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.

Yes - thanks. Good to be reminded

This. It is not a religion of peace and tolerance. Not by what is said in their holy books, and not by what is practised by Muslim majority countries in the world.

Or perhaps it is the way they interpret the Koran to suit their agenda

Also if the prophet is so powerful and holy then he doesn't need these zealots to defend him and the religion?

Perhaps the authorities need to come down on them for a change and say this behaviour won't be tolerated

Did I hear right 6000 soldiers needed to protect the ceremony in Notre Dam - cor blimey

It's 6000 police and gendarmes, not soldiers. The ceremony is being attended by 50 heads of state - were you expecting a low key security operation?

But isn't the gist of this conversation about why fanatics and extremists of all shapes colours and creeds want to kill people - and I'm sure all these French cops have guns.

This!!!

This is a lesson on blasphemy and he was showing blasphemous images to teach that. These in my view are a necessary tool.
Or no one ever learns anything.
One only has to look back over this thread to see that lack of education in this area meant some people ( adults) thought all religions had an issue with images despite the fact the Vatican sell images of the Pope.

If we don’t understand what blasphemous is to other religions we remain ignorant.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this score @ARealitycheck

If you read my posts above I think youll find the meaning and purpose behind the stories referred.
They are not literal. That’s why education is important and why schools should be allowed to educate

It's logically incoherent to say that the parents and others threatening and bullying the teacher weren't justified in doing so and yet the teacher should not have used the image that caused offence.

Can you see that?

Some points to check to identify whether that argument is valid. Starting with:

Are death threats justifiable?

@Puzzledandpissedoff
They'll even speak about the terrible, undermining damage the authorities do in pandering to the worst elements, but you won't see anything about THAT in the media because it doesn't suit their narrative

Reminds me of a story years ago where a council (midlands?) decided not mention Christmas and called it winter festival or something, because of Muslims potentially taking offence.
Turned out to be some over zealous (non Muslim) council official who'd decided that, without actually consulting any Muslims, who were quite happy with referring to Christmas, what with living in England and all.

I think that might have been Stoke on Trent with their "Winterfest", @ThoughtfulSchooldays - or at least so it was said - but frankly it sounds the kind of thing only a public service committee could come up with

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rebranding-christmas-more-public-bodies-are-refusing-to-give-the-festival-its-name-for-fear-of-causing-offence-9923365.html

Read what I have posted all along. Those making threats are entirely wrong, but so was whoever thought the image in question was suitable given the likelihood of offence it would cause.

Those protesting do have the right to do so, just the way they did it was unreasonable. They should have had a sit down meeting with the school.

The protesters do have a right to meet with the head and explain their concerns. But just because they have concerns doesn’t mean their concerns are valid . The head and governors don’t have to concede to their religious views when deciding the school curriculum.

I also think that your position favours the people who are most threatening and aggressive in stating their offence. Most of us just put up with being offended from time to time

Did the use of the image come as direction from the education dept, Or was it a decision made by this school to use it?

From what I recall there had already been issues between the muslim parents and the school prior to this, in the circumstances it would have been prudent not to show an image which was already known for causing offence. Hence why I ask if it came from the education authority.

I don’t think your question re the Education dept is relevant ..
Why should a group of Muslim parents dictate what’s allowed and isn’t allowed?
Other groups don’t do that

I also think it is entirely missing the point to go on about the nature of the lesson. The response of the thugs has made it irrelevant. I may ( or may not) have thought the lesson was a bad idea . But now the poor teacher has been hounded and threatened and in fear of his life I quite frankly couldn’t give a s**t about the lesson. That is such a trivial point compared with the situation of the teacher.

It is entirely relevant. If that particular school was teaching the same subject as all the others in the area, but they were the only one to use that image. It would suggest a degree of thoughtlesness or even antagonism given the locality.

Please remove the mindset 'oh but we don't complain about pictures of jesus'. 'It's always the muslims getting their way'. It's about respect for all.

“ It's about respect for all.”

Sorry but I have no respect for the people in the Batley community who behaved in this way .

The ones who threatened the teacher? Me either. But nor do I have much respect if the school did go off piste with it's education material and use incendiary material that no other school was using.

There is no consensus that it was “incendiary “
Those are your words.

Well given the well known outcome right across the world, but especially Paris to the image. I'd like to think educated people, especially those teaching religious education would know how incendiary it was to a large section of that community.

That's my point. You can't simultaneously hold both points of view. They are directly contradictory.

If there is no justification for death threats, there is no justification for death threats.

You keep justifying the behaviour by saying the cartoons shouldn't have been shown.

Why shouldn't the cartoons have been shown?

Because they caused offence?

Is it ok to feel offended?
Yes, of course it is. It happens to people all the time that they feel offended by something that wouldn't concern the next person. Causes of offence are not universal. We have to accept that we can feel offended because not everyone believes in what we do. And that's OK.

But as we've already established it is not ok to issue death threats.

So if there is no justification for death threats what the teacher did is irrelevant, even if it caused offence. Even if he was aware it would cause offence. None of that can ever justify death threats. There is no, 'The teacher shouldn't have offended Muslims by showing the cartoon." There is no, "The school should apologise." That position is logically impossible.

There's an irony that people who are defending the protestors can't grasp what was essentially being taught in that class is the way to tolerance.

Of course you can respect both points of view in any argument. A little less serious example is two siblings fighting, and the parents well used phrase of 'I don't care who started it, your both wrong. it ends now'.

Both the school and those making threats were wrong imo. But neither seem willing to admit or address it.

But it's not. It's not an opinion is it?

Unless you are saying that the proposition 'death threats are never justified' is an opinion?

Is that what you are saying?

This is crucial to my being able to understand what you mean.