1clamairy
Not sure I would have heard about this, but Ricky Gervais posted about it.
https://www.rt.com/uk/519241-protest-britain-muslims-prophet-minister/
https://www.rt.com/uk/519241-protest-britain-muslims-prophet-minister/
2Bookmarque
>1 clamairy: That kind of thing makes my blood boil. Imposing your fantasy life on civic and civil proceedings is out of bounds. Getting all upset because someone pointed out an obvious flaw in your beliefs just makes you look like an idiot. In this case I mean the cartoon itself - what is it about Islam or Mohammed and the inability to be teased, parodied or laughed at? Are you that weak of character? Are you that unsure that your religion is the right one? Is your belief system so fragile that it cannot withstand the slightest brush of dissent?
Arghh!! I just can't engage with this stuff because it makes me insane.
Arghh!! I just can't engage with this stuff because it makes me insane.
3MadisonHowells 
Cet utilisateur a été supprimé en tant que polluposteur.
4paradoxosalpha
Abstaining from visual depictions of Muhammad isn't even a universal stipulation in Islam. People making these demands that non-Muslims "respect" the invisible majesty of their Prophet are Wahhabist creeps and cultural dunces.
5clamairy
>2 Bookmarque: & >4 paradoxosalpha: I agree with both of you. It's ridiculous.
6Cynfelyn
The teacher showed a cartoon originally published in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo as part of it's deliberately controversial satirical contribution to the French debate on secularism and blasphemy.
"Messages from parents shared with the Guardian suggest the image displayed in the religious studies lesson on Monday included a cartoon showing the prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb. Muslim leaders said if that was the case, it took the issue beyond a theological discussion about the prohibition of depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, and into the realms of Islamophobia by equating Islam with terrorism."
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/27/religious-leaders-and-politici...
The English Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting, shows pictures of two magazine covers, neither of them with a turban in the shape of a bomb. Interestingly, none of the other language Wikipedia sites I looked at showed any Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad, including the French, German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese or Japanese pages.
The Huffington Post article "These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over" is at https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newsp..., all of them magazine covers, and again none of them with a turban in the shape of a bomb. I've no idea whether the Muhammad cartoons continued inside the magazines.
I would be interested to know what this religious studies teacher thought was to be gained by using this as lesson material for a Year 9 class ("third form" in old money; 13-14 year olds). Would they have brought Lolita to a sex education class, or Song of the South to civics? There might be an age-appropriate context for this as educational material, sixth form perhaps, but probably not third form.
What I find depressing are the bad actors on both sides rushing to weaponise their useful idiots.
"Messages from parents shared with the Guardian suggest the image displayed in the religious studies lesson on Monday included a cartoon showing the prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb. Muslim leaders said if that was the case, it took the issue beyond a theological discussion about the prohibition of depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, and into the realms of Islamophobia by equating Islam with terrorism."
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/mar/27/religious-leaders-and-politici...
The English Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting, shows pictures of two magazine covers, neither of them with a turban in the shape of a bomb. Interestingly, none of the other language Wikipedia sites I looked at showed any Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad, including the French, German, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Chinese or Japanese pages.
The Huffington Post article "These Are The Charlie Hebdo Cartoons That Terrorists Thought Were Worth Killing Over" is at https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newsp..., all of them magazine covers, and again none of them with a turban in the shape of a bomb. I've no idea whether the Muhammad cartoons continued inside the magazines.
I would be interested to know what this religious studies teacher thought was to be gained by using this as lesson material for a Year 9 class ("third form" in old money; 13-14 year olds). Would they have brought Lolita to a sex education class, or Song of the South to civics? There might be an age-appropriate context for this as educational material, sixth form perhaps, but probably not third form.
What I find depressing are the bad actors on both sides rushing to weaponise their useful idiots.
7clamairy
Until we know for certain I would cut the teacher some slack. Was it not a great choice for an example? Clearly, given the reaction. Does he deserve the massive pile of shit he's getting? I seriously doubt it.
8LolaWalser
It's odd (or maybe it isn't?) that neither of the two Guardian articles on the matter mention the killing of the teacher Samuel Paty last October in Paris. Paty was decapitated by an 18-year-old Chechen in revenge for showing some of the controversial cartoons of Muhammad in class, to pupils of the same age as here, 13-14. I say it's odd because it's hard to imagine the teacher in this case hadn't heard of it, and if they heard of it... just seems like a foolhardy thing to do.
Important to note, however, that Paty showed the cartoons in the framework of a lesson on civics (if that's the English term), freedom of speech etc. IOW, it was part of the curriculum. (And he also prefaced the lesson warning that some students may find the material offensive and in that case they were free to exit the classroom.)
It's not clear that was the case here? That it was something officially a part of the curriculum and not just a teacher's whim, I mean?
Important to note, however, that Paty showed the cartoons in the framework of a lesson on civics (if that's the English term), freedom of speech etc. IOW, it was part of the curriculum. (And he also prefaced the lesson warning that some students may find the material offensive and in that case they were free to exit the classroom.)
It's not clear that was the case here? That it was something officially a part of the curriculum and not just a teacher's whim, I mean?
9paradoxosalpha
>8 LolaWalser:
I agree that the journalism seems deficient here. I too noticed the omission of the Paty murder, and in general the coverage raises questions for me about what happened at the Yorkshire school more than it supplies answers.
I agree that the journalism seems deficient here. I too noticed the omission of the Paty murder, and in general the coverage raises questions for me about what happened at the Yorkshire school more than it supplies answers.
10reading_fox
>8 LolaWalser: - I very much doubt that Hebdo is one of the official texts of the curriculum. UK schooling is quite dull in that regard. Teachers do have some degree of personal choice in what materials they introduce to emphasize the points they're trying to make.
