Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

The point is allowing people the freedom to follow their religion, at the same time as ensuring others are free from the constraints of it.
Yep, again that would be my ideal position...but...given the legitimate religious objection of a sub-set of the class to the content, the issue of freedom of expression could have been considered inclusively by using that very constraint as the basis for the discussion.
Hindsight again, I know.
 
I pretty much agree with Danny. on the actualities of any such lesson approach in this subject, I also think though going out of your way to be unnecessarily provocative is crass and foolish. Not because it risks being beheaded but for practical reasons. You don’t engage people in your ideas, open up discussion by offending them and everything they believe in.
Of course there is a big discussion and one I think that has been unfolding as to where this line is drawn. For some, the mere raising of certain issues may be deemed offensive. They cannot be afforded the moral wait to deny these subjects are discussed.

But was it a discussion? Do we begin the opening up of discourse by asking participants to ‘leave’ if they may find it offensive?

Those issues can be broached in a more more subtle fashion, though what a teacher in the 5th Republic of France is up to using these images to provoke debate is unreal.

We can’t approach the issues of Religion and some of its mendacious manifestations without being so crass?

eta - they’re supposed to be secular, right?
 
Can you imagine a context in which an educator could create a discourse on FoE without using a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat and inviting muslims to leave if they didn't like it?
I don’t think the teacher’s motivation, intentions or actions were relevant to the murderer or to the people spreading false rumours about him. I don’t think the speculation about his prudence is appropriate. And I don’t think the way you choose to describe his lesson is worthy of you.

A man was murdered for giving a lesson. By a murdering cunt. I know you want to put that to one side, but that’s not possible. The reason you are discussing his prudence is because he was murdered. That’s the relevant matter in all this: the murder.
 
But was it a discussion? Do we begin the opening up of discourse by asking participants to ‘leave’ if they may find it offensive?

Those issues can be broached in a more more subtle fashion, though what a teacher in the 5th Republic of France is up to using these images to provoke debate is unreal.

We can’t approach the issues of Religion and some of its mendacious manifestations without being so crass?

eta - they’re supposed to be secular, right?

You seem to be discussing this as an education issue, some are discussing it as a political issue. (They can of course overlap, but the difference is causing 'issues' in this thread I think.)
 
Yep, again that would be my ideal position...but...given the legitimate religious objection of a sub-set of the class to the content, the issue of freedom of expression could have been considered inclusively by using that very constraint as the basis for the discussion.
Hindsight again, I know.

Legitimate for them to stop themselves seeing it, not to prevent others. But, either way, understanding would be enhanced by seeing the material. (Accepting that some would prefer to follow their religion over advancing their understating.)
 
Yep, again that would be my ideal position...but...given the legitimate religious objection of a sub-set of the class to the content, the issue of freedom of expression could have been considered inclusively by using that very constraint as the basis for the discussion.
Hindsight again, I know.

How were you constrained by religion in any way? I was schooled Catholic, Mass once a week. Prayers every day. None of us took it seriously though. Constrained - nah! Not I.
 
Do you extend that to the teaching of evolution or the carrying out of dissections? Which other things do all students have to miss out on because some students (or, more often, parents) might object?
No, I don't think so.
Those topics would presumably arise in the content of a discipline's prescriptive, pre-published specification. In this country I suppose parents could attempt to get their kid withdrawn on a case-by-case basis?
 
I don’t think the teacher’s motivation, intentions or actions were relevant to the murderer or to the people spreading false rumours about him. I don’t think the speculation about his prudence is appropriate. And I don’t think the way you choose to describe his lesson is worthy of you.

A man was murdered for giving a lesson. By a murdering cunt. I know you want to put that to one side, but that’s not possible. The reason you are discussing his prudence is because he was murdered. That’s the relevant matter in all this: the murder.
I disagree. There is a valid discussion to be had around how freedom of expression is taught to kids in classes of mixed religions/ethnicities etc.
 
I don’t think the teacher’s motivation, intentions or actions were relevant to the murderer or to the people spreading false rumours about him. I don’t think the speculation about his prudence is appropriate. And I don’t think the way you choose to describe his lesson is worthy of you.

A man was murdered for giving a lesson. By a murdering cunt. I know you want to put that to one side, but that’s not possible. The reason you are discussing his prudence is because he was murdered. That’s the relevant matter in all this: the murder.
Yep, that's right.
I need to stop obsessing on lesson planning.
 
I disagree. There is a valid discussion to be had around how freedom of expression is taught to kids in classes of mixed religions/ethnicities etc.

If this actually is a more-than-averagely-subtle troll, it's in very poor taste.
 
I disagree. There is a valid discussion to be had around how freedom of expression is taught to kids in classes of mixed religions/ethnicities etc.
Not any more there isn’t.

If you ask me “was he prudent, yes or no?” I answer - that’s the wrong question. If you press me and say a yes or a no is all you’ll accept, then I choose yes because it’s important to be on the right side here. But I’ll then tell you to think again about where you’ve chosen to focus.
 
But was it a discussion? Do we begin the opening up of discourse by asking participants to ‘leave’ if they may find it offensive?

Those issues can be broached in a more more subtle fashion, though what a teacher in the 5th Republic of France is up to using these images to provoke debate is unreal.

We can’t approach the issues of Religion and some of its mendacious manifestations without being so crass?

eta - they’re supposed to be secular, right?

It'd take a minute to look at the picture, after which the sort of discussion you describe could still take place.

The difference between a scenario in which those who want to see the picture can do so, and one in which nobody is allowed to see it, is that, in the former instance, some would be better informed (others having chosen not to be), whereas, in the latter instance, nobody would be as informed - levelling down so as not to offend some people's religious beliefs.
 
I don’t think the teacher’s motivation, intentions or actions were relevant to the murderer or to the people spreading false rumours about him. I don’t think the speculation about his prudence is appropriate. And I don’t think the way you choose to describe his lesson is worthy of you.

A man was murdered for giving a lesson. By a murdering cunt. I know you want to put that to one side, but that’s not possible. The reason you are discussing his prudence is because he was murdered. That’s the relevant matter in all this: the murder.

murdering cunt yes, but did you address or even consider the question asked?
 
I think, in general, you need to say less. Or think a bit more before you post.

so the removal of Catholicism and Catholic schooling from modern UK curriculum would have meant... the absolute suppression of Catholic beliefs up to this very day.

care to think on that? KevThink theThink
 
It'd take a minute to look at the picture, after which the sort of discussion you describe could still take place.

The difference between a scenario in which those who want to see the picture can do so, and one in which nobody is allowed to see it, is that, in the former instance, some would be better informed (others having chosen not to be), whereas, in the latter instance, nobody would be as informed - levelling down so as not to offend some people's religious beliefs.

If you wanna show those images, and you wanna open up a debate upon the visceral impact of those images. Why not ask the parents beforehand?
 
so the removal of Catholicism and Catholic schooling from modern UK curriculum would have meant... the absolute suppression of Catholic beliefs up to this very day.

care to think on that? KevThink theThink
All it would mean is that Catholic indoctrination would only continue outside of schools, where it happens anyway. You've got a strange definition of suppression.
 
so the removal of Catholicism and Catholic schooling from modern UK curriculum would have meant... the absolute suppression of Catholic beliefs up to this very day.

care to think on that? KevThink theThink
I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, but has the removal of Catholic schooling from state schools led to the suppression of Catholic beliefs in France? It clearly hasn't, has it? Hence, btw, the likes of Charlie Hebdo having spent the last few decades lampooning the Catholic Church and its hierarchy.
 
I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, but has the removal of Catholic schooling from state schools led to the suppression of Catholic beliefs in France? It clearly hasn't, has it? Hence, btw, the likes of Charlie Hebdo having spent the last few decades lampooning the Catholic Church and its hierarchy.

a caveat, for sure, but this gone west. Way out west.

you’re possibly asking me to say that it’s negligible to lampoon a majority; be it ethnically, or religiously, or anything else.

are you asking me to take a stance on that?
 
If you wanna show those images, and you wanna open up a debate upon the visceral impact of those images. Why not ask the parents beforehand?

That's a difficult one, and will depend on the kids' age and understanding. You run the risk of parents imposing their religion on their kids.
 
Back
Top Bottom