emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Replace 'take the piss out of' with talk about and that seems to be exactly what people are arguing.
Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
The bit I don’t see is why, when a teacher has been murdered in such a horrific and sickening manner, an assumption of intolerant anti-religionism is such a seamless step for you, given the fuzziness of the information we have.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Yes. And trigonometry.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
No one's denying it to anyone. No one (here) is saying ban it completely. That stuff is available all over the internet for anyone to look up and make their own call on. The objection is to seeking to identify minorities in school groups and giving them the option to leave.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oh ffs, here we go again. Is it really so difficult for you to see that I'm not suggesting that Paty was engaging in intolerant anti-religionism but my criticism was of Charlie Hebdo and people like some on this thread for whom the right to offend religious folk is just so fucking important?
likesfish
You can't park here sir
you don't have to like the fact that gay people exist.
But they do and you cant throw them off the roof of buildings no matter how much your Inman says too.
same with killing adulters unbelievers eaters of pork and kite flyers. But also people can't round you up and force you to convert or die. Which various breeds of religious fundamentalists should wise up too.
But they do and you cant throw them off the roof of buildings no matter how much your Inman says too.
same with killing adulters unbelievers eaters of pork and kite flyers. But also people can't round you up and force you to convert or die. Which various breeds of religious fundamentalists should wise up too.
JimW
支那暗杀团
See, I think CH's right to do that is important, publishing out there in a wider society, much as it's not my style. I see that as different to how you approach compulsory education in schools.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Oh really? Barely a minute ago it was about asking a section of the class to leave if they felt they would be offended.
And if the right to offend religious folk is unimportant, then they effectively control you with their ability to voice their offense.
That is different to there being a duty to offend people wherever possible in order to make that point, obviously (but it seems the obvious needs to be stated here).
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Good statement from the Secular Society. I’ve extracted sections. But it’s short enough to read.
(For the hard of thinking, they advocate constitutional and democratic principles I don’t share. But that does not stop me agreeing with the thrust of their argument here).
www.secularism.org.uk
“In this case the victim was not targeted for his own expression, but for sharing someone else's. The 2015 murders were an attempt to stop people from drawing Muhammad; this one was an attempt to silence even discussion about drawings of Muhammad”
“Islamic fundamentalism poses a global threat to freedom of expression and freedom of and from religion. In some countries it brings laws which punish blasphemy and apostasy with death. It's brought extrajudicial killings, such as that of Tahir Naseem earlier this year. As Gita Sahgal said this weekend, one response to this attack should be to reaffirm our support for those who resist it.”
“
Much of the liberal response to Islamist offence-taking in recent years has been a patronising insult to liberals and secularists from Muslim backgrounds.
Anybody who cares about living in cohesive societies where citizens enjoy fundamental freedoms should reject the normalisation of blasphemy taboos. And they should reject religious fanatics' attempts to dictate what can and cannot be taught. Samuel Paty died because he promoted critical enquiry. Those who wish to silence it can't be allowed to win.
(For the hard of thinking, they advocate constitutional and democratic principles I don’t share. But that does not stop me agreeing with the thrust of their argument here).
Brutally murdered for doing his job
The beheading of Samuel Paty, a teacher in France targeted for showing Charlie Hebdo cartoons to his students, was an appalling attack on critical enquiry. Read More »
“In this case the victim was not targeted for his own expression, but for sharing someone else's. The 2015 murders were an attempt to stop people from drawing Muhammad; this one was an attempt to silence even discussion about drawings of Muhammad”
“Islamic fundamentalism poses a global threat to freedom of expression and freedom of and from religion. In some countries it brings laws which punish blasphemy and apostasy with death. It's brought extrajudicial killings, such as that of Tahir Naseem earlier this year. As Gita Sahgal said this weekend, one response to this attack should be to reaffirm our support for those who resist it.”
“
Much of the liberal response to Islamist offence-taking in recent years has been a patronising insult to liberals and secularists from Muslim backgrounds.
Anybody who cares about living in cohesive societies where citizens enjoy fundamental freedoms should reject the normalisation of blasphemy taboos. And they should reject religious fanatics' attempts to dictate what can and cannot be taught. Samuel Paty died because he promoted critical enquiry. Those who wish to silence it can't be allowed to win.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Oh yes, because this couldn’t possibly be multi-faceted could it?
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
It could be. The facets seem to pop up at convenient times, though.
Edit: on re-reading I might have been unfair there, but at some points rants at alleged gratuitous use of the right to offend vs the exclusion issue haven’t been too clearly delineated imo
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I don’t see it as particularly important although I wouldn’t see it banned. They’ve as much right to their views as the BNP have to theirs.
Agree with your second sentence.
Last edited:
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Come on, it was a daft question. If you weren't expecting "Yes", why ask?Great, keep them coming.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Your problem, I'm afraid. A lot of other people get it completely and I'm saying absolutely nothing (except perhaps for my views on Charlie Hebdo and offending religionists) that about half a dozen others aren't.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
A lot of people don't get why this was your natural jumping-off point when a teacher has been murdered - that your sympathies seem to first jump to pupils who may feel uncomfortable, or offended religious groups, as the aggrieved party. Your choice of language has clearly portrayed your interpretation of what happened, and it isn't pretty. We don't usually find ourselves arguing that a murder victim merits the benefit of the doubt.
If you have beef with the French interpretation of secularism (which arguably gets weighted more heavily in the right to freedom from the strictures of religions cf. an equal tolerance on the part of non-believers to allow the faithful to peaceably practise their religion), then that is a discussion we have had before on here before, but this seems like a bloody odd time and place to be dragging it out.
I'm going to hazard a guess that at least half a dozen others concur on this, too.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well that's tough too then. I think the fact that primary sympathies are with the murdered man and that the killer and anyone like him are scum are so obvious that there's no reason to emphasise it. I think, as do others, that there's a valid discussion to be had within the debate regarding how children from minorites are treated and taught in schools. Urban isn't usually so affronted by these things. If you and others are, you can always exclude yourselves. No need to self identify.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Good point well made
Sweet FA
✪ Three rounds Lord, in my .44 ✪
Yep, and thank fuck for teachers like Samuel Paty who are brave enough to attempt have those conversations with the generation who can actually effect change.
It used to be said that if the French education minister looked at their watch they could say 'It's 11 o'clock and every child in France aged ten is studying vulgar fractions'. And it seems to still be partly true, though how much I don't know:
The French education system is characterised by a strong central State presence in the organisation and funding of Education. The French education system is regulated by the Department for National Education, Higher Education and Research. It governs within the framework defined by the Parliament, which states the fundamental principles of education. The State plays a major role in governance, as, by long tradition, the French education system is centralised. The State defines the details of curricula at all education levels; it organises the teachers' admissions procedure, defines content, recruits teachers who become civil servants, provides them with in-service training; it recruits and trains inspectors, responsible for controlling the quality of the education system; it is the main funding body of the public education system and subsidises "private schools under contract" which receive approximately 20% of school pupils.
I don't know if this means that Paty was going way off script (for want of a better word ) with his lesson plan or that up and down the country a similar class was taking place in a great many schools. Though perhaps not at the same time. It really doesn't matter which, in terms of what then (fucking well shouldn't have) happened - "Teacher beheaded" says it all. There we can all agree? But in a more general discussion, if loads more classes had happened up and down France then an educational system that is aggressively secular and advances the values of a republic through its state education seems to have perhaps surprisingly little opposition to its long tradition of fervent laicism, not just from most Muslims but also from most religious people of many faiths. Except tragically this time. And if they can do this for the most part, then perhaps UK could consider being tougher about everybody, teachers included, leaving their religion at the effing door. I can dream: of course you have a state religion, in England, faith schools and compulsory RE, which is where I would start, followed by a political consensus about what form education should take: there are countries where it's not an ideological battle. Not a chance.
The French education system is characterised by a strong central State presence in the organisation and funding of Education. The French education system is regulated by the Department for National Education, Higher Education and Research. It governs within the framework defined by the Parliament, which states the fundamental principles of education. The State plays a major role in governance, as, by long tradition, the French education system is centralised. The State defines the details of curricula at all education levels; it organises the teachers' admissions procedure, defines content, recruits teachers who become civil servants, provides them with in-service training; it recruits and trains inspectors, responsible for controlling the quality of the education system; it is the main funding body of the public education system and subsidises "private schools under contract" which receive approximately 20% of school pupils.
I don't know if this means that Paty was going way off script (for want of a better word ) with his lesson plan or that up and down the country a similar class was taking place in a great many schools. Though perhaps not at the same time. It really doesn't matter which, in terms of what then (fucking well shouldn't have) happened - "Teacher beheaded" says it all. There we can all agree? But in a more general discussion, if loads more classes had happened up and down France then an educational system that is aggressively secular and advances the values of a republic through its state education seems to have perhaps surprisingly little opposition to its long tradition of fervent laicism, not just from most Muslims but also from most religious people of many faiths. Except tragically this time. And if they can do this for the most part, then perhaps UK could consider being tougher about everybody, teachers included, leaving their religion at the effing door. I can dream: of course you have a state religion, in England, faith schools and compulsory RE, which is where I would start, followed by a political consensus about what form education should take: there are countries where it's not an ideological battle. Not a chance.
Last edited:
bimble
floofy
Quavers are an abomination to all right thinking crisps so thats fine.
I just think the idea that this discussion (about the CH cartoons and the massacre) could be done at schools without making anyone feel at all marginalised or uncomfortable is a bit naive, but can see that maybe my expectations are just out of sync with other people’s, i sort of take it for granted that people will feel marginalised and uncomfortable quite often at school as we do in life, school being a sort of state sponsored machine for crushing your unruly soul not a model of what a perfect society might look like.
Last edited:
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I think we're all in agreement that the teacher's murder is unjustifiable, and the topic has naturally moved on. The thread would be pretty short and pointless if everyone just posted "Murdering cunt!"
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Religions are just ideas that people have. In my opinion stupid, wrong, ignorant ideas. Just like they feel that my atheism is wrong. So if they get to say what they think, so should I and i shouldn't need to give them unwarranted respect when it's not due. Nor give them special privileges. Nor give them any money or power. Nor go along with or make allowance for their sexism, prejudices, intolerance, homophobia, misogyny, caste discrimination, Christian rock music or whatever. That's not intolerant. Opinionated, sure. They can think whatever they like. But they don't ever leave it at that, not if they get the chance. They want to force their ideas, practices and behavioural norms onto everyone else. That's why some of us get annoyed.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Well, sure, it's unrealistic to think no-one will ever feel uncomfortable in school. But teachers ought to avoid decisions which promote their students' discomfort.
Sweet FA
✪ Three rounds Lord, in my .44 ✪
Unbelievably, the thread moved on to suggesting ways in which Samuel Paty could have avoided having his head cut off; rather than more naturally moving on to ways in which a teacher can teach safely in schools, without fear of having their head cut off. First step might be stopping murderers; too many people on here suggesting stopping teaching instead.
Similar threads
