Religeous intolerance

In a tolerant and reasonable world, the parents would contact the head, asking if the teacher appreciated the offence that he had given and request that he should be made aware, apologise, learn the lesson and carry on.

But it seems that tolerance and reason is in short supply.

If I was the head and I felt that the teacher had simply made an error of judgement, I would do just that and stand my ground.

Bullies must not be tolerated.

Tbf we have no idea what the Union is doing locally - if they are being low key, this could be good thing as long as the teacher is being supported.

Apparently it was the police that made the decision to place the teacher concerned under protection. I wonder if he’ll ever be safe?

Again who decides what is offensive.

This is an interesting discussion Suzie et al. Before I go further apologies to anyone I might offend, that isn't my purpose...

Why does religion have to come into everything? It makes no difference in my day to day life and the less we talk about it in schools the better, except maybe in a historical context. I don't know how to deal with children's divergent beliefs in classrooms because I'm not an educationalist. But schools are about learning and education IMO, not about comparative belief systems.

And I accept we don't know the context for the introduction of the cartoons in this case. But seriously, who in their right mind would show a group of children a picture that has in itself caused murder to be committed. We may think that the people committing that murder are completely in the wrong - I do, of course - but doing something to spark that off again is just beyond belief.

Its not clever or striking a blow for freedom and toleration to show children a picture which they find inherently offensive. Using pictures in a book to depict how a tolerant society operates is different.

Galaxy

Again who decides what is offensive.

If people are being beheaded and killed for showing a picture you can be pretty sure that someone is finding that picture offensive. We might think that the people who are offended are completely bonkers, but that's not the point, the point is that a teacher did something that is still very contentious and he did it surely knowing it would upset people.

BTW - I don't think any of us have the right not to be offended. I don't think protesting at a school gate is acceptable. The point is that something was done that was going to cause community unrest, and he should have known better.

alegrias I suspect, like me you are an atheist.

I do not believe that a single deity exists, so looking at this issue from my position it seems quite extraordinary that a deity would be offended at an image of itself. However if that is what people like to believe, then so be it, but I absolutely draw the line when someone’s belief in a particular deity impinges on my or anyone else’s life.

It is right to introduce children to religious criticism and the principle of free speech. Introduction to free speech should be appropriate to the age of the children, which it generally is.

The Muhammad cartoon shown to a class of children some of whose parents are intolerant of any perceived slur against the Holy Prophet was misjudged ; fundamentalist parents from any ethnic background are likely to make trouble for the school unless the teacher is reticent about known triggers such as is that cartoon.

I also think perspective should be introduced.

The family member who believes the earth is flat was deeply upset by the teachers scientific explanation.
As suzie said the depiction of same sex couples caused some community unrest, I am afraid not teaching things because they may upset people is not acceptable to me.
The school has gone to online teaching today from what I understand.

The teacher was giving a lesson on blasphemy, which was decriminalised in this Country in 2008. He showed one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet Mohammad with a bomb in his turban. A very strange decision in a school with so many Muslim pupils, but not illegal. But he has been suspended, both the head and the teacher have apologised, an investigation set up, any further action at the present time by parents and community leaders is not justifiable.

I find it terrifying that because some people are prepared to murder another person for offending their sensibilities, then everyone has to avoid causing that offence. So law abiding people can be offended as much as you like, just extremists must be pandered to.

As a person of Christian Faith, i understand the pain caused by
the people who are angered by the display of the cartoon.

Christians are use to having their faith mocked, we have to accept it.

On line there is plenty on this as we might expect. Apparently the depiction/cartoon/drawing of Muhammad (take your pick) was shown during a lesson discussing blasphemy and what constitutes said subject?

The family member who believes the earth is flat was deeply upset by the teachers scientific explanation. Good. They deserve to be upset because they are teaching that child things that aren't true.

As I said, none of us have a right not to be offended. But if you had something whose very existence you knew had caused murder to be committed in the last few months, would you use it again? Something that has been in the news? Would you show it to children? Or would you have a discussion with pupils about toleration and why some people are offended by pictures?

Religious Education used to be the one subject that was compulsory in England; this came to light at the time of the development of the National Curriculum, in the 1990s.
Christianity is not as important in Britain as it once was, but other faiths can be immensely important to their members, witness all the trouble this recent incident has caused.
I do think it is important that pupils are given some knowledge of comparative religions, in order to understand the importance of customs and practices that people of different ethnicity follow.
The trouble with teaching it as a subject is that most teachers have only a limited knowledge of different religions, and some of the teaching materials available are banal and can lead to misunderstanding.
Respect and tolerance for other faiths are essential aspects of teaching comparative religions, and this needs to be understood by all faith communities.

The poor man. We are supposed to live a country which educates its children. Part of that education is understanding religions and that entails learning their history and also why they are criticised.

Indeed, all religions should be open to criticism, if they are so fragile that they have to have mob rule to defend them it's a pretty poor belief system in the first place.

This, at the end of the day, is a free country. Whether people should or should not be allowed to mock others for their politics or beliefs is for debate, but it should never be censored.

For those criticising the headteacher - to be honest I think he was thinking of the safety of his pupils and staff. He shouldn't have to think along those lines but the reality is he has to.

I can only assume the young RE teacher was naive in introducing the cartoon to his class - based on the fate of the French teacher Samuel Paty.

If any of the protestors make threats or overstep the law in a serious way they should be dealt with - there is no right to not be offended.

Christianity is not as important in Britain as it once was, but other faiths can be immensely important to their members, witness all the trouble this recent incident has caused.

It's true Christianity isn't as widespread in Britain as it was, but it is important to its adherents, just they tend not to murder blasphemers having been exposed to such ad infinitum.

Riverwalk, it's true there is no right to not be offended. However it is also well known that Islamic fundies are a bloody nuisance even dangerous in some cases, and it is politic for everyone's safety to tread lightly around know triggers of their emotional reactions

Correction "can be a bloody nuisance".

Alexa

Riverwalk, it's true there is no right to not be offended. However it is also well known that Islamic fundies are a bloody nuisance even dangerous in some cases, and it is politic for everyone's safety to tread lightly around know triggers of their emotional reactions

Once you give in to bullies, they don't go away, they tend to just increase their demands. At what point are you going to say, this far and no further?

I agree white rabbit.
So it's ok for my flat earther to be offended because that's not true but not ok for other people to be offended because the teacher told the truth.

Apparently this is a year 9 class so most pupils will be 14 - should we just leave them to not develop any critical thinking facilities re religious beliefs about freedom of speech? What a good idea. Sarcasm alert - then they can be radicalised outside of school and we can all tut tut and ask what on earth the schools are doing to prevent this.
Also one of the groups involved in the protest, Purpose of Life, a registered charity ( fwtw) deliberately tweeted the name of the teacher. Nice. What’s it called again, purpose of what?

Rosie wrote:

"Alexa

Riverwalk, it's true there is no right to not be offended. However it is also well known that Islamic fundies are a bloody nuisance even dangerous in some cases, and it is politic for everyone's safety to tread lightly around know triggers of their emotional reactions

Once you give in to bullies, they don't go away, they tend to just increase their demands. At what point are you going to say, this far and no further?"(end of Rosie's comment).

As I was writing my reply to Riverwalk I thought of this objection.
There was a problem recently about Muslim father objecting to teaching about saying it is okay for a child to have same sex parents. In that case the primary school I know absolutely stuck to its guns, as the immediate inclusion and wellbeing of actual children was involved. In the case of the free speech debate the matter was not immediate but academic at the point of teaching it to a class.