Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

Eendracht maakt macht

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
1,503
Supports
PSV Eindhoven
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?"
When I grew up in a Christian school most certainly the Bible was teached and hell definitely was part of it. And this was when I was really young. That’s much more damaging then the cartoons I was shown when I was older that actually enlightened me instead of trying to brainwash me. I don’t see those people protesting outside of Islamic or Christian schools saying you shouldn’t teach kids about hell and stuff like that. The hypocrisy is unreal.
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
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.
I didn't say it was 4 year olds. I said in a school with an age range of 4-16 in response to your post about opinions widely differing.

At that age range you would range from no opinion to very little opinion.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
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?"
Not it's not. It's much worse, because it's not a joke or satire, but a serious teaching. Then again perhaps it's my cultural bias that I wouldn't take jokes or satire as badly. But then that's all besides the point, because if being insulted is subjectively relative, there's no point in discussing what we think is objectively worse, and my claim to shut down differences of belief is as good as any other.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,437
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.
By choosing the subject, structuring the lesson, choosing the material, determining the initial (and usually some further reaching) questions, leading the discussion as the person who makes the calls. The students are also teenagers who don't have the same level of preknowledge, general education, and experience.

A teacher can make good or bad job of involving everyone, but I don't think it can be denied how much what happens in the classroom revolves around him/her.
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
When I grew up in a Christian school most certainly the Bible was teached and hell definitely was part of it. And this was when I was really young. That’s much more damaging then the cartoons I was shown when I was older that actually enlightened me instead of trying to brainwash me. I don’t see those people protesting outside of Islamic or Christian schools saying you shouldn’t teach kids about hell and stuff like that. The hypocrisy is unreal.
When I went to mosque we were spoken to about it too. Why wouldn't they at a religious school where it's a part of the faith and you are learning about that faith.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,564
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?"
Compare it to threat of hell, cartoons are less likely to scar you for life, unless you've been "educated" to take a special kind of offense to it.
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
Not it's not. It's much worse, because it's not a joke or satire, but a serious teaching. Then again perhaps it's my cultural bias that I wouldn't take jokes or satire as badly. But then that's all besides the point, because if being insulted is subjectively relative, there's no point in discussing what we think is objectively worse, and my claim to shut down differences of belief is as good as any other.
The cartoon themselves maybe labelled satire but the teaching here too was serious teaching.

I dispute the notion that there is great joy in those who see others burning in agony etc there isn't.

I don't recall the teachings on hell being about the right to insult, ridicule or offend non believers

I don't see the comparison at all tbh
 

Eendracht maakt macht

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
1,503
Supports
PSV Eindhoven
When I went to mosque we were spoken to about it too. Why wouldn't they at a religious school where it's a part of the faith and you are learning about that faith.
Seriously... I quit. Have a nice evening.
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
Compare it to threat of hell, cartoons are less likely to scar you for life, unless you've been "educated" to take a special kind of offense to it.
I see what you did there with the "educated" to take a special kind of offense... But there is no "education" if the sole purpose is to offend.

The notion of hell in scripture is not done to offend or ridicule or cause controversy. It's matter of fact in that if you believe you are X then here is what that entails.
 

Andersonson

Full Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
3,768
Location
Trondheim
Honestly, comparing Islam to Trump followers and claiming both are rubbish and deserved to be treated equally is not only foolish but hugely insulting.
Yes it might be very insulting. Doesnt make it a lie though.

Both are built on lies and fear. Same applies to christanity.

Every muslim who cant accept gay people should get a cartoon of the prophet in the mail weekly
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
I see what you did there with the "educated" to take a special kind of offense... But there is no "education" if the sole purpose is to offend.

The notion of hell in scripture is not done to offend or ridicule or cause controversy. It's matter of fact in that if you believe you are X then here is what that entails.
So how much opinion should be involved in teaching 4-16 year olds about that?
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
The cartoon themselves maybe labelled satire but the teaching here too was serious teaching.

I dispute the notion that there is great joy in those who see others burning in agony etc there isn't.

I don't recall the teachings on hell being about the right to insult, ridicule or offend non believers

I don't see the comparison at all tbh
What, are you kidding me? At worst it was a teaching about a satire, and not teaching about an actual doctrine, argued in earnest.

