Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[Spymaster]

So? Again, what is the problem with that? Spell it out. Was it racism for me to sit outside whilst everyone else sang songs about Jesus? I dont think so.

Stop banging on about racism. Nobody is suggesting that Paty or even the system acted in a racist manner. The point is that the system should not require school children of any religion to identify themselves for different treatment, optionally or otherwise.

 

[bimble]

Stop banging on about racism. Nobody is suggesting that Paty or even the system acted in a racist manner. The point is that the system should not require school children of any religion to identify themselves for different treatment, optionally or otherwise.

Why should it not? School is not a separate world. I just don’t get what you’re on about. Maybe it’s because of my experience that I don’t get what the problem is (was literally the only Jew at the CofE school).

 

[8ball]

It's well worth looking at some of these sites. You wouldn't believe the insecurity it reveals among some. Allah is bothered about the tiniest detail of certain aspects of their lives.

Sounds a lot like Catholicism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Stop banging on about racism. Nobody is suggesting that Paty or even the system acted in a racist manner. The point is that the system should not require school children of any religion to identify themselves for different treatment, optionally or otherwise.

what about for religious dietary requirements, eg no pork or fish on fridays?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

what happened to god sending signs or where necessary angels? back in the good auld days the faithful always knew when they'd been contacted by burning bush or whatnot.

I think she's sent Covid-19 as a warning. I haven't decided what the warning is for yet.

 

[8ball]

what about for religious dietary requirements, eg no pork or fish on fridays?

Everyone has fish and chips on Friday, surely?!

 

[Pickman's model]

I think she's sent Covid-19 as a warning. I haven't decided what the warning is for yet.

beware the faithful

 

[Spymaster]

You're moving the goalposts (again); not long ago, your objection was on the fact that they were being 'outed'.

I don't think it was. Can you show me where you think I've argued that because I think this is a misunderstanding?

 

[Pickman's model]

Everyone has fish and chips on Friday, surely?!

'no pork', or 'fish on fridays'

 

[Athos]

Stop banging on about racism. Nobody is suggesting that Paty or even the system acted in a racist manner. The point is that the system should not require school children of any religion to identify themselves for different treatment, optionally or otherwise.

What an utterly desperate and bizarre hill to die on. Nobody would be identifying themselves as a Muslim; they'd already have been identified as such, from so many other sources e.g. explicitly, name, diet, cultural practices, etc., etc.

 

[chilango]

Let the teacher and the kids decide that, rather than imposing religious rules on them.

You're not (necessarily) imposing religious rules on them simply by choosing to use different material for the discussion.

 

[Pickman's model]

What an utterly desperate and bizarre hill to die on. Nobody would be identifying themselves as a Muslim; they'd already have been identified as such, from so many other sources e.g. explicitly, name, diet, cultural practices, etc., etc.

different from dying in a ditch i suppose

 

[Athos]

You're not (necessarily) imposing religious rules on them simply by choosing to use different material for the discussion.

You are if you're denying them access to what you consider to be the best material (as Paty presumably did), for no reason other than religion (I can't see any others).

 

[8ball]

'no pork', or 'fish on fridays'

Yeah, I got what you meant. Is just that it never would have come up for us because fish and chips on a Friday was a done deal, and you can always have an option that doesn't involve pork. It doesn't seem to me like this one needs to involve anyone identifying themselves (which I can see as a potential issue, but I'm not sure how you are meant to account for parental/student vetoes without anyone noticing that someone is suddenly not present in class).

 

[ignatious]

The semantics of the teaching method and tools used in the classroom seem to be largely irrelevant to me. The real ‘problem’ for the killer and his ilk was that the teacher/school/state dared, by introducing the very concept of freedom of expression, to question the primacy of their religious beliefs.

The use of the cartoons may have been a tipping point of sorts, but if you’re the sort of nutjob who’s prepared to decapitate a school teacher, the subject itself is going to be an issue, not just the subject matter.

 

[Athos]

I don't think it was. Can you show me where you think I've argued that because I think this is a misunderstanding?

All the guff about identifying Muslims.

 

[chilango]

You are if you're denying them access to what you consider to be the best material (as Paty presumably did), for no reason other than religion (I can't see any others).

You're not denying them access. There is easy access elsewhere.

You can choose not to show the CH cartoons because you know by doing so will prevent the whole class from participating on an equal basis. That's not imposing religious laws it's recognition that they exist and have an impact.

But, again, I'm talking about what I would do in the contexts I have experience of, not what someone else did somewhere else.

 

[Spymaster]

What an utterly desperate and bizarre hill to die on. Nobody would be identifying themselves as a Muslim; they'd already have been identified as such, from so many other sources e.g. explicitly, name, diet, cultural practices, etc., etc.

Sorry but this is more disingenuity. Nobody should be required to identify themselves by religion for different treatment by the system.

 

[danny la rouge]

The semantics of the teaching method and tools used in the classroom seem to be largely irrelevant to me. The real ‘problem’ for the killer and his ilk was that the teacher/school/state dared, by introducing the very concept of freedom of expression, to question the primacy of their religious beliefs.

The use of the cartoons may have been a tipping point of sorts, but if you’re the sort of nutjob who’s prepared to decapitate a school teacher, the subject itself is going to be an issue, not just the subject matter.

Precisely. And when I said that before I was told it was nonsense.

 

[brogdale]

What an utterly desperate and bizarre hill to die on. Nobody would be identifying themselves as a Muslim; they'd already have been identified as such, from so many other sources e.g. explicitly, name, diet, cultural practices, etc., etc.

They weren't only being asked to self-identify by the faith background of their family, they were (reportedly) being required to decide (in front of their peers) whether or not their family faith precluded a specific observation about viewing images of Muhammad.
Therein lies the danger and pressure from peers, peer families and the wider community. What happens to the child that, according to the Chechen 'boxing club' makes the wrong decision? The state does not need to place school kids in that jeopardy.

 

[Spymaster]

All the guff about identifying Muslims.

Ah, ok. You have misunderstood. See last post and here:

Precisely why they had to self-identify. Not the teacher's place in such a system to define them.

 

[Athos]

You're not denying them access. There is easy access elsewhere.

You can choose not to show the CH cartoons because you know by doing so will prevent the whole class from participating on an equal basis. That's not imposing religious laws it's recognition that they exist and have an impact.

Come on. Why teach kids anything, when it's all on the internet?!

What prevents all pupils participating equally is their choice to follow religious rules. The way to address that inequality is to resist religious rules, rather than leveling-down by preventing anyone seeing the material.

 

[Athos]

Sorry but this is more disingenuity. Nobody should be required to identify themselves by religion for different treatment by the system.

Nobody was required to do anything. They weren't even offered the opportunity to identify themself be religion; rather they were offered the chance to decline to see the image if it casued them offence, which doesn't apply to all Muslims, or only to Muslims.

 

[ignatious]

They weren't only being asked to self-identify by the faith background of their family, they were (reportedly) being required to decide (in front of their peers) whether or not their family faith precluded a specific observation about viewing images of Muhammad.
Therein lies the danger and pressure from peers, peer families and the wider community. What happens to the child that, according to the Chechen 'boxing club' makes the wrong decision? The state does not need to place school kids in that jeopardy.

Do you think the ‘Chechen boxing club’ lot would have welcomed the discussion about freedom of expression if the teacher had used a different discussion tool?

 

[Athos]

Ah, ok. You have misunderstood. See last post and here:

No, you just keep shifting around.

 

[Spymaster]

Nobody was required to do anything. They weren't even offered the opportunity to identify themself be religion; rather they were offered the chance to decline to see the image if it casued them offence, which doesn't apply to all Muslims, or only to Muslims.

No, you just keep shifting around.

Now who's getting desperate?

Anyway, I really am going to do some work now so I'll leave you with Brogdale and Chilango for now who are arguing the same thing.

 

[brogdale]

Come on. Why teach kids anything, when it's all on the internet?!

What prevents all pupils participating equally is their choice to follow religious rules. The way to address that inequality is to resist religious rules, rather than leveling-down by preventing anyone seeing the material.

No.
Children cannot/should not be expected to make public choices about which religious rules to follow in a setting of compulsory education. Have we all forgotten that there's no such thing as a (insert religion here) child; they're all children from (insert religion here) families.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Nobody was required to do anything. They weren't even offered the opportunity to identify themself be religion; rather they were offered the chance to decline to see the image if it casued them offence, which doesn't apply to all Muslims, or only to Muslims.

Maybe if the murderer had given the teacher the chance to decline being murdered we wouldn't be having this round-and-round discussion.

 

[chilango]

Come on. Why teach kids anything, when it's all on the internet?!

What prevents all pupils participating equally is their choice to follow religious rules. The way to address that inequality is to resist religious rules, rather than leveling-down by preventing anyone seeing the material.

It's not like the kids are being taught "how to draw Mohammed" is it? This insitence that they have to see the image, and that this has to happen in class or else you can't have a meaningful lesson is just plain daft

 

[xenon]

Sorry but this is more disingenuity. Nobody should be required to identify themselves by religion for different treatment by the system.

They don't have to.

If the offended faithful want to step out of the class, that's self identification and de facto system identification, granted.

Unless you're arguing nothing is ever taught that might lead to some members of some faiths feeling offended and thus identifying themselves through self exclusion.

You can't have both.