Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on March 26, 2021, 01:21:46 PM
-
This could get very messy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56523179
-
While a degree of diplomacy is always useful, that a 'something' offends some doesn't necessarily mean that this 'something' must be disallowed - people don't have an automatic right not to be offended, or to presume that in them taking offense there is a requirement for others to modify their behaviour (provided their behaviour is legal).
That said, most reasonable people aren't provocative for the hell of it - although there are times when that approach would be justified - and I'm not clear of the context here as regards the intentions of the teacher, and without that context I think the school have been too quick to apologise.
-
Whilst the teacher might have been a little unwise to show the cartoon to the class, it is crazy to suspend him. :o
-
Whilst the teacher might have been a little unwise to show the cartoon to the class, it is crazy to suspend him. :o
Why were they unwise?
-
Why was the teacher even suspended? Got nothing to answer for.
-
Why were they unwise?
He's been suspended. His career may be over. Muslims get wound up and cause trouble. Yes it was unwise, regardless of the fact that it shouldn't have caused any trouble.
-
He's been suspended. His career may be over. Muslims get wound up and cause trouble. Yes it was unwise, regardless of the fact that it shouldn't have caused any trouble.
So wisdom is shutting up and supporting censorship?
-
So wisdom is shutting up and supporting censorship?
Sadly, in this case yes. I don't like it, but it is the world we live in.
-
Sadly, in this case yes. I don't like it, but it is the world we live in.
I think that's a very narrow definition of wisdom then. It seems more like self interest?
-
From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?
If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?
-
From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?
If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?
I'm not sure it isn't ok provided that these items were being used in the context of education about changing social attitudes.
There are, for example, numerous Nazi-era posts that stereotype Jewish people that could be reasonably discussed in a social and historical context. I'm not sure about the specific example of racism you give, since I haven't seen any examples of that type, but there are other examples of racism that could be discussed in context, such as the 'Jim Crow' era, the Ku Klux Klan or the song 'Strange Fruit' in American cultural history. Your last example seems to be conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, which seems like a stretch too far to me.
As I said further up-thread, while tact and diplomacy have their place, the context of what this teacher did, and why he did it, is unknown at present. It is not the case that people have the automatic right to not feel offended, whereby their expectation would be that others should modify their behaviour in response to their taking offense. It maybe the case that avoiding giving offense just for the sake is something that most of us would do most of the time, but there does seem to be an assumption in this case that because some Muslims have traditional sensitivities about depictions of their prophet that such depictions should be proscribed for us non-Muslims: to me, that approach seems censorious.
Of late we've seen the UK government trying to promote the Union flag (the Union Jack), and while I wouldn't go out of my way to vandalise said flag I would certainly refuse to display, wave or in any sense endorse this symbol - and if that offends others then tough: but their taking offense at my position does not require me to adjust my views or behaviour accordingly so as to conform to their expectations regarding this flag. I was offended at the prejudice displayed by the likes of the CofE over same-sex marriage, and the ring-fencing of that particular organisation by the government, but they are free to maintain their prejudices even though I find them offensive.
While I don't usually actively seek to ridicule Christianity at every opportunity, I am free to do so whether or not some Christians are offended, and nor am I required to treat their particular religious traditions and superstitions seriously. I might personally choose to avoid being overtly confrontational or controversial in relation to the sensitivities of others, such as Christians, but I'm not required to modify my behaviour simply to fit with their sensitivities.
Why am I not free to adopt the same stance in relation to Islam?
-
I'm not sure it isn't ok provided that these items were being used in the context of education about changing social attitudes.
There are, for example, numerous Nazi-era posts that stereotype Jewish people that could be reasonably discussed in a social and historical context. I'm not sure about the specific example of racism you give, since I haven't seen any examples of that type, but if there are other examples of racism that could be discussed in context, such as the 'Jim Crow' era, the Ku Klux Klan or the song 'Strange Fruit' in American cultural history. Your last example seems to be conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, which seems like a stretch too far to me.
Yes the examples I gave were the kind of negative stereotypes that people used to ridicule or dehumanise other groups. The stereotype of Prophet Mohamed as a bomber - if indeed that Hebdo cartoon is supposed to be a depiction of Prophet Mohamed and not a depiction of a random Muslim suicide bomber - would be a way of dehumanising those who love and respect him.
