You sure no one is saying that? We are talking in a broader context here.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Same old story of grown men arguing about cartoons
If you take the extremist of a group and use them as an example of course that shifts things. Because most muslim, that ive heard at least, has never threatened to kill anyone, but simply said that they dont want anyone to portrait their prophet.
So again, whats the point of not respecting their wish?
This. It's not like the cartoons aren't freely available online anyway - the kids can easily go look if they wish.
Not how your initial post came across, as in sharing an opinion.
It is amazing how religion always gets a free pass on the basis that it is old and many people believe in it, isn't it? I'm totally with you on this and I do think your comparison is a valid one. Imagine someone getting as riled up over a political cartoon as religious people and in particular Muslims do over the depiction of some prophet. They are well within their right to protest of course, as stupid as it, as this is also part of free speech but it gets problematic when governments and institutions bow to this protest.
It angers me to see the stronghold religion still has even in secular countries. The exemptions churches get from Corona regulations are a good example.
this made me laugh far more than it should haveYes because clearly all Muslims will threaten to kill you and carry it out if you show this. Extremists in Islam are in the vast minority like extremists ina ll other religions. But most muslims perfectly will se the problem with this, they will not however all try to kill you.
Posts like this where you split pretty much the whole world into us vs the mad muslims are unhelpful.
Of course they don't show porn in a sex ed class. They're discussing biology. It's a natural part of bodily function and is treated as such.
Religion is not. It is set of ideas and beliefs and it should be treated as such. No avenue of discussion should be off limits including looking at cartoons.
Ok, no one in this thread at least.
Yes there are extremists out there. If the teacher wants to give them a (deserved) middle finger up he can do that on his spare time. Send cartoon postcards to ISIS for all I care. But he is responsible for the welfare of his students, that's my number 1 concern here.
I don't know what was playing on their mind, neither do you. It obviously wasn't in the mind of the teacher involved.
What I do know is that schools have protocols that they follow.
I mean...
Religious people should not always get their will pushed through in schools that are secular in nature.
The point was the study of satire and comedy, the main material was Molière but on the topic of satire, you generally have a few hours on how it is used in the media. The goal is simply to recognize satire and understand what it is.
As someone from a country still working to shake free from the church grip on state, particularly in regard to education, I worry about any measures that limit free speech or the teaching of important modern history, in the name of religious sensitivity.
Someone compared satirical cartoons to child porn a while ago. They are not the same. Someone was hurt creating child porn and someone else broke the most heinous of laws. The person drawing a satirical cartoon, drew a cartoon.
The same arguments for avoiding showing these cartoons can be made for avoiding blasphemy or avoiding all the other tiny little, seemingly inconsequential things in life that slowly, over time, allow religions to cast their net over society and gain power over progress and freedom.
Someone earlier said not showing them is a small ask. But people have lost their lives for doing so, so how can that be true?
Obviously this teacher should have explained what he was going to do and why, and given anyone who wanted to leave the class beforehand the opportunity to do so. If he hasn't then shame on him.
But these cartoons should be shown in schools and elsewhere often, both as an educational tool illustrating key moments in modern history, and to show that modern society will not be dictated to by religion.
To quietly avoid and make them taboo, is to repeat the same mistakes we have made with religion for centuries.
Someone compared satirical cartoons to child porn a while ago. They are not the same. Someone was hurt creating child porn and someone else broke the most heinous of laws. The person drawing a satirical cartoon, drew a cartoon.
The same arguments for avoiding showing these cartoons can be made for avoiding blasphemy or avoiding all the other tiny little, seemingly inconsequential things in life that slowly, over time, allow religions to cast their net over society and gain power over progress and freedom.
Someone earlier said not showing them is a small ask. But people have lost their lives for doing so, so how can that be true?
Obviously this teacher should have explained what he was going to do and why, and given anyone who wanted to leave the class beforehand the opportunity to do so. If he hasn't then shame on him.
But these cartoons should be shown in schools and elsewhere often, both as an educational tool illustrating key moments in modern history, and to show that modern society will not be dictated to by religion.
To quietly avoid and make them taboo, is to repeat the same mistakes we have made with religion for centuries.
But why should others have to limit themselves to appease the beliefs of others? If there were no Muslims in the class and nobody got offended it wouldn't be an issue. But now it's a case their beliefs directing other peoples actions.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A good thread from Baroness Warsi on the issue, and considering she's from around those ends, I'd wager that she knows more intimately than most on what actually happened.
It happens in a free society. You are confronted with things or views that you find offensive. Seems to me a class about freedom of speech and satire are the place to touch upon those subjects.
I agree, but schools should be accommodating to their students as much as possible, while enhancing their learning mission. It seems you're in support of schools going against the will of their religious wards because dammit they can. Should students in secular schools be force fed pork regardless of their religion?
Oh i agree on that statement.
I just dont think they always do, and i especially dont think that showing a picture of Muhammad does anything at all to help that "Religious people should not always get their will pushed through in schools that are secular in nature"
No, but it's part of a wider context. There are enough of those who are willing to go through with it to be an real issue and sometimes soft support it. We had ambassedours from Muslim majority countries trying to force blasphemy laws in Denmark when the cartoon crisis was going on, people being killed around the world, our embassies being burnt down and boycotts to try and force us to apologize and introduce religious blasphemy laws. Before that there was Salman Rushdie and the satanic verses affair. After that Submission with Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh. Miss world riotes in Nigeria. Obviosuly Charlie Hebdo being gunned down. There are numerous examples of why this continues to be an issue.
How about we quit the whataboutism and discuss whether the cartoons may be used in a teaching class on free speech and blasphemy in a secular school?
I think it suffices for teachers to teach their students to be tolerant of different views, and handle offense in peaceful manners. They don't need to be exposed to the actual offensive imagery, the same way black students don't need to be exposed to epithets in the class to teach them how to handle such situations.
It does change things if the image he showed was Muhammed with a bomb turban.
Even if the act of drawing Muhammed wasn't offensive to Muslims, depicting him as a terrorist is.
Even if the act of drawing Muhammed wasn't offensive to Muslims, depicting him as a terrorist is.
So because they are 5-7% they don’t deserve to protest? Bizarre logic.
If you aren't allowed to draw pics of him, why do people try? Surely nobody knows what he looks like, its like me trying to draw another caf member without meeting them. Crazy
If as a teacher you want to educate your students on issues around free speech, that's great.
If you begin that discussion by deliberately doing something you know is going to alienate a large chunk of your students and the community from which they come, then that suggests you're less interested in teaching them anything than you are in making a point for your own benefit. Or, if you aren't doing it deliberately, then you yourself are so ignorant to the issues behind the actual example you're using that you blundered into doing something that alienated a large chunk of your students and the community from which they come. Either way, it doesn't speak well of your ability to teach this topic.
If you begin that discussion by deliberately doing something you know is going to alienate a large chunk of your students and the community from which they come, then that suggests you're less interested in teaching them anything than you are in making a point for your own benefit. Or, if you aren't doing it deliberately, then you yourself are so ignorant to the issues behind the actual example you're using that you blundered into doing something that alienated a large chunk of your students and the community from which they come. Either way, it doesn't speak well of your ability to teach this topic.
Easy, if something is a long standing belief of a formally recognised religion.This action if done by an employer would be discriminatory against an employee, it shouldn't be different for pupils.
There are plenty of other depictions that as a society we'd punish a teacher for showing to pupils even if legal. The only difference here is that this request comes from a minority and because it's Islamic some see a particular need to push back.A small bit of kindness is too controversial
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?
"Our bad ideas are hundreds of years older than yours so respect them or else".
School has unequivocally apologised for using an inappropriate image and said it should not have been used.
If that is true then what was the teacher thinking
If that is true then what was the teacher thinking
@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.)
Here's a novel idea. Why don't we just respect other people's beliefs? (Or exchange beliefs for race, culture, gender, sexuality etc.)
There are way more offensive cartoons about Christianity so don’t see why you single out Islam like that.