But let's suppose you are right and "here too was serious teaching" then we have two serious teachings, and they are both about religious beliefs, and both can be interpreted insulting by a minority in terms of religious beliefs. You couldn't make it more analogous without it being identitas.

The teachings of hell have the effect of being insulting to non believers, whatever the fecking intent was (or your interpretation for that matter). If you don't see how teaching children that I and people like me will go to hell and be tortured for eternity could be slightly bothersome to me, then there's really no hope for a discussion.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,564
I see what you did there with the "educated" to take a special kind of offense... But there is no "education" if the sole purpose is to offend.

The notion of hell in scripture is not done to offend or ridicule or cause controversy. It's matter of fact in that if you believe you are X then here is what that entails.
Tried being "polite"
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
Yes it might be very insulting. Doesnt make it a lie though.

Both are built on lies and fear. Same applies to christanity.

Every muslim who cant accept gay people should get a cartoon of the prophet in the mail weekly
Why do folk always say this.

All the abrahamic religions have a message that says belief due to fear is not belief (or words to that effect)
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
Why do folk always say this.

All the abrahamic religions have a message that says belief due to fear is not belief (or words to that effect)
Yeah and then Christianity has a whole history of folks describing themselves as “god fearing” and famous sermons like “Sinners in the hands of an angry god”
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
So how much opinion should be involved in teaching 4-16 year olds about that?
Depends what you see as rile of educators.

I'm Muslim but if I was teaching RE my role isn't to opine that christianity is false/wrong and Islam is right/correct.

It's to present religions for what they are and their structures etc

The focus is to show that these things exist and people have such beliefs. Not to convert students. If I want to do that then the classroom in a secular school wouldn't be the appropriate medium
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
What, are you kidding me? At worst it was a teaching about a satire, and not teaching about an actual doctrine, argued in earnest.

But let's suppose you are right and "here too was serious teaching" then we have two serious teachings, and they are both about religious beliefs, and both can be interpreted insulting by a minority in terms of religious beliefs. You couldn't make it more analogous without it being identitas.

The teachings of hell have the effect of being insulting to non believers, whatever the fecking intent was (or your interpretation for that matter). If you don't see how teaching children that I and people like me will go to hell and be tortured for eternity could be slightly bothersome to me, then there's really no hope for a discussion.
Let's be honest we don't know what the teaching was with the cartoon. Certainly if reports of who was right publisher or terrorists is true then I don't see the teaching here.

If as an atheist you are in a classroom and a teacher is saying to you that you as an atheist are bound for eternal hellfire then yeah I see why that would be bothersome to you and again I wouldn't say that teacher is very good either.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
Depends what you see as rile of educators.

I'm Muslim but if I was teaching RE my role isn't to opine that christianity is false/wrong and Islam is right/correct.

It's to present religions for what they are and their structures etc

The focus is to show that these things exist and people have such beliefs. Not to convert students. If I want to do that then the classroom in a secular school wouldn't be the appropriate medium
That’s not what I asked about. Your quoted post is regarding teaching about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
Let's be honest we don't know what the teaching was with the cartoon. Certainly if reports of who was right publisher or terrorists is true then I don't see the teaching here.

If as an atheist you are in a classroom and a teacher is saying to you that you as an atheist are bound for eternal hellfire then yeah I see why that would be bothersome to you and again I wouldn't say that teacher is very good either.
We don't, that makes the outrage all the more nonsensical.

As for the teacher behaving in such a way, he'd be doing no disservice to mainstream Christian beliefs whatsoever. He doesn't need to advance it as his own view either, he could just be quoting from numerous places in the new testament. If I and others like me were as readily insulted, we would be besieging schools, demanding firings and worse. But we don't and are not going to, because this insulting content is very much naturalized as part of the furniture.
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
Yeah and then Christianity has a whole history of folks describing themselves as “god fearing” and famous sermons like “Sinners in the hands of an angry god”
God fearing in the modern sense and the old sense are not the same thing as far as I know.

I'm less versed on Christianity than I am on Islam but often the issue isn't the word but the meaning (often imo mistranslation) from the original text.

Iirc correctly the word fear used in English translations is from the word yare (sp) and that doesn't mean fear literally. More along the lines of awe and respect.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God is more likely to mean perfect God than angry.