As I said further up-thread, while tact and diplomacy have their place, the context of what this teacher did, and why he did it, is unknown at present. It is not the case that people have the automatic right to not feel offended, whereby their expectation would be that others should modify their behaviour in response to their taking offense. It maybe that avoiding giving offense just for the sake is something that most of us would do most of the time, but there does seem to be an assumption in this case that because some Muslims have traditional sensitivities about depictions of their prophet that such depictions should be proscribed for us non-Muslims: to me, that approach seems censorious.
Of late we've seen the UK government trying to promote the Union flag (the Union Jack), and while I wouldn't go out of my way to vandalise said flag I would certainly refuse to display, wave or in any sense endorse this symbol - and if that offends others then tough: but their taking offense at my position does not require me to adjust my views or behaviour accordingly so as to conform to their expectations regarding this flag. I was offended at the prejudice displayed by the likes of the CofE over same-sex marriage, and the ring-fencing of that particular organisation by the government, but they are free to maintain their prejudices even though I find them offensive.
While I don't usually actively seek to ridicule Christianity at every opportunity, I am free to do so whether or not some Christians are offended, and nor am I required to treat their particular religious traditions and superstitions seriously. I might personally choose to avoid being overtly confrontational or controversial in relation to the sensitivities of others, such as Christians, but I'm not required to modify my behaviour simply to fit with their sensitivities.
Why am I not free to adopt the same stance in relation to Islam?
I read that some/ many Shia Muslims in Iran have art that depicts pictures of Prophet Mohamed or it is more tolerated there. I have not seen it myself as I haven't been to Iran or been in people's houses in London who display that kind of art.
It's an interesting question of course - where diplomacy and tact conflicts with freedom of expression conflicts with people's feelings being hurt or their sense of identity being attacked.
-
It's an interesting question of course - where diplomacy and tact conflicts with freedom of expression conflicts with people's feelings being hurt or their sense of identity being attacked.
Why would the sense of identity of a theist (be they Muslim, Christian or whatever) be attacked or diminished if someone like me simply didn't conform to their expectations of reverence regarding certain religious sensitivities and traditions that don't apply to me anyway? Surely their identity is grounded in other factors, and that this identity would be immune to the stance of someone like me unless I said something that caused them to question their sense of identity?
As I said, I think that most people (me included) would avoid giving offence for the sake of it or for trivial reasons so, for example, I can't see any circumstances where I would wave around a depiction of the Islamic prophet for the sheer hell of it: that said though I can see that such depictions could have value in the context of education, as would examples of Nazi-era propaganda targeting Jewish people.
My impression here is that the offence taken by some Muslims about depictions of their prophet should mean that such depictions should be proscribed for everyone else - and that either requires us to become a theocracy or to concede that certain religious sensitivities should act as constraints on everyone in society at large.
-
From what I read it was in the context of a discussion about freedom of speech and censorship.
-
Why would the sense of identity of a theist (be they Muslim, Christian or whatever) be attacked or diminished if someone like me simply didn't conform to their expectations of reverence regarding certain religious sensitivities and traditions that don't apply to me anyway? Surely their identity is grounded in other factors, and that this identity would be immune to the stance of someone like me unless I said something that caused them to question their sense of identity?
Not sure.
I don't really understand what appears to be an increased need or drive for acceptance or validation or celebration of someone's identity - not just in relation to theists but every other minority - different cultures, skin colour, LGBT, trans etc. Your identity is all in your head and I am not sure why the rest of us need to treat what is in someone's head with any reverence. But that seems to be the way the culture is heading so not surprised if some/ many theists want their identities to be treated in a similar way as other minority groups..
As I said, I think that most people (me included) would avoid giving offence for the sake of it or for trivial reasons so, for example, I can't see any circumstances where I would wave around a depiction of the Islamic prophet for the sheer hell of it: that said though I can see that such depictions could have value in the context of education, as would examples of Nazi-era propaganda targeting Jewish people.
My impression here is that the offence taken by some Muslims about depictions of their prophet should mean that such depictions should be proscribed for everyone else - and that either requires us to become a theocracy or to concede that certain religious sensitivities should act as constraints on everyone in society at large.
I think it's hard to know as the image chosen in this instance was an offensive Hebdo cartoon rather than a picture of Persian art depicting Prophet Mohamed. The Muslim Council of Britain statement seems to focus on the choice of a teacher to show the Hebdo cartoon to school children and opposing that as appropriate teaching material.