Because their 'wish' is an attack on the freedom of religion of non muslims. Not drawing their prophet is a religious rule, just like eating kosher or sundays for rest, it's for the people of that religion to observe (or not). If you claim no one can draw the prophet you apply a religious rule to non religious people, and that's crossing the line of freedom of religion into theocratic territory.
So in essence this is a claim to islamic rule over the public sphere, and not the only example. This is not about hurt religious feelings or muslims beeing disturbed in the practice of their religion, this is about muslims being hurt in their desire/demond to rule over non muslims. If no one stands up for freedom of/from religion, it's gone. What muslims tend not to understand is that freedom of religion works both ways. Their right to practice their religion in the West is the same right as the right of other people to ignore all religious rules.
And let's not fool ourselves, the apologies and general giving in to muslims who claim to be offended is not founded on thorough insights on the multiracial society but about taking the easy way out. Avoid controversy, protests, accusations of 'islamophobia' and beheadings. Cowardice would cover most of it.
These stories are always so depressing.
On the one hand, you would definitely want the teacher to have addressed whatever topic they were wanting to more sensitively/tactfully. If they were going to show the image, they ought to have brought up the potential for this with their class first; the inevitable objections could have lead to the sort of interesting debate on the subject in a more healthier manner than any that would have come from showing the image at all. The politicised fallout on both sides just adds to the circus, and takes away from any potential productive discourse/resolution.
At the same time though, ultimately, there is something abhorrent in the idea of any religion dictating their views so vehemently in a school/public/secular setting. If you are in support of a diverse, open-minded and accepting society, both historically and to this day, fundamentalist religions have always been, and remain, the greatest threat facing this.
My partner is a teacher in a very diverse part of London and has had issues contending with certain issues against the backdrop of fundamentalist religious communities, particularly around sexuality. She would never do anything as inflammatory as what this teacher has done, but she's found herself in a very uncomfortable scenarios where large portions of her class have openly rejected and criticised literary portrayals of certain relationships/individuals on religious grounds. Which is absolutely terrifying to anyone who happens to be a member of these communities that have always been the most marginalised/attacked, let alone for the students who are having to contend with identity issues of their own whilst in these environments.
Intolerance in all its manifestations is the greatest underlying threat to education, which demands an open-mind to people/communities/ideas in order to flourish. From whatever side, it ought to be confronted through open-discourse.
In this case, it's hard to see how anyone/group is in the right. Both will demonise the other leading to further distrust and disharmony in the communities impacted.
On the one hand, you would definitely want the teacher to have addressed whatever topic they were wanting to more sensitively/tactfully. If they were going to show the image, they ought to have brought up the potential for this with their class first; the inevitable objections could have lead to the sort of interesting debate on the subject in a more healthier manner than any that would have come from showing the image at all. The politicised fallout on both sides just adds to the circus, and takes away from any potential productive discourse/resolution.
At the same time though, ultimately, there is something abhorrent in the idea of any religion dictating their views so vehemently in a school/public/secular setting. If you are in support of a diverse, open-minded and accepting society, both historically and to this day, fundamentalist religions have always been, and remain, the greatest threat facing this.
My partner is a teacher in a very diverse part of London and has had issues contending with certain issues against the backdrop of fundamentalist religious communities, particularly around sexuality. She would never do anything as inflammatory as what this teacher has done, but she's found herself in a very uncomfortable scenarios where large portions of her class have openly rejected and criticised literary portrayals of certain relationships/individuals on religious grounds. Which is absolutely terrifying to anyone who happens to be a member of these communities that have always been the most marginalised/attacked, let alone for the students who are having to contend with identity issues of their own whilst in these environments.
Intolerance in all its manifestations is the greatest underlying threat to education, which demands an open-mind to people/communities/ideas in order to flourish. From whatever side, it ought to be confronted through open-discourse.
In this case, it's hard to see how anyone/group is in the right. Both will demonise the other leading to further distrust and disharmony in the communities impacted.
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.
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".
Yes all these things happened and Islamic terrorism is a real issue. But that doesn't mean labelling the majority Muslims as extremists is right or factually correct.
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.