Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest

[Gehrman]

as opposed to religious institutions pissing off millions of people by covering up and condoning child abuse among many other things
satire (even in the form of cartoons) is a reasonable, non violent demonstration of opposition to such things
dont satarize things you disagree with as it will upset people is a poor poor argument.
you have to talk about things you disagree with and not on the terms of the people you disagree with.
If you allow the people you disagree with to set the terms, you never change society.

We wouldn't have got anywhere as a society if we were never allowed offend religious feelings and orthodoxy. I don't think there is merit in offense for the sake of offending, but sometimes you have to say things that are true, necessary or rational that will offend people who are religious. Religion have traditionally been one of the most oppressive tools in history and still is in parts of the world, so if we can't say what we think about religion here in Europe then where else can or should we?

 

[calodo2003]

Totally baffling how some in here argue that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to mock religion. Being able to do just that is critical. The fact that it can be in bad taste is completely beside the point and shouldn't be accepted as an argument at all.

And some in here try to claim the loftier moral ‘liberal’ high ground by insisting that censorship should be the answer.

 

[calodo2003]

We wouldn't have got anywhere as a society if we were never allowed offend religious feelings and orthodoxy. I don't think there is merit in offense for the sake of offending, but sometimes you have to say things that are true, necessary or rational that will offend people who are religious. Religion have traditionally been one of the most oppressive tools in history and still is in parts of the world, so if we can't say what think about religion here in Europe then where else can or should we?

It wasn’t called the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ for nothing.

 

[manc exile]

So the way to demonstrate is to make cartoons of a prophet. It seems to me the aim of this is just to piss people off rather than have constructive debate.

The french have tried this and it has lead to more people dying. It’s not free speech is it really it’s almost inciting hatred the other way around, like an almost childish tit for tat.

Child abuse and everything else is horrendous however it will not get solved by drawing cartoons.

However as in the case of the child abuse gangs the report that the police didn’t want to pursue the abuse gangs because of racial tension is absolutely shameful and how the force hasn’t fired a load of officers is ridiculous.

making cartoons of the prophet or of anyone is one way to demonstrate.
How effective the cartoon is will only be judged by history.
I have a feeling it will not be judged effective, but that doesnt mean people shouldnt be allowed to do it.

by the way not everything i am posting is directed at islam.
the post about child abuse was about the catholic church and their cover up of paedophiles.
in that case cartoons and satire did have an effect on bringing about change and that satire faced the same arguments from christians that muslims are now putting forward.
for an example of the level of satire involved see the following link and keep in mind over a billion people think the target of the song is gods representative on earth

 

[Gehrman]

It wasn’t called the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ for nothing.

There is also the point that if we can't express our views on religion here, then who are the people who are actually living under religious oppression in other parts of the world going to look to for support?

 

[calodo2003]

There is also the point that if we can't express our views on religion here, then who are the people who are actually living under religious oppression in other parts of the world going to look to for support?

Careful now, can’t poke the religion bear too hard. Can’t criticize an adopted belief people acquire at some point during their lives.

 

[Penna]

If people want to mock religion and ridicule people who have a religious faith, there is a thread just for that purpose. This isn't it and it gets a bit wearing to hear the same old insults over and over again.

 

[Raoul]

The only reason religious retain their stranglehold on secular society is because of fallacious arguments like the one you just made. Religious schools aren't better at educating kids purely because they are religious, and if a religious education actually DID make kids learn other subjects better it would still be counter-balanced by the negatives of the religious indoctrination. Do religion on your own time, don't force it into kids brains at school.

Or at a minimum, do it in a way that teaches about all major religions equally by describing what each religion believes without privileging any one over the other. Include atheism and agnosticism as well.

 

[calodo2003]

If people want to mock religion and ridicule people who have a religious faith, there is a thread just for that purpose. This isn't it and it gets a bit wearing to hear the same old insults over and over again.

But it’s not necessarily divorced from the topic here, the negative influence of religion on secular education. My comment was a bit snarky, I apologize for that & will refrain from such continued tone in here, but, in my opinion & in my experience (especially in my country, evidenced by the links I have submitted), such religious interference in secular education has been a detriment to education itself.

 

[Gehrman]

If people want to mock religion and ridicule people who have a religious faith, there is a thread just for that purpose. This isn't it and it gets a bit wearing to hear the same old insults over and over again.

I think apart from any updates on how the teacher may have taught his class coming from the words of the teacher himself, i don't really think there is much else than can be added to the thread that hasn't been added already.

 

[Smores]

Thread still going

The last couple of pages argument seems to be that we have to be able to mock religion and religious institutions. The issue here isn't that though is it? If there was this outcry over mocking elements of Islam or religious leaders then that would be valid.

Can people not accept they can mock/satire Islam without drawing the prophet? If not, why?

 

[Penna]

But it’s not necessarily divorced from the topic here, the negative influence of religion on secular education. My comment was a bit snarky, I apologize for that & will refrain from such continued tone in here, but, in my opinion & in my experience (especially in my country, evidenced by the links I have submitted), such religious interference in secular education has been a detriment to education itself.

It is an academic subject, and it's probably taught in a much more interesting way now than it was when I was at school. It's good to show kids the similarities between the main Abrahamic religions, particularly between Islam and Christianity. I had no idea that Mary was a major figure in Islam until I spent time at work with a Muslim woman, who explained it all to me.

Religious education should never be about proselytising.

 

[Gehrman]

Thread still going

The last couple of pages argument seems to be that we have to be able to mock religion and religious institutions. The issue here isn't that though is it? If there was this outcry over mocking elements of Islam or religious leaders then that would be valid.

Can people not accept they can mock/satire Islam without drawing the prophet? If not, why?

There are already numerous famous examples of this leading to similar escalations.

I think as a nobody on internet you can say pretty much anything these days, but it changes if you are public person and you garner a lot of attention.

 

[calodo2003]

It is an academic subject, and it's probably taught in a much more interesting way now than it was when I was at school. It's good to show kids the similarities between the main Abrahamic religions, particularly between Islam and Christianity. I had no idea that Mary was a major figure in Islam until I spent time at work with a Muslim woman, who explained it all to me.

Religious education should never be about proselytising.

Totally agree. It can be taught in various ways; one of my most interesting courses in high school was a comparative religion course. It was taught through the comparison of distances the adherents travel for their religions (by comparing the different pilgrimages which exist in almost all religions, it gave an interesting base line from which to compare the basic tenets of each religion). This is the method it should be taught. Religion can be taught ‘about’ in secular schools, it should have no impact on the curriculum / developing future curriculums within said schools even if teaching about a specific religion might cause some offense or uncomfortability within the students.

 

[Penna]

Totally agree. It can be taught in various ways; one of my most interesting courses in high school was a comparative religion course. It was taught through the comparison of distances the adherents travel for their religions (by comparing the different pilgrimages which exist in almost all religions, it gave an interesting base line from which to compare the basic tenets of each religion). This is the method it should be taught. Religion can be taught ‘about’ in secular schools, it should have no impact on the curriculum / developing future curriculums within said schools even if teaching about a specific religion might cause some offense or uncomfortability within the students.

Yes, teaching "about" religions can only be positive. As a teacher, you can do that with ease without showing any offensive material about any religion, and it would be a much more useful way of educating, in my opinion.

If children are in families where they are being told that Jewish people are evil, or Muslims or Catholics, education should be there to provide an objective perspective to help them make up their own minds.

 

[calodo2003]

Yes, teaching "about" religions can only be positive. As a teacher, you can do that with ease without showing any offensive material about any religion, and it would be a much more useful way of educating, in my opinion.

If children are in families where they are being told that Jewish people are evil, or Muslims or Catholics, education should be there to provide an objective perspective to help them make up their own minds.

And that’s why the cartoons, in my opinion, could help young people think differently about those who they may have implicit or unintentional biases against. They could see the absurdist nature of the cartoons (all satire has some amount of absurdity) & ask why are fellow humans being portrayed by that. Such a lesson could certainly harden already developed biases, no doubt, but so could not teaching ‘about’ religion at all, teaching with no religious interference or bias. There’s the potential of the betterment of the non-believers that is of considerable import here.

Just hope this whole situation doesn’t hinge on a thick idiot teacher with no apparent class teaching something he shouldn’t have due to his inability to do so or it’s a situation of mistruths spread by a student(s) causing some manufactured outrage that foments an extreme result like the French situation. Time will tell.

 

[Grinner]

There are already numerous famous examples of this leading to similar escalations.

I think as a nobody on internet you can say pretty much anything these days, but it changes if you are public person and you garner a lot of attention.

Everybody is a public person these days. There is no anonymity.

 

[Gehrman]

Everybody is a public person these days. There is no anonymity.

I mean authors, journalists, politicians, artists etc. On places like Twitter people spew whatever they want with no consequences.

 

[fergieisold]

Yes, teaching "about" religions can only be positive. As a teacher, you can do that with ease without showing any offensive material about any religion, and it would be a much more useful way of educating, in my opinion.

If children are in families where they are being told that Jewish people are evil, or Muslims or Catholics, education should be there to provide an objective perspective to help them make up their own minds.