A 2015 study on young people’s attitudes towards Muslims revealed that 31% of young children surveyed agreed with the statement that ‘Muslims are taking over England’ to some extent – an Islamophobic conspiracy theory that used to be the preserve of the far-right. Whilst in 2017, for example, Childline reported that it had held over 2,500 counselling sessions for children concerned about race and faith-based bullying, where children as young as nine reported being called terrorists, enduring abuse, and threats of violence.
https://mcb.org.uk/community/mcb-responds-to-developments-at-batley-grammar-school/
Muslim community leaders in Yorkshire have said protesting outside the school is not the way to resolve issues.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/muslim-leaders-join-educating-yorkshire-20268770
-
Why is it that the second the Muslims announce that they are offended about something everyone involved starts to run around doing absolutely everything they can think of to stop the protests without thought of any other aspects of the case?
I am NOT saying that what the teacher did was right, wrong, or just plain stupid, but the speed with which their protest resulted in the teacher's suspension (and possible dismissal) was lightning fast!
Owlswing
)O(
-
I think it's hard to know as the image chosen in this instance was an offensive Hebdo cartoon rather than a picture of Persian art depicting Prophet Mohamed. The Muslim Council of Britain statement seems to focus on the choice of a teacher to show the Hebdo cartoon to school children and opposing that as appropriate teaching material.
I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.
1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.
2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.
3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.
My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.
-
I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.
1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.
2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.
3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.
My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.
We are not, either below or above the Border, a Muslim nation! The sooner the blo Muslims learn that the better - either that or leave!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Why is it that the second the Muslims announce that they are offended about something everyone involved starts to run around doing absolutely everything they can think of to stop the protests without thought of any other aspects of the case?
I am NOT saying that what the teacher did was right, wrong, or just plain stupid, but the speed with which their protest resulted in the teacher's suspension (and possible dismissal) was lightning fast!
Owlswing
)O(
What you need is evidence to support your case.
You could hand out cartoons of Jesus buggering children, say at your local school, and time how fast you are carted off? I suspect no-one would have time to organise a protest...
-
I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.
1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.
2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.
3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.
My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.
Eh? Nazi cartoons of (their fantasy of) Jews are shown to explain how anti-Semitism is nasty and wrong, but the cartoons of (supposedly) Mohammed are shown to explain that the cartoons are fine but the Muslims are always causing trouble.
-
Eh? Nazi cartoons of (their fantasy of) Jews are shown to explain how anti-Semitism is nasty and wrong, but the cartoons of (supposedly) Mohammed are shown to explain that the cartoons are fine but the Muslims are always causing trouble.
That isn't what I said: I was suggesting that posters and other stuff (film, literature etc) originally intended to advance islamophobic or anti-semitic tropes could have a justifiable role in education as being examples of propaganda and prejudice at work.
-
That isn't what I said: I was suggesting that posters and other stuff (film, literature etc) originally intended to advance islamophobic or anti-semitic tropes could have a justifiable role in education as being examples of propaganda and prejudice at work.
I'd agree that in principle they could, but we need to look at how they are being used in the current cases.
-
Gabriella,
From what I have read this incident has yet to be fully investigated so not sure what was shown in class. I have heard it is the Hebdo cartoon of someone who is supposed to be Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Why would it need to be investigated?
If it is the Hebdo cartoon, to be consistent about freedom of expression and censorship is it currently ok for teachers to show cartoons to school children of Jews with hook noses counting money to discuss anti-Semitism or the rise of Nazism? Or cartoons of black people in loin cloths looking like monkeys to discuss racism? Or cartoons of adults homosexuals fiddling with little boys to discuss LGBT issues?
Yes – it’s “ok” to show all such images. Why? Because they exist as artefacts that illustrate various beliefs and attitudes that have existed. Showing them to pupils isn’t agreeing with them – it’s explaining what people have believed and argued for and how they have portrayed those things.
If it is not ok to show these cartoons in school - I don't know if it is - why is it not ok?
It’s more than ok – it’s necessary. Someone’s right not to be offended (assuming for now there even is such a right) is overwhelmingly less important than the right to free speech. For reasons that should be obvious we should limit freedom of speech only in vanishingly rare cases, and “I’m offended by that” is not one of those cases. Ever.
-
I'd agree that in principle they could, but we need to look at how they are being used in the current cases.
I agree: I think the context of the use, such as the intentions of the teacher, is a relevant aspect.
-
I think there are three aspects as regards depictions of Mohamed.
1. The original depiction is intended as being Islamophobic, in much the same way that Nazi propaganda aimed at Jewish people is anti-semitic, and is intended to demean and negatively stereotype the target group - these days that type of use may well be proscribed and be considered offensive by society at large and not just the target group, and may even be illegal.
2. Where these depictions of Mohamed are subsequently used in education to illustrate the issues surrounding Islamophobia, but here the intention here is to educate and inform and not to demