I acknowledges earlier that if as seems to be the case, some folk are from charities etc just jumping in a bandwagon to get air time etc then that's out if order. With the fullness of time I think we will get a clearer picture of what has happened.
Have to be honest from your earlier quotes I thought you felt strongly about the verses and we're easily insulted. Good to hear you are not.
But again my view is that as educators the teacher has no right to insult you directly in the way I wrote above.
As an educator his job is to inform and put "the reality of religions" in front of pupils. Not pass individual judgements or offend or try and be controversial (which many on here are saying should be the role of teachers/educators and what I'm arguing against).
I do feel strongly about it, I strongly feel it's arrant nonsense, but I'd like to think I'm thick skinned about this issue. Then again I had an eternity to get used to the facts of the matter, so that might have helped with that. In a world where everyone can define what's insulting to them and have others legislated in accordance with that I could have fallen prey to a completely different attitude to these matters. I don't want to ban anyone's opinion much less a system of belief. Religious freedom is extremely important to me, and I'd defend it to the death, for anyone who's beliefs I find absurd. What I've argued here, is that I'd have every right to demand blanket ban on all religious teaching, if I were to apply the same logic that's advanced in this and other threads, as justification for offense taking in general and Islam in particular, on the count insulting claims about atheism.
Since I'm a minority, and one of the historically most denunciated minorities at that, surely all my grievances should be valid. That's a genuine argument being made, and I'm just extending the logic to myself, in the vein hope that people would realize how absurd giving validity to all claims about offense in such a way would be.
As for your last sentence - there are two problems there. We don't know that the teacher in this case wasn't doing exactly what you describe - teaching about
the reality of religious satire. What we do know, is that for some people regardless of context or tact, the problem is that he even mentioned it in any sort of way, for he should have known better than to discuss matters that might insult. If this be true, it couldn't
not be true of the example I made. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If I find the text of the new testament insulting (which I have every reason to) I could just demand that it should be banned altogether, regardless of how thoughtful or good some teacher might be.
Differentia specifica here is that my claims would not have the same weight because they don't carry the same palpable threat of physical violence,
pace some craven defending one and not even entertaining the thought of the other.