I do think most of them could be included in a discussion in a class room. Especially if it apparently stirs up controversy.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Religious statues in Christian churches aren't worshipped. Idols are false gods, statues of Jesus or Mary or a saint are there for worshippers to contemplate when they pray. It makes you think about that person.
In Catholicism, we pray to saints for intercessions, with or without a statue or icon. We don't think they're God.
That’s a stupid question , I agree. Doesn’t really open up to a great debate.
That’s exactly the way to go.
I believe it was Lars vilks did that sketch
I personally don't feel that is the role of the classroom.
I'm not against discussions in classrooms about topics of the day, no matter how uncomfortable. In that sense I dont think any topic should be off limits.
Where I do have reservations is age appropriateness, purpose of topic etc.
In the context of the discussion on these pages I do believe teachers have a responsibility to broach difficult subjects, but I don't agree that teachers have a right to offend or ridicule a belief for the sake of it. I don't see their role as educators to be one of controversy and offence or ridicule.
Move the discussion to university, for example, and I would take a slightly different approach. Again not necessarily a right to offend a such but certainly a more straight forward discussion is appropriate.
Not sure I understand, tbh. Your analogy was that Nazi cartoons are shown in lessons about Nazism as well. My point was that the analogy only really works if you'd treat the cartoons in question as hate propaganda too. Otherwise the role given to them in the lesson is fundamentally different.
I don't mean to be critical Penna but the ridiculous amount of symbolism, imagery etc in Catholicism really pushes the limits, imo, but to be fair when I did go to church it was a Lutheran one and I think all they had was one small lithograph of Jesus somewhere near the back.
this is what i have a problem with.
fecking idiots waiting to be offended by something that they didn’t even experience.
its pretty pathetic, these are grown men who should know better. Or perhaps they don’t, which would be more worrying...
I was referring to your other post I think.
That’s not the case though.
Don’t you think people in high school are old enough to discuss controversial subjects? We did discuss a lot of them in high school and neither me or my fellow students are mentally scarred by it as far as I know.
And this is based on something someone surmised even admitting they didn't know for sure.
This thread is such an Elvis Crash.
I agree the freedom to offend people is fine, but its the context about where it's done. Done in a learning environment, not good. Done in a satirical comic, go to town. Bit of a dickhead job, but it shouldn't be legal. You don't gain much from doing it other than happiness at seeing people pissed off. But it shouldn't be part of education IMO. There's plenty of ways to send whatever educational message you want without offending a large group for whatever reason.
Aye their a bunch of tossers who have basically given the impression the the whole of Batley is up in arms...when in fact the vast majority of Batley either don't care, or were totally fine with how the school was handling it.
As I said no topic should be off topic, if relevant and sure at certain ages in high school pupils are ready and should be coaxed into tackling difficult subjects. It's part of life at some point.
My issue has never been discussion. It's the notion of teachers rights to be controversial and/or offensive. As an ex teacher I didn't need to be either to discuss controversial subjects. And I do think there is a difference in being controversial and approaching controversial subjects.
Let's face it we all have certain views and certain beliefs and if I was discussing with friends it would be different than in my role as an educator. The idea isn't just to ridicule pupils beliefs and push my own. It's also to listen and challenge and be respectful.
I'm Muslim myself and I would welcome any body wishing to discuss Islam with me. But at the same time even as an adult I think if the approach is "fairytale" or "fiction" from the off then there is no discussion or respect or education. It's a slanging match and not conducive. Worse of it's teacher to student and it's hallmarks of a nutter to me not an educator
I agree it shouldn’t be that black and white. The cartoon can be a start of a discussion. Doesn’t mean the start is that Islam is a fairy tale. All kinds of cartoons are shown which some people might deem offensive and from that point you start to discuss. It’s kind of strange to me to exclude all the cartoons that might offend someone in the class room.
As I said many people find it offensive if you say that being gay is OK. So don’t discuss that in the classroom too? The sole reason that some people might find something offensive should not be the reason to not discuss it and in some cases it’s even more valuable to discuss it exactly because some may find something offensive.
We have this in sufi Islam (barelwis too).
Watched a debate recently between two "scholars" where they discussed if this was worship.
Very interesting.
That would make more sense.
But in that post I actually haven't said otherwise. Quite the contrary. If the teacher would've planned to use that particular cartoon as an example of xenophobic imagery, it would have been fine with me. (Although the second point of my post would still have to be considered.)
But I haven't seen that point being acknowledged by posters pushing the "free speech"/"right to offend" angle in here, at least up to my post. (Not saying I can't have missed anything.) And that's what I explicitly referred to, as I can't say anything about what the teacher had in mind.
In the free discussion that follows after the showing of the cartoon people are free to pose their views, so if they think it’s xenophobic you can discuss further on that. Personally I see some value in its criticism of Islam although in a dumb way. Also a view someone may have.
Why should it be limited? It’s a free discussion.
At least that’s how I would start such a discussion.
I don't see the reason to use certain material at all tbh. Again I will say that context is vital and in some cases leading to certain material can be justified.
See for me a person who is a teacher will nearly always have a better grasp of certain situations and topics than even a 14/15 year old student/pupil. The job isn't to push your own view or belittle the pupil with your superior knowledge but to "tease" out the pupils understanding and get them to start thinking.
As I mentioneded before my RE teacher at school was a reverand. He loved to sit with me and discuss religions and tbh ran circles around me. I still know him (although he is now in Spain) but he was reluctant to have discussions with me in the latter years as I ran circles around him. Simply due to a better understanding and studying of my own religion.
Just to digress slightly it's akin to likes of dawkins who I see using platforms to argue a point with audiences who are out of their depth, but reluctant to discuss with folk who arent.
A teacher might share dawkins views but their role isn't to act like he does.
If I were too apply the same standards of right to offense taking to myself I would have to briefly consider, the much worse fact that myself and other (atheists) are proclaimed to be destined for eternal hellfire by the most dominant religion of the west - Christianity. Hell is mentioned 23 times in the new testament, it's not an optional belief or an obscure interpretation. It's one of the most mainstream contentions found in the texts themselves. I struggle to think of anything more demented, disturbing and ghastly than the idea that you would torture someone, for eternity no less, for their religious belief. Yet this is naturalized to such an extent, that you seldom even hear anyone complaining about it. I even had a professor who when I raised this objection replied "well what's problem for you, you don't actually believe in hell anyway?".
On the grounds that it offends my religious beliefs I could, judging from the responses in this thread, demand that all religion be banned from schools, less I take umbrage. Better yet if I started some violence to stir things up a little bit. I would have droves of people cowering, demanding that the next time someone should have the audacity to mention religion in school, they should think twice of it, or they run the risk of riling me up even more. Go militant, get respect. Presumably, people would be defending me because I'm a minority (and one of the most persecuted minorities in the history of humankind), and because I'm protesting something that's genuinely disturbing and injurious. This is the equivalent of what I could legitimately demand, if I were to extend the logic of prevention of offense taking to my particular beliefs. It would only be fair that all mentions of the new testament be prohibited. Not that I am not obliged to read it, but that others shouldn't read it either. If this is a far fetched analogy, I'm waiting to hear which parts of it are not pertinent.
I think someone claiming I'm going to hell is much more insulting than most things that are deemed unacceptable by today's standards, and yet that one, hidden in plain sight, doesn't get half the attention.
Of course you can find the bible offensive in enumerable ways, and that's just one of them. Feminists can demand prohibition of texts on the grounds that god explicitly designates a subordinated role to the first female in the old testament. That's about as offensive to women as it gets, and you don't have to look for it it in the edge of a remark or anything. Perhaps they too need to get violent about this to have their cause defended vigorously by many a chivalrous knight on the internet, saying that teacher should have really known better than to cause offense by mentioning the old testament so irresponsibly.
None of these causes are (and I'd wager ever would be) defended in the same way, for the very simple and craven reason, that not showing approval doesn't carry the same palpable sense of danger and threat like the one in this instance.
On the grounds that it offends my religious beliefs I could, judging from the responses in this thread, demand that all religion be banned from schools, less I take umbrage. Better yet if I started some violence to stir things up a little bit. I would have droves of people cowering, demanding that the next time someone should have the audacity to mention religion in school, they should think twice of it, or they run the risk of riling me up even more. Go militant, get respect. Presumably, people would be defending me because I'm a minority (and one of the most persecuted minorities in the history of humankind), and because I'm protesting something that's genuinely disturbing and injurious. This is the equivalent of what I could legitimately demand, if I were to extend the logic of prevention of offense taking to my particular beliefs. It would only be fair that all mentions of the new testament be prohibited. Not that I am not obliged to read it, but that others shouldn't read it either. If this is a far fetched analogy, I'm waiting to hear which parts of it are not pertinent.
I think someone claiming I'm going to hell is much more insulting than most things that are deemed unacceptable by today's standards, and yet that one, hidden in plain sight, doesn't get half the attention.
Of course you can find the bible offensive in enumerable ways, and that's just one of them. Feminists can demand prohibition of texts on the grounds that god explicitly designates a subordinated role to the first female in the old testament. That's about as offensive to women as it gets, and you don't have to look for it it in the edge of a remark or anything. Perhaps they too need to get violent about this to have their cause defended vigorously by many a chivalrous knight on the internet, saying that teacher should have really known better than to cause offense by mentioning the old testament so irresponsibly.
None of these causes are (and I'd wager ever would be) defended in the same way, for the very simple and craven reason, that not showing approval doesn't carry the same palpable sense of danger and threat like the one in this instance.
Last edited:
Don’t see how he did that in any way? I was shown Nazi propaganda and other cartoons in High school. It didn’t feel like the teacher was Joseph Goebbles to me.
Problem for me here is where you say people I say secondary school kids.
If a teacher has an agenda then there isn't a discussion in the true sense.
I simply don't see a reason to show that cartoon as s starting point anyway, and if the whole who is right (publisher v terrorist) bit is true then he has no right being a teacher
Great post.
Calm down. I'm here to reassure you that Hell isn't all bad, it is merely a place where God is not.
So you are all good, you don't have to spend the rest of Eternity with someone you didn't believe in.
So it's not so bad. Not as bad as getting worked up over something someone might have heard but isn't sure about. You've missed a bullet there.
Seems to me as a good start of a discussion. Just a cartoon and clearly the opinions widely differ. Great food for discussion isn’t it?
Agreed. Absolutely on point and that's just a couple of examples. If we start putting together a list of vile and harmful ideologies and interpretations from all the religions put together we'd literally be sat here for ages.
And you'd be taking the thread even more off topic to suit your agenda. Bargain.
And there goes the 'right to be offended at whatever the demographic may deem fit' down the drain. As if by magic.
Oh yeah, I'm familiar with your custom religion. I don't really care about your interpretation though, and that's the whole point, I'm the one who's insulted, so it's only my interpretation that matters anyway (staying true to the analogy).
Yes, but heaven forbid you show a satiric cartoon. And then they go and read in their holy book how atheists should be murdered. That being said I don’t want the Quran or Bible to be banned.
It's not really a free discussion, as the teacher frames it before and during the lesson. He/she is also the person of authority in the room, whose words have more weight than everyone else's. So a lot depends on the teacher's ability to navigate difficult subjects in a group situation. I tried to outline the resulting responsibilities I see in the second part of that post.
Can you name it in one?
I was making a general post/response rather than this particular teacher. The details in this case aren't known so hard to say.
I too was shown nazi propaganda and cartoons used to depict Jews during WW2. But I'd not see the similarities to the discussion.
None of jewish treatment under Nazis was shown to offend or ridicule or cause controversy.
Now had a teacher put a picture of treblinka with that Aussie denier (Richard something or other?) And said "treblinka true or myth" then I think the conclusion would and should be different
Last edited:
Name what?
Is amazing, really. People will take joy from "knowing" others will suffer an eternity. Up in arms over a cartoon, say. No problem with a sizeable portion of the population doomed to absolute agony
I already said the binary question is stupid.
How does he frame the discussion though. He doesn’t say he agrees with the cartoon? We in high school would discuss many cartoons that we were shown. All kind of different cartoons. Never ever felt like the teacher was framing the discussion. That would be strange because then he was both a Nazi as a English industrial as a socialist as a communist. The cartoon is just a starting point.
In a school with a 4-16 she range? No in a word
It's akin to a religious person putting up a cartoon of an aids infected Freddie Mercury and saying this is what homosexuality does to you. Discuss
The class wasn’t for 4 year olds ffs. Why do you include other age groups? So that it fits your narrative? I had those lessons between 12 and 18 I think.
Is it really the same thing though?
Let's just say what the atheist fellas say was true, it's in a book that they don't believe and can take it or leave it.
Similarly you have a magazine prints some pictures and makes social commentary, you can take it or leave it.
Now let's move it into a classroom with young kids. Does an RE teacher start a lesson by saying "hands up atheists, hellfire or salvation?"