot of people, in this case, a definitive majority of people.

 

[Eendracht maakt macht]

Spot on.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be mixed up with freedom to offend.

It's pretty easy to understand why what this teacher was wrong, and I expect he'll be exceptionally lucky not to be sacked.

But sometimes what some deem offensive others don’t. And who is the judge of what’s offensive and what not? Many passages of the Quran and Bible are highly offensive. Should they be banned?