The teacher from Batley is still in hiding

[Nicetrynigel]

Teacher Batley
His life ruined because a bunch of thugs decided they didn't like what he was teaching in his RE lesson.
This and the Labour MP's request for bhalsphey laws against those of the Abrahamic faith have made me concerned.

People should be free to offer an view against another's religion. It's scary that we are being a country where people thing being offended gives them a right to made death threats.

Though I personally oppose all religious influence in education I guess that's fair enough if the curriculum's drawn up to be of use in wider society, @WearyAuldWumman - especially if it's private, since people can spend their money on whatever legal provision they wish

I admit it wouldn't work for me, but then nobody's demanding that, or from what you said expecting that I subsidise it

We had very little visual imagery either but that was a long time ago and research in learning has moved on.
Now all types of learners ( kinetic,auditory and visual ) are understood and every effort to accommodate them should be met.

@StandingSideBySide I don't disagree with that at all.

The swastika was a Hindu symbol way before it became a Nazi one. And as such can be shown.
Personally I believe all religions should be disrespected, dissected, and blasphemed equally.
This is a secular country and we have always made fun of religion and we always should. It's what makes the UK great. I say this as a second gen immigrant.

Agreed.

The UK still has blasphemy laws (Northern Ireland). Scotland only got rid of theirs this year.

You're deluded if you think the UK (and specifically England) is a secular country. We have an official state religion and our head of state is also head of the church. Senior officials of the state church sit in our legislature simply by right of office. A vast number of publicly-funded schools adhere to the state religion and are permitted to actively discriminate against children of other religions. Even schools that do not adhere to the state religion must by law perform a daily religious service.

I think that religions can certainly request different things from others (including people who don't belong to that religion) just like different people can require and request different accommodations. We make accomodations as required for people to function effectively and be happy. Why is it any different for a religion? If a certain religious organisation is offended by me doing something that I don't have to do (or even want to do aside from making an unnecessary point), why wouldn't I refrain from that action? Yes of course, I can do what I want. I could also decide to not give people the accommodations they ask for. Of course I don't have to turn up the volume for someone who is hard of hearing, but why would I want to deliberately do something to hurt someone else? Doesn't being good to others count anymore, or is the most important thing just doing things because we can?

More secular than most? More secular than countries that have blasphemy as an offence certainly. Will that work?

Anyway, I haven't RTFT but am horrified by posters who say the teacher "fucked around and found out." If you are going to have any sort of critical thinking, you need to criticise religion, and yes, caricatures of any religious figure ought to be allowed.

And granted the UK is largely a secular country now, and this is fine but I also don't understand the necessity to question and criticise other people's belief systems. Why is that necessary? People are free to believe (or not to believe) in whatever they want. But why do people get offended by other people's beliefs? If people are fully confident on their decision to not believe in any religion, they should be confident enough that other people choosing to believe shouldn't make them feel uncomfortable.

Caveat, again, no death threats should result from people believing or not believing in a religion but making accommodations for a religion should no more threaten people's rights than making accommodations for people who need them.

How does this work in real life? Should people stop eating beef because I find it offensive, according to my religious dictats? Or even stop bringing meat to the office, ditto?

No there should be no accomodation given to the beliefs of a religion if you don't profess that faith. I'm a Hindu too and I've eaten beef my whole life and so have all my family. So what? Roast beef is part of the traditions of this country. It's not up to me, the descendant of immigrants to impose my values on the native population. Muslims clearly haven't inculcated this. With Islam it's clear, their attitude is entirely uncompromising: my way or the highway. Islamic ghettoes revolt me.

Honestly I'm fed up to the back teeth of Islam, I really am. No other religion has followers that behave like this. The level of violence and bigotry perpertrated in the name of this religion is off the scale.

Any religion should be free to be criticised. Drawn a pornographic cartoon of two Hindu gods having gay sex if you want to, it should be allowed, so should cartoons of Islamic figures.

I am appalled at the people in this thread suggesting the teacher did something wrong. Nothing good will come from the spread of this awful religion in the UK. Nothing. In fact a signficant level of malaise is much more likely.

Indeed, for some Hindus, beef is a delicacy. And not for others. Regardless, no one should have to tiptoe around me because they eat meat and I don't.

I am all for pornographic cartoons of Hindu gods and goddesses personally. Knock yourself out, I say. If I am so offended, I won't look at them. ( I won't be).

My personal experience is if you give religion an inch, it will take a mile. We shouldn't be giving it any quarter and should be encouraging critical thinking.

We make accomodations as required for people to function effectively and be happy. Why is it any different for a religion?

Because, as in the example you gave, accommodations/adjustments are most commonly regarded as something we offer for diabilities and other things we "can't help", whereas religion is a choice

We can (hopefully) respect the right to make that choice, but it needn't necessarily involve respecting the choice itself if that makes sense

We still have blasphemy as an offence in part of the UK. No prizes for guessing which part.

I think it's about how you treat people and not yourself. So it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to stop eating beef. If you were however attending an event by a Hindu person who didn't eat meat, I think it would be unmannerly for you to attend and insist on eating beef. Or if you were in a Hindu temple or right on front of it, you could insist on eating beef at that very spot as is your right to do so, but I think that wouldn't just be a very respectful thing to do since there are a million other spots you could eat your meat. Just like I wouldn't sit beside an allergic person and eat stuff that makes them ill or irritated them, just because it's my right to

It's not up to me, the descendant of immigrants to impose my values on the native population.

As an immigrant, I fully agree with you.

I think that's the thing. It's only something you can "help" from your perspective. From someone who is devout, it's so much a part of them that they can't "help" being the way they are. I mean, technically speaking, a lesbian can "be with" a man, doesn't mean she should be required to because she can technically "help" it

This is an actual serious question, and yes I know I can probably Google, but what do people mean by critical thinking?

Is it something only practised by people without faith/religion?

In that vein, should there be accomodations given to others with a disability that you don't possess?
I mean I definitely don't think other people should be made to not eat beef, in your example. But is it too much to ask, for example, that it's not eaten in front of a Hindu temple?

I took assemblies before I retired and none of mine were religious services. That was Scotland, however.

My late father was an immigrant and I know for certain that he took this view.

It is indeed a complex subject and not easy to define. I understand what you are saying.

But we question science. Hence why we have peer review, trials and so forth. It seems incredible to me that we don't question religion or what was said in books written thousands of years ago.

A school is a place where we should question religion, I think.

The intolerance in the name of tolerance is astounding.
We are losing a grip on our freedoms at a rapid pace and it's frightening. The poor teacher.

From someone who is devout, it's so much a part of them that they can't "help" being the way they are

I can see where you're coming from, @Barakata, but it doesn't really alter the "choice" aspect - unless someone's from the kind of background where appalling acts will follow if they don't toe the accepted line, and that's a whole other subject in itself

There's also the important point that it's not devout believers who are behaving like this, since the truly devout follow the teaching of the Holy Quran and that includes loyalty to country, tolerance, obedience to government and much more which is admirable

As I keep pointing out it's really not Islam which is fostering the diificulties we see but some among communities themselves, and sadly that's very often the kind of men for whom twisting the faith out of all recognition suits just fine