Blasphemy is blasphemy isn’t it?
Or are you going to be an arbiter on what images are okay and not okay now?
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.
Or are you going to be an arbiter on what images are okay and not okay now?
I guess the good thing about thread like this is you can easily spot who the racists areI am not? I was not protesting. I think in a free kind society it makes sense to listen to what offends someone and what doesn't and try and be inclusive. It's not that difficult?
Not even sure what your line of thinking is here. Because muslims are not offended at historical cartoons they should also not be offended are cartoons that portray them in the most negative light ever?
I’m pointing out the fact that the “rules” about depicting Muhammad changed. Which, for historical purposes, is something interesting to examine.
Also, there isn’t a consensus about if those Persian works are okay or not. Which, again, is an interesting thing to study.
Anyone who shows these cartoons in settings that cause controversy have no confusion about the rules whatsoever. I think consensus is formed on caricatures portraying stereotypes vs Persian art which was mentioned in the message earlier.
But if you're set on ignoring every bit of context and respect for others there is no changing that.
Strange post, the first part is a complete presumption, I should imagine that if Jewish students were told by their teacher to eat pork during class, there would certainly be a backlash and not just from the Jewish community.
The second sentence is just as weird it's not seeing a cartoon of anything, it's seeing a cartoon of the Prophet dressed in suicide vest. And people didn't go after the teacher violently, they protested outside the school, this is hardly a Samuel Paty situation.
Just because you can not see why something is upsetting or insulting, it doesn't mean it isn't.
So...we were less bigoted when people were overtly racist and bigoted?
Make it make sense.
Free speech debates around this are ridiculous as this was in a school setting.
If this was taking place in the public space, then fine. But as a teacher you can't just go around saying whatever you feel like and then claim your right to free speech in order to justify your actions. As with any job, you have to act professionally and that often means biting your lip/finding tactful ways to articulate certain topics.
Not getting into the "should he/shouldn't he have" debate, but justifying on the grounds of free speech is nonsense. That's not the issue here, as it was with CH.
If this was taking place in the public space, then fine. But as a teacher you can't just go around saying whatever you feel like and then claim your right to free speech in order to justify your actions. As with any job, you have to act professionally and that often means biting your lip/finding tactful ways to articulate certain topics.
Not getting into the "should he/shouldn't he have" debate, but justifying on the grounds of free speech is nonsense. That's not the issue here, as it was with CH.
Absolutely. It probably goes for most professional settings, but I find it especially obvious when it comes to teaching kids in a public school.
(Edit - as I just learned about the confusing terms of the UK school system: "public" as in state school.)
Last edited:
What you think doesn’t really matter though when there’s folks saying that all depictions of Muhammad are blasphemous... so, in that context...
Are people protesting Persian Art from 600-700 years ago?
Or are they protesting antagonistic CH cartoons which reinforce Islamophobic and racist tropes?
This place wasn't polluted by right wing nutjobs a few years back. Not surprised though.
What sort of what about-ism is this. I personally have not seen persian artistic depictions getting the same response as that of obvious stereotype/disrespect.
Persian art has no controversy of that sort associated to it. To you point it actually is educational and has historic value. This does not. If you can teach a class without navigating such a sensitive issue that frankly is not needed in a classroom you are the problem.
For some reason it was more common in Shia Islam a few centuries ago.
[/QUOTE]
Btw in Shia Islam you do not disrespect the name Ali. I know of an incident where shias got annoyed at a kids teaching material -- some basic reading books -- that had sentences like "Ali was naughty and stole from the market".
They, the sunni staff, changed the name Ali to something sense. Point is you do navigate around obvous sensitive issues when you can especially for kids. Had it been a certain teacher on this thread keeping the name "ali" would have been essential .
These posts imply that Muslims as a collective are acting in unison in nefarious ways. I see you have subsequently qualified them with the “I don’t believe all Muslims are terrorists” comment, but going forward you should really re-think how you approach this subject on here.
I think criticism of Islam and its' prominent leaders is getting misinterpreted with criticising individual Muslims.
Personally, I have issues about the Catholic Church, the Pope and its' administration, same goes for Orthodox Christianity and the Patriarchs. Their use of religion for political matters has been ongoing since their birth. So I share the same concerns about Islam and how the leaders can take advantage of their influence on politics by using the religion as a tool.
I have no problem with spirituality, beliefs, upholding traditions and cherishing your history. That's why I have no problem with people protesting about whatever the feck they feel like, it's a basic human right. I have a problem on the stigma of not discussing the problems that religion brings to societies and the reason why countries started becoming secular in the modern era.
Personally, I have issues about the Catholic Church, the Pope and its' administration, same goes for Orthodox Christianity and the Patriarchs. Their use of religion for political matters has been ongoing since their birth. So I share the same concerns about Islam and how the leaders can take advantage of their influence on politics by using the religion as a tool.
I have no problem with spirituality, beliefs, upholding traditions and cherishing your history. That's why I have no problem with people protesting about whatever the feck they feel like, it's a basic human right. I have a problem on the stigma of not discussing the problems that religion brings to societies and the reason why countries started becoming secular in the modern era.
Nice attempt at a straw man there.I’d be very interested to see your argument then if the Persian depictions get pulled up for being shown.
Not seeing your point again. Who cares what differences there are inside a religion? Such differences don’t mean non-believers need to change the name ‘Ali’ to something else.
Are you a Muslim? A few here have said they are, I just cannot remember if you were one of them.
You sure do like spinning fantastical yarns out of whole cloth, don’t you? Not the intra-religious relations machination story because I couldn’t give a feck about that, but your tales of @Carolina Red & how his lessons would ‘obviously’ go.
Indeed. The rules seem to have changed with the popularity of mass printed media.
So which cultures make it wrong?
The rules have always been the same for Sunnis, as I said Shia Muslims were more relaxed. I think they still are.
I mean you don't have to look far. Wikipedia used to have those Persian pictures of Muhammad on its profile of the Prophet. It didn't cause a global boycott of Wikipedia, outside of a very tiny minority, and it was eventually edited out years after the fact and wholly under the radar.
I really think you're trying to find something in Muslims that just isn't there. Pictures of the Prophet are a big no no, and a non-conversation from the get go, but that hasn't stopped certain cultures doing as such in the ensuing generations. No one but the most extreme minority of Sunnis call Shias heretics or infidels, and the issue with the Hebdo and Danish cartoons was the reductive and disgusting stereotyping of Muslims they portrayed.
You said that rules on depicting Muhammad changed and that it is only recently the case that it wasn't seen as acceptable and that they should be shown in a class setting as a means to educate. By that logic, caricatures of Jews were seen as being acceptable as late as the turn of the 20th century, will you be sharing those caricatures in your class as well?
At no point in history would a cartoon like this not be deemed as disrespectful. Also, that's besides the point. The rules have also "changed" with what you can say at the workplace in 1950 vs what you can say in 2021.
No straw man for me. Maybe you need some self reflection if your response to a whole ethnicity getting offended is "they must learn to navigate such discussions. Not my problem". Because it's very important to display offensive caricatures in high school class room.
"Every student here matters. Except, well, some students. They should know better!"
And yet they did which was the point that went totally over your head. It's the idea of not offending a segment of the classroom to encourage, foster and develop an inclusive group of students where everyone feels welcomed.
Likewise, I am sure any qualified teacher has absolutely no problem getting their point across without having to offend. If they do, the motives are different.
That's the massive red flag for me in this whole sorry episode.
If someone can't be courteous and sensitive enough to fecking children during this whole sorry mess, then how can you rely on him to be professional, full stop?
And that's before we even consider what happened to the previous (and I'll be kind and refer him to his profession rather than what he really was) teacher who showed the cartoons in a classroom setting.
Teaching history will always elicit uncomfortability, even offense. It’s a fool’s errand to try to placate all parties involved to try to keep everyone from being offended, even if those offended are of a certain religion due to a part of their religion.
Makes total sense why you think all those who are taught should be free of uncomfortability or offense.
You just can’t stop with the absolutist, narcissistic rhetoric, can you?
How do you know if the behaviour of the teacher was appropriate or not? And what the feck does your last sentence mean?
I hope it's not what it looks like.
People have the right to be offended.
Others have the right to offend.
Others have the right to offend.
What might he ‘really’ have been?
Every time I teach a course on the Holocaust. It’s pretty integral to the study of dehumanization.
1) Islam isn’t an ethnic group
2) Showing an example of blasphemy does not automatically equal some nefarious motive
3) You’re still trying to straw man
Watch out, Germans might get offended and don't want to be shown Holocaust material.
More absolutist rhetoric.
There are literally Muslims in this thread that have stated they couldn’t give a shit about the cartoons.
Why must you continue with such untruths?
Wether you agree or disagree with the cartoon. The teacher surely would’ve known the utter shit storm this would cause. He should be suspended for his stupidity alone.
These cartoons have been taught multiple times over the years throughout the world with no reactions akin to ‘utter shit storms.’ There might have been offense or uncomfortability, but these extreme reactions seem rare, not the norm. And offense or uncomfortability isn’t enough to temper curriculum inside relevant courses.
Devout Muslims are not known for their sense of humour when it comes to their faith. I’m not getting into a free speech debate because of course I’m for it. But drawing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in 2021 is such an obvious attempt to try to bait Muslims. The majority probably won’t care, but there are going to ones that do, a lot, so what’s the point? Just leave it. Why even run the risk? People have been beheaded for this shit.