Coming from a country that has a horrendous legacy of religious conservatism that we’re only just coming out of (with a shitload of ongoing hurt to deal with) it’s maddening for me to see excuses being made for religious fundamentalists throwing their weight around at schools.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon sparks Batley Grammar School protest
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Coming from a country that has a horrendous legacy of religious conservatism that we’re only just coming out of (with a shitload of ongoing hurt to deal with) it’s maddening for me to see excuses being made for religious fundamentalists throwing their weight around at schools.
This was secondary school so the pupils were between 13-18. We were probably around 16-18 when the cartoon crisis kicked off. We saw all the cartoons in class and discussed them and the crisis and the topic. No protests, no one harmed, no harm came from it. No calls for the teacher to be sacked.
If you want to read the how it all started here it is. The link contains the original cartoons at your own risk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
Last edited:
Remarkable.
Punished as in probably suspended/sacked. It's straight up being disrespectful to a large group of people. Teacher have a responsibility to be tolerant to all cultures and beliefs.
Do we already know what the context was of this particular class? Why was it shown? What was the teacher's goal?
Why bring up the age group of the school? The students from 4-14 weren’t in that classroom, it’s not like the teacher taught the class to the entire school body. It was obviously taught to the oldest kids. And how are you sure that the class didn’t have a positive, yet potentially heated, debate on the subject? Because a portion are up in arms?
The hyperboles don’t do anything here.
These excuses are only made for Muslims. I've never seen this much defending for evangelical Christians. On the Caf, that is.
Sparta is the true club of Rotterdam, the oldest Dutch football team and the only club from Rotterdam worth a damn in the history of Dutch football.
Religion & ethics class per sources like the Guardian.
I think the world would be a better place if we taught everyone that you shouldn't be offended by a drawing instead of to stop drawing things because it offends some people.
I respect a muslim who won't shake my wife's hand, because that's his religious belief and who gives a feck it's just a handshake. He should respect someone drawing Mohammad because that's fine in a secular society and feck it, it's just a drawing.
Why so serious. Seriously.
Alright, thanks.
They have a fantastic stadium too. Het Kasteel or "The Castle", a truly unique ground.
Louis van Gaal also played for them.
So, in other words, completely out of line for the teacher to bring up a religious & ethical topic to debate, obviously.
You didn't make that clarification until you were challenged. Can you see how this is a dangerous attitude?
To be fair, that’s probably because we don’t have any evangelical Christians posting on the caf.
Ah, thought it was 4-16 cause the video on the other page has a sign that says 4-16. Either way. Not sure which cartoon it was, either way, it's disrespectful to a large group of people. It's not illegal to be disrespectful. Its fine to a degree if you're a comedian doing offensive jokes. It's not ok for a teacher or a position of leadership to be disrespectful against a group of people.
I'm saying what could you possibly gain by using the picture in question? You can discuss the incident as history if you want without using the image.
Poor phrasing. But fair enough. Thought it was obvious what I meant.
I guess that's a good point, though I wonder if everybody here making excuses is a Muslim. I have a feeling non-religious people on the Caf are far more willing to defend Islamic conservatives than evangelical Christians.
For me that's a different question whether there was anything to be gained by it.
But as long as the intent wasn't malicious, I see no reason for an immediate sacking.
Religion & ethics class is the claim. We don't know anything more beyond that, including what else might have been discussed or shown in the class and whether or not the pupils were given any forewarning.
First of all my our own teacher did it. And it was not to be disrespectfull. It was to show us what it was all about. The point is that it is legal, so far anyway, but hardly anyone dares to do so because they know that they will be hunted for the rest of their lives. So therefore we have essentially have deadly vengance for blasphemy, but behind the back door.
I think there's a big difference in using it from an educational POV as a teacher, and as a random artist or satirical comic or whatever.
But to your first point, isn't it the same thing as how same-sex marriage was such an issue for so long? Telling them we can make fun of you, deal with it and don't get offended by it? Shouldn't the answer be don't make something offensive in the first place? Especially when literally the entire purpose of the thing in question was to offend someone.
Cheers. Other people may see such a comment and agree but have a worse interpretation of what punishment means.
What if non-Muslims in the class learned more about their own islamophobia & became better, more accepting, more tolerant people because they were shocked at the cartoon & understood more through the debate, would that not be a positive?
That's true we don't know much about it past the alleged images used. A quick Google at a hebdo image doesn't strike me as appropriate for someone in those ages though, especially if it's something that'll disrespect a larger group (but again, fair to say we don't know context of how it was used).
Why isn't there any mention of the imam and protesters being covidiots in this thread? Why aren't they being tackled by the police? According to the daily telegraph they were 100 on day 1.
The more extreme people are trying to use this is a platform to protests against same-sex relationships being taught about. The focus needs to be on the teacher's actions and not what is taught in science class.
Brought up the ages as I think its very reasonable to say what is appropriate for certain ages and not for others? Fair to assume it was the older group, but even 14-16 year olds, it's pretty questionable using it (IMO, after doing a Google search over what the images could be).
I dunno though. Using the image I don't see it as beneficial to the actual discussion. How it probably goes is:
- this artist made this image
- People got offended, and it escalated into a tragedy as a result
So, correct me if I'm wrong but usually with religion the aversion to depiction of key figures is in place to avoid idolatry. Christianity supposedly has it (except they don't which is immediately apparent anytime you walk into a church) and Islam certainly does by the reaction to these cartoons. Yet, isn't there some irony or hypocrisy in the strong reaction to the cartoons that would suggest some form of idolatry already exists? Like, if Mohamed wasn't so extremely revered the reaction wouldn't be as strong?
Can't recall any events of people taking something out of context especially when religion is concerned...
Racist? Religion is not race. I think it's pretty racist to act like non white people have no influence on what and how they believe and can't be held responsible for their choices regarding religion and can't be expected to show the restraint a multireligious society requires.
Christianity does not have the same history of religious intolerance either and that's the problem here. No one is forcing muslims to have iconography in their mosques.
Freedom of religion and freedom of expression is a big deal too. The latter is part of the success of Westen societies that made muslims want to come to to enjoy the wealth, and the first is the reason the muslims were allowed in in the first place. Take it or leave it. As I said, the right of muslims to practice their religion is exactly the same right to not bother with religious rules and draw whatever you want.
If ever (in modern history at least) there was a good time to get some change done, now's the time. An aura of justification going to almost anything these days. Just get ready to hold on for all the improvements(""?) to western society we're about to witness in the coming years/decades. Maybe, just in case
Not just on the caf. Although that’s presumably because Christians historically have had more privilege. So people are more willing to step up and defend those as they see lacking in privilege. Which is fair enough really.
Although I always find it weird that they’re willing to go in to bat for a religion with elements that are so at odds with progressive politics and that hasn’t matured and become more tolerant to the same extent as Christianity. There has to be some cognitive dissonance involved.
It's nothing to do with context but interpretation. A person with stronger beliefs and different cultural experience may take "punishment" to be something more harsh.
I'm sure there would be some backlash anyway, but I think there's a difference in the type of picture used. If it's one of the pictures that have Muhammed looking like a terrorist, or getting fecked in the ass (2 of the Hebdo cartoons, or whatever other comic it was), then it's probably a bad idea as not only are they depicting them in art, but it shows them either being monsters or getting embarrassed/brutalized/whatever. If it's just a normal picture depicting them in any normal (school appropriate) art, then yeah you'd still likely have some backlash from the more extreme people but I think most wouldn't care. Could be wrong.
Yeah we should probably start with a nice picture book of Mohamed doing things like visting the Grand Canyon and playing chess so that people don't take it so hard.
You honestly think that the 14-18 y/o demographic wouldn’t be able to better discuss race relations than their parent’s generation, that they wouldn’t be more accepting & open to opposing views? It seems to me this is a little like youth sports; let’s the kids find themselves without parental intrusion. The parents will always feck it up. I’d be curious to know the story of how the parents became aware of this lesson - did a child come home incredibly distraught & inconsolable or was it just told in passing to the parents who then became ‘outraged?’ Do we know anything about this? Or did the student(s) here lie to their parents to create outrage as occurred in France? You’re right, we just don’t know.
There would be a whole lot more good allowing the kids to hash out the debate sans parents imo. It’s not as if none of them have viewed extreme topics online or in media before & typically children are far more tolerant than their parents. Let’s not devalue how intelligent the kids are & coddle them through censorship.
Religion shouldn't be taught in school full stop. It's made up stories that belong in the dark ages. It should be completely ignored.