As I say I'm more verses in Islam and we have the same issue with translations from the Quranic Arabic (not the same as Arabic in Saudi today, which is different to Arabic in other parts of the middle east). Which results in certain words not being understood in their "positive" aspects because the modern language doesn't see certain words as positive but only as negative (if that makes sense)
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
That’s not what I asked about. Your quoted post is regarding teaching about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
Sorry I thought you were asking for the whole of my quote.

Just to clarifyy what is it you are asking?
 

Roane

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
2,330
We don't, that makes the outrage all the more nonsensical.

As for the teacher behaving in such a way, he'd be doing no disservice to mainstream Christian beliefs whatsoever. He doesn't need to advance it as his own view either, he could just be quoting from numerous places in the new testament. If I and others like me were as readily insulted, we would be besieging schools, demanding firings and worse. But we don't and are not going to, because this insulting content is very much naturalized as part of the furniture.
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).
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
Iirc correctly the word fear used in English translations is from the word yare (sp) and that doesn't mean fear literally. More along the lines of awe and respect.

Sinners in the hands of an angry God is more likely to mean perfect God than angry.
An esoteric / academic understanding of the word doesn’t mean much in the hands of the average, everyday christian that describes themselves as such.

And Jonathan Edwards literally meant angry.
An excerpt:
“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment.”

Sorry I thought you were asking for the whole of my quote.

Just to clarifyy what is it you are asking?
I’m asking how much opinion you think should be used when teaching 4-16 year olds about who goes to Heaven vs who goes to Hell.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,818
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.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
We don't know that the teacher in this case wasn't doing exactly what you describe
This is my biggest issue. I’ve not seen anything concrete as to what the context of the lesson was, aside from it being in a religious studies course.

Having taught lessons on various religions in the rural American South and having had to deal with parents complaining that I was “trying to indoctrinate their children into believing in Islam” because I showed a NatGeo documentary on the Hajj, I know full well how important it is to know the full context of a lesson like that.

As an aside... I’ve taught courses on current events, the Holocaust, the Civil War, 20th Century American Military History, US and World History, chock full of controversial topics, and the only parent complain I’ve ever had was that one claiming I was some sort of undercover Imam.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
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 done 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
What?
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
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
No it wouldn’t. Discussion of Holocaust Denial is a key part of any decent class on the Holocaust.

And on a personal note, I included cartoons submitted to the Iranian newspaper contest in my lessons on it, alongside the likes of David Irving.
 
Last edited:

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
They were juuuuust extirpating them. No controversy there. The important thing is that they didn't lampoon Jehovah, cause that would have been vile!
I mean, this particular ignorance is appalling. ‘Jews weren’t demeaned in Nazi literature?’ It literally was a cottage industry in Nazi culture.
 

iluvoursolskjær

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
4,558
Location
Searching for life's white text in London
All people have to do is not unnecessarily depict one man. Life peacefully goes on, relatively anyway. Islamic beliefs impede on no one's lives nor is there any appetite or potential for it. People just prefer not being unnecessarily subjected to something that is deeply upsetting to them. You don't get it, fair enough, but to resort to "sLiPpErY sLoPe if one can't freely insult we'll be a censored dictatorship by tomorrow" - it's just not a reasonable, practical response.

There is enough shit going on and tension in everyone's lives, why stir up more. For the freedom to do so? Because you need to teach the looney types - who exist in all walks of life - that actually foam at the mouth for this some kind of lesson? To achieve what. It's just a mental perspective to have.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
All people have to do is not unnecessarily depict one man. Life peacefully goes on, relatively anyway. Islamic beliefs impede on no one's lives nor is there any appetite or potential for it. People just prefer not being unnecessarily subjected to something that is deeply upsetting to them. You don't get it, fair enough, but to resort to "sLiPpErY sLoPe if one can't freely insult we'll be a censored dictatorship by tomorrow" - it's just not a reasonable, practical response.

There is enough shit going on and tension in everyone's lives, why stir up more. For the freedom to do so? Because you need to teach the looney types that actually foam at the mouth for this some kind of lesson? To achieve what. It's just a mental perspective to have.
You realize that the teacher didn’t draw the cartoon, right?
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
Yeah, I know that. I just don't think it was imperative that he showed the cartoon for class to be productive in this context.
1) We don’t even know the context.

2) The cartoons exist now in the public domain. The cat is out of the bag.

3) I could easily see a productive lesson being had using a Hebdo cartoon along with a Holocaust denial cartoon submitted to the Hamshahri newspaper contest in Iran to show how such a zero sum policy is counter productive.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
All people have to do is not unnecessarily depict one man. Life peacefully goes on, relatively anyway. Islamic beliefs impede on no one's lives nor is there any appetite or potential for it. People just prefer not being unnecessarily subjected to something that is deeply upsetting to them. You don't get it, fair enough, but to resort to "sLiPpErY sLoPe if one can't freely insult we'll be a censored dictatorship by tomorrow" - it's just not a reasonable, practical response.

There is enough shit going on and tension in everyone's lives, why stir up more. For the freedom to do so? Because you need to teach the looney types - who exist in all walks of life - that actually foam at the mouth for this some kind of lesson? To achieve what. It's just a mental perspective to have.
Slippery slope fallacies exist in both directions. It’s laughable to think that allowing cartoons that some may find offensive will lead to the collapse of civilization & a complete uprising of the racist heathen. Just like it’s laughable to think that not allowing the cartoon will create a complete censorship state.

This hyperbolic emotional red herring of an argument doesn’t help the discussion here. It’s a lazy tactic generated to stoke fear in puerile minds. Let’s stop with this lunacy.
 

calodo2003

Flaming Full Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
41,577
Location
Florida
Yeah, I know that. I just don't think it was imperative that he showed the cartoon for class to be productive in this context.
The class was on ‘religion & ethics’ apparently. How can this forum not be conducive to developing debate on religion & ethics?

It seems that the teacher did offer a disclaimer that sensitive topics would be discussed in an upcoming lesson. This occurs all the time around the world, disclaimers of this sort by teachers.

What we don’t know is how the students handled the lesson. If we could siphon off some of the manufactured outrage by those protesting (who obviously do not have 16 y/o children in that school), this debate could be much more productive. The parents / adults are the ones doing the most damage here.
 
Last edited:

iluvoursolskjær

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
4,558
Location
Searching for life's white text in London
1) We don’t even know the context.

2) The cartoons exist now in the public domain. The cat is out of the bag.

3) I could easily see a productive lesson being had using a Hebdo cartoon along with a Holocaust denial cartoon submitted to the Hamshahri newspaper contest in Iran to show how such a zero sum policy is counter productive.
As far as I know, it's a school for young children and from my experience at that age the purpose of religious education is to make kids aware of other faiths and beliefs, but this might have changed and they kids that age may be exploring the deep moral dilemmas of today but I doubt it . Like you say, the Hebdo cartoons are in the public domain and everyone knows about it. I still don't see what benefits it brings to class.
 

iluvoursolskjær

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
4,558
Location
Searching for life's white text in London
Slippery slope fallacies exist in both directions. It’s laughable to think that allowing cartoons that some may find offensive will lead to the collapse of civilization & a complete uprising of the racist heathen. Just like it’s laughable to think that not allowing the cartoon will create a complete censorship state.

This hyperbolic emotional red herring of an argument doesn’t help the discussion here. It’s a lazy tactic generated to stoke fear in puerile minds. Let’s stop with this lunacy.
What hyperbolic emotional red herring? I don't understand.
 

iluvoursolskjær

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2015
Messages
4,558
Location
Searching for life's white text in London
The class was on ‘religion & ethics’ apparently. How can this forum not be conducive to developing debate on religion & ethics?

It seems that the teacher did offer a disclaimer that sensitive topics would be discussed in an upcoming lesson. This occurs all the time around the world, disclaimers of this sort by teachers.

What we don’t know is how the students handled the lesson. If we could siphon off some of the manufactured outrage by those protesting (who obviously do not have 16 y/o children in that school), this debate could be much more productive. The parents / adults are the ones doing the most damage here.
So you need to show the Hebdo picture to have the debate. Ok, well I disagree.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,295
Location
South Carolina
As far as I know, it's a school for young children and from my experience at that age the purpose of religious education is to make kids aware of other faiths and beliefs, but this might have changed and they kids that age may be exploring the deep moral dilemmas of today but I doubt it . Like you say, the Hebdo cartoons are in the public domain and everyone knows about it. I still don't see what benefits it brings to class.
I’m fairly certain they’ve said he was teaching teens and the school goes up to 16 year olds. I’ve taught 14-16 year olds about controversial social studies topics for years and they are quite old enough to discuss them productively.

So you need to show the Hebdo picture to have the debate. Ok, well I disagree.
What about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons?