French teacher beheaded

[jimbaxters]

5 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Religion should be taught to prevent ignorance breeding hatred. 

Take Islam for example - it would be very easy to lead people to believe that terrorism is fundamental to Islamic beliefs given the number of terrorist incidents in Western society. Through teaching what Muslims believe, you address a false narrative and stop it spreading. 

No one has to live by Islamic principles or even condone them: understanding is all thats needed. It is important to have at least a basic understanding of what people believe even if we don't agree with them. 

Absolutely pal. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by jimbaxters

[coprolite]

2 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

 

Two examples of how the practising of faith is upheld as one of the last remaining areas of human society which can be so vehemently criticised. You lads would be the first to go mental if anyone was being racist or homophobic.

People of different ethnicities or sexual orientation to me don't damage society and don't have any choice in those characteristics. 

People can choose whether or not to believe these iron age myths and base their value system around them or to use the critical faculties their god gave them to discern right from wrong. 

[jimbaxters]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

People of different ethnicities or sexual orientation to me don't damage society and don't have any choice in those characteristics. 

People can choose whether or not to believe these iron age myths and base their value system around them or to use the critical faculties their god gave them to discern right from wrong. 

Correct. That's why I think it is wrong for someone to have their value system insulted and ripped to bits by someone who chooses not to believe. To equate religion with religious fanatasists (the minority) is the problem .

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Is there an original image of this guy or can you just put up an image of Gary Glitter and claim it's the M word to get into bother?

[NotThePars]

25 minutes ago, Empty It said:

28 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

It is still an integral part of human society and therefore children/young people should be made aware of the beliefs they will inevitably encounter.

Why should we encourage and continue to teach fictitious stories that have done nothing but lead to division in society? Surely phasing out religion would be a massive benefit to society as a whole.

If you wanted to you could make the same argument about, say, nationalism.

[coprolite]

1 minute ago, jimbaxters said:

Correct. That's why I think it is wrong for someone to have their value system insulted and ripped to bits by someone who chooses not to believe. To equate religion with religious fanatasists (the minority) is the problem .

I don't think it is wrong to insult religion as a concept, whether people are fanatical about it or not. 

I consider it missionary activity on behalf of empiricism. 

[Dundee Hibernian]

1 hour ago, jimbaxters said:

Religion exists and should be taught. Obviously you're using fairy tales as an insult but that's not what RE teachers do. They educate young people about what people believe, without stating their own opinion (if it is done properly).

I disagree, and was not trying to insult anyone. Religious beliefs exist, but I think faith teaching in schools belongs in the past. Religion has been contradicted through time by science, and less people appear to be following such age old fallacious reasoning today. 

 

1 hour ago, TheJTS98 said:

I don't think that's quite what happens.

RE at school is a good thing. Kids are going to meet religious people in their lives and they should know what the belief systems of billions of people in the world involve. I think there's something sad in meeting a grown adult who has no idea what Buddhists believe, for example.

I don't think they're baptising kids or having them belt out a quick Shahada in the RE classes. It's just education.

Also disagree, it's a waste of scarce resources. If adults are keen to have their children exposed to religion, they should take them into places of worship, not state schools.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Michael W said:

The message needs to sink in: you have a right to practice your religion. 

Your do not have a right to be protected from your religion being criticised or ridiculed. Neither of these inhibit your right to practice religion and this is the price you pay for living in a liberal democracy. 

This is absolute horseshit of the very highest level, and masks a huge hypocrisy. Those cartoons are nothing to do with "criticising" Islam or Muslims. They're punching down, they're designed to cause offence for literally no other reason than causing offence to a specific community. That shouldn't be illegal but it should definitely be a sacking offence for a teacher. 

Our own culture has things that are not said in certain contexts, or ever. We don't tell kids that Santa isn't real. We heavily restrict when and where sexual content can be seen. We ban certain words from being said on TV or radio before a certain time. We prohibit children from seeing some films or playing computer games based on themes, language, sex and violence. We ban people from making accusations against other people that they can't prove.

Our "freedom of expression" is curtailed in a million and one different ways. You can't meaningfully alter the appearance of your house without permission from a shower of nobodies in a town miles away. You're not allowed to walk down the street naked. I can't call my boss a c*nt. Why not? Those things don't hurt anyone. The only reason is because they offend the public norms. 

When we decide all these things are important to us, who the hell are we to tell other cultures what should and shouldn't be important to them?

You and I absolutely can criticise Islam and it's utter bullshit to suggest otherwise. All you have to do is use words. It's not difficult.

But it's not the job of a teacher to personally criticise a religion. They should present other people's criticisms of religions alongside teaching what the adherents believe. You can teach a class "Muslims are offended by depictions of Mohammed, but many other people say that this is an unacceptable infringement of freedom of expression." Why is that not enough? There is absolutely no fReE sPeEcH argument that requires, or even justifies, a teacher showing cartoons of Mohammed.

Most free speech arguments are made by people who have never thought it through, and are in the majority group so have nothing to fear from being relentlessly abused by a majority.

[GordonS]

34 minutes ago, Empty It said:

37 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

It is still an integral part of human society and therefore children/young people should be made aware of the beliefs they will inevitably encounter.

Why should we encourage and continue to teach fictitious stories that have done nothing but lead to division in society? Surely phasing out religion would be a massive benefit to society as a whole.

We should improve freedom of speech by [checks notes] banning people from forming beliefs about the nature of existence and the meaning of life.

Okaaaay...

[Dundee Hibernian]

1 hour ago, Gaz said:

That's before we get into the whole debate up here about the small number of RC schools and the massive number of protestant schools.

Where are all these 'Protestant schools': they are surely non-denominational schools?

[GordonS]

And quite a few folk on here need to understand the difference between religious instruction and religious education.

Fair enough if you want religious instruction out of schools. But you don't know Scotland if you don't know the reformation and presbyterianism. You don't know the Middle East today if you don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia. You don't know America if you don't know evangelicalism. If you don't understand religion, you can't understand history, social geography, modern studies, politics and international relations.

[Guest TheJTS98]

7 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

I disagree, and was not trying to insult anyone. Religious beliefs exist, but I think faith teaching in schools belongs in the past. Religion has been contradicted through time by science, and less people appear to be following such age old fallacious reasoning today. 

 

Also disagree, it's a waste of scarce resources. If adults are keen to have their children exposed to religion, they should take them into places of worship, not state schools.

This completely misses the point. It's nothing to do with what adults want. It's about educating rounded individuals who are less likely to grow into ignorant adults.

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

Where are all these 'Protestant schools': they are surely non-denominational schools?

That's what non-denominational means. It means non-denomination Christian, but as RC schools exist that only leaves protestant religions.

People who think non-denominational means non-religious could do with learning more RE...

[Gaz]

41 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

I can only speak for myself. I teach in an international school where we touch on various faiths and fortunately we have children from most who can talk about festivals etc.  Throughout all the lessons my opinion personal beliefs and ideology are kept to myself. This is a general approach though, like political views with Middle School / Secondary students.

If by your own admission you're only speaking for yourself then how can you make blanket statements about how it's taught elsewhere?

Surely you can't possibly believe that your common garden CoE, RC or Protestant school will give equal credence to all religions.

ETA: It's nearly Easter. In a 'normal' school year pretty much every single "non-denominational" school would be having Easter services led by the local Minister and RE teachers. What percentage of schools do you think do the same for Eid or Yom Kippur?

Edited March 26, 2021 by Gaz

[Dundee Hibernian]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

That's what non-denominational means. It means non-denomination Christian, but as RC schools exist that only leaves protestant religions.

People who think non-denominational means non-religious could do with learning more RE...

It doesn't mean "non-denomination Christian" , it's meant to also cover faiths other than those from Christian branches. But this, and the argument as to whether teachers are 'instructing' or 'educating', and whether any religion should be taught as a subject in schools, leaving aside that it is covered in many other subject areas, is going way off topic.

[Busta Nut]

Religion being the cause of nearly every conflict ever is enough to put it in the fucking bin IMO

 

[Gaz]

9 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

Where are all these 'Protestant schools': they are surely non-denominational schools?

Do you know what non-denominational means?

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean non-religious.

[Dundee Hibernian]

1 minute ago, Gaz said:

Do you know what non-denominational means?

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean non-religious.

See my comment above. 

[Genuine Hibs Fan]

9 minutes ago, Busta Nut said:

Religion being the cause of nearly every conflict ever is enough to put it in the fucking bin IMO

 

It just isn't though is it?

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

It doesn't mean "non-denomination Christian" , it's meant to also cover faiths other than those from Christian branches. But this, and the argument as to whether teachers are 'instructing' or 'educating', and whether any religion should be taught as a subject in schools, leaving aside that it is covered in many other subject areas, is going way off topic.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood. It really does mean non-denominational Christian. A denomination is a part of a religion, not a separate religion. So Baptist and Anglican are denominations; Islam and Judaism are not.

Non-denominational schools in Scotland are required to offer religious instruction in Christianity, not in any other religion. Parents have a right to withdraw their children from this. 

Instruction and education are completely different things and this is slap-bang in the middle of the topic.

FWIW my wife is an RE teacher who has taught in both RC and non-denominational schools. She's somewhere between atheist and agnostic. Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies is a brilliant course that unlocks the door to understanding the world.