The drawing muhammad stuff has become a bit of a weird beacon for free speech. I'm all for people being able to ridicule aspects as islam ala Charlie Hebdo, but I don't think we really need to teach tolerance by teachers presenting material they know will cause problems to pupils from certain backgrounds.

The best way to approach this is to teach the kids in detail about case studies like the Charlie Hebdo incident in the hope that in the real world when they do come across that kind of thing they don't think it's ok to go around chopping peoples heads off.

 

[Grinner]

I mean authors, journalists, politicians, artists etc. On places like Twitter people spew whatever they want with no consequences.

That really isn't true. 'ordinary' people have been outed for awful tweets and things. It's getting increasingly common.

 

[GBBQ]

That really isn't true. 'ordinary' people have been outed for awful tweets and things. It's getting increasingly common.

I would imagine the vast majority of bile on twitter goes unreported and no action is taken. Sure some people do get caught out for their views but they tend to be people who go by their own name on twitter and/or have their own photo.

 

[Gehrman]

That really isn't true. 'ordinary' people have been outed for awful tweets and things. It's getting increasingly common.

Well the things is you can be anonymous on twitter. Or even if you have your real name, people might not be able to find out who you are anyway. Regarding FB all this differs from country to country.

 

[Kentonio]

Or at a minimum, do it in a way that teaches about all major religions equally by describing what each religion believes without privileging any one over the other. Include atheism and agnosticism as well.

Yeah that's fair. I just got a bit triggered by someones suggestion of not teaching string instruments in a UK music class. That kind of thing really gets my temper fraying.

 

[Roane]

Yes, non-religious folks should control secular education. How can you think otherwise? As I said, religion should be taught about in secular education (like in a Religion & Ethics course), but it should have no determination regarding the curriculum. It’s bafflingly absurd to think that it should in any way. In no way should religion dictate terms to a secular school or school board, any religion.

You say you can’t research the Batley school, but you are opining on the RE & specifically how it fits into the school’s curriculum? Please elaborate.

Again, if you can’t see that the minutiae is stifling a larger debate, I don’t know what to say. It could very well be an overzealous lout of a teacher proselytizing against Muslims; if this is the case, the teacher should be expelled. But, if it is shown that the teacher was the cause of the furor, then the materials that caused the furore should be allowed to stand & more care given to how the materials are used in the future.

But the materials shouldn’t be censored due to a thick cnut teacher. Like you said, they’re just materials. You shouldn’t hold anything against them specifically.

Ok. As a basic definition secular would be to separate church (or religion if you prefer) from state. The National curriculum is set by the state by the education secretary and various committees, in England.

Now as far as I know RE is a curriculum or syllabus subject but isn't part of the National curriculum. The only other subject is elements of PSHE, sex education I believe.

RE specifically, in England has to be heavily Christianity based but other religions are discussed/taught. I personally would argue that christianity (the religion of England) does play a part in almost every sphere of England but then why not. The uproar over one very small (some would say minutaie ) subject is imo frankly ridiculous. Especially some of the responses that make it sound Islam is running England. I would also argue that your question about why I would think otherwise? Is itself dictating your terms. Which bar a wider level I have mentioned I find kind of ironic because (and not you here) it's a sort of don't donas they say do as we/l say.

Secondly the Handsworth document I referenced was the first I found to highlight that all schools have a guidance document for teachers (for RE) and in my experience tend to be very similar in all schools. I would have liked to read the Batley school document to see the guidance for teachers but can't find it online. Now IF the Batley guidance also has a bit saying don't use shocking material (as shown in the Handsworth one) then the teacher should have used a different method. That guidance is not set by religious folk either but a committee of folk from a cross section of the local community. Again this detail is crucial in that the committee has to represent the locality of the school. Again this does not include the right not to discuss or teach certain topics/subjects just that they are done in a neutral and non offensive manner. So for example guidance on how to deal certain Jewish scriptures is mentioned. It doesn't say you can't, just show respect. Here again I agree.

Thirdly the minutaie is important in a thread that is about a particular case, I'm happy to have just a wider discussion but wouldn't that be taking it off course? And my "research" shows that what was presented early on in the media (and I think a stance that has been taken based upon) may not be the case. I referenced the sun USA and personal dialogues with people close to the incident that showed there are wider issues and more detail. Including that the material may have been used for a couple of years with no issues previously. As always the devil is in the detail (nompun intended).

 

[Roane]

There is also the point that if we can't express our views on religion here, then who are the people who are actually living under religious oppression in other parts of the world going to look to for support?

This always makes me smile. We went from a society that was about "let's go show these backwards heathens our religion is best" to "let's go show those backward folk our democracy is the best"

 

[Roane]

There’s the potential of the betterment of the non-believers that is of considerable import here.

So you replace one minorities rights over another's?

Explain

 

[Gehrman]

This always makes me smile. We went from a society that was about "let's go show these backwards heathens our religion is best" to "let's go show those backward folk our democracy is the best"

I'm not really sure what you're referencing? The crusades and Iraq and Afghanistan? Anyway this could quickly go off-topic. Might be more suited for one of the religion threads. I wasn't encouraging violently asserting liberal values.

 

[Roane]

I'm not really sure what you're referencing? The crusades and Iraq and Afghanistan? Anyway this could quickly go off-topic.

Any of the methods used by various people to "teach" another people's that their religion was the best. So would include missionary efforts, politics and warfare. Certainly not limited to Christianity.

The point was that societies always end up pushing an agenda. End religion and it will be something else

 

[calodo2003]

So you replace one minorities rights over another's?

Explain

Simply don’t think that religion can have a pressuring or bullying effect on curriculum within a secular educational setting. Every accommodation should be made for the religious beliefs of believers (attire, ability & time to pray, etc.), but beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to temper or amend the curriculum outright or put pressure on how future curriculum is devised.

To reiterate, I come from a region of my country that is still backwards in this regard & religion still has much undue influence in primary & secondary school secular educational curriculums. I abhor this. It’s a tad different here as the religious who are manipulating the secular curriculums are the majority in number & all non-believers in that specific flavor of religion are affected, whether they believe in a faith or not. We’ve been edging closer to removing the religious influencing on curriculum, there’s been progress, but it is far from steady or consistent. In the near term, I would predict a lurch back towards more religious influence in schools here with conservatives controlling more state & local legislatures. It’s something I don’t believe in & this obviously influences how I feel about the Batley issue.

 

[Gehrman]

Any of the methods used by various people to "teach" another people's that their religion was the best. So would include missionary efforts, politics and warfare. Certainly not limited to Christianity.

The point was that societies always end up pushing an agenda. End religion and it will be something else

I replied in the religion what's the point? thread not to go off-topic.

 

[Smores]

There are already numerous famous examples of this leading to similar escalations.

I think as a nobody on internet you can say pretty much anything these days, but it changes if you are public person and you garner a lot of attention.

I've not come across them but I'd be on the free speech side for those cases. It's just a bit of red herring in this discussion because the protest wasn't don't mock Islam. It's why the satire argument is crap too, there's endless cases you could use.

If they've a specific issue with their prophet being drawn then i think that's a reasonable request on society, not at risk of death or threat but something that causes a small protest sure. If a teacher made a student remove religious garb or leave the classroom I'd expect the same.

It's just about showing a little respect to others faiths. It doesn't need to extend to principles like free speech, that gets used far too often by the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons.

 

[Roane]

Simply don’t think that religion can have a pressuring or bullying effect on curriculum within a secular educational setting. Every accommodation should be made for the religious beliefs of believers (attire, ability & time to pray, etc.), but beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to temper or amend the curriculum outright or put pressure on how future curriculum is devised.

To reiterate, I come from a region of my country that is still backwards in this regard & religion still has much undue influence in primary & secondary school secular educational curriculums. I abhor this. It’s a tad different here as the religious who are manipulating the secular curriculums are the majority in number & all non-believers in that specific flavor of religion are affected, whether they believe in a faith or not. We’ve been edging closer to removing the religious influencing on curriculum, there’s been progress, but it is far from steady or consistent. In the near term, I would predict a lurch back towards more religious influence in schools here with conservatives controlling more state & local legislatures. It’s something I don’t believe in & this obviously influences how I feel about the Batley issue.

I think maybe the reason our views differ is the state of our countries with regards to education.

I had some insight on influence on curriculums from another poster and yeah I totally disagree with that

 

[Synco]

The "UK as a model of racial equality" thread has taken over, but anyway.

I asked my girlfriend, who is a teacher, what she thinks of the incident and how she'd handle teaching this topic. She teaches at a secondary/high school (age 11-20) with multi-national makeup and many Muslim students. It has the image of a 'tough school' in a 'bad neighborhood', but this is pretty much nonsense. The discussion was interesting, so I thought I share some of it.

The conclusion first: She wouldn't have shown the cartoons to her class and doesn't believe a satisfactory educational outcome could have been achieved that way. She would have tried a way where alienation of a section of the class is not a premise of the concept, and an understanding of the principles of secular pluralism can be built up slowly, if necessary.

It would be too much to summarize her reasons in detail, but just briefly, one central point was the question if the typical group divisions from outer society should be imported into the class (she says no).

Another point she made I want to share in its entirety, as I think it's a good one that hasn't been made here in exactly that way. From memory:

An obvious requirement for teaching any subject is a grasp of its most important aspects. In that sense, even though a school is a secular institution, teaching about religion and secularism still requires a good understanding of a religious POV. If a teacher is oblivious of (or disinterested in) what holding something sacred means to a religious person (both on a personal, emotional level and as a demand of one's own social group), he or she may be badly equipped to understand the social and intellectual dynamic of discussing blasphemy within a school class. If a teacher is even openly dismissive of religious sensibilities, she'd say it's a massive problem, and hard to see how it can go well.

(Finally, she has stressed that these are her own opinions, and also that a teachers' maneuvering room always depends on the working environment. So it's not about telling other teachers 'how to do it', but her own perspective from her own experience in the job.)

 

[Barnslig]

We went through the whole thing in 2006 & 2007 in college on the topic of free speech where we saw and discussed both Jyllands posten and the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Granted we had no muslims in our class. If I were a teacher and was going to the whole thing, I would give any muslims who don't want to join the option of being free to skip class.

I don't get it though, if it is clear in a religion that showing a picture of the prophet drawn by human hand is not allowed, why show the picture, especially when you have members of that religion in the class and local community. Talk about it sure, but why show it? Would mods allow the Charlie Hevbdo cartoons to be posted on this forum, given that I imagine there is a sizable muslim comunity here that would find the offensive?

It feels to me like saying to a class with some Jewish students let's eat some pork. There's nothing unhealthy about eating pork it's only banned in the Torah because pigs don't chew cud (An animal is allowed if it chews cud and has cloven hooves)

These religious rules may seem small and ridiculous to those who are not part of that religion, but are big deals for those that are.

The difference is the Jewish students would most likely just tell you they don't eat pork and move on with their day, while these people are violently going after a teacher for displaying a fecking cartoon. If seing a cartoon of anything messes up your day/life to this level, there are larger issues at play.

Surely you can see the difference here?

 

[Barnslig]

So the way to demonstrate is to make cartoons of a prophet. It seems to me the aim of this is just to piss people off rather than have constructive debate.

The french have tried this and it has lead to more people dying. It’s not free speech is it really it’s almost inciting hatred the other way around, like an almost childish tit for tat.

Child abuse and everything else is horrendous however it will not get solved by drawing cartoons.

However as in the case of the child abuse gangs the report that the police didn’t want to pursue the abuse gangs because of racial tension is absolutely shameful and how the force hasn’t fired a load of officers is ridiculous.

Jesus, caricature has been around for ages, and no religious group or other groups of people have had any issues with it until now. It's not a childish tit for tat.

And also, drawing cartoons and drawing this reaction from these extremists might get people to realize how barbaric and insane they are acting around the world, and start to put pressure back on them to be decent human beings?

 

[Olly Gunnar Solskjær]

Jesus, caricature has been around for ages, and no religious group or other groups of people have had any issues with it until now. It's not a childish tit for tat.

Right wingers get outraged at the very thought of Jesus (and Santa Claus) being depicted as anything other than white men.

 

[Dante]

Would you say all muslims are terrorists?

Would you draw all muslims are terrorists?

Because they're effectively the same thing. And the latter is what the cartoon is showing. Free speech has its limits when it comes to inciting persecution, particularly of an already oppressed minority. Caricatures of Jesus don't fit into the same category in majority (historically) Christian country.

 

[SirAF]

Right wingers get outraged at the very thought of Jesus (and Santa Claus) being depicted as anything other than white men.

This.

 

[Barnslig]

Right wingers get outraged at the very thought of Jesus (and Santa Claus) being depicted as anything other than white men.

When have we had threats of violence towards anyone that has drawn or displayed a cartoon of Jesus and/or Santa Claus, to the point they had to get police protection and were suspended from their job. Please provide proof.

 

[Barnslig]

Would you say all muslims are terrorists?

Would you draw all muslims are terrorists?

Because they're effectively the same thing. And the latter is what the cartoon is showing. Free speech has its limits when it comes to inciting persecution, particularly of an already oppressed minority. Caricatures of Jesus don't fit into the same category in majority (historically) Christian country.

No.
And no.

No one said that? However there can be no denying there's an ongoing theme here with Muslims. Personally I am of the belief that religion should be a personal thing, but should not affect public discourse and/or law making. If you want to be religious, go for it, but you being religious should not limit my freedoms in any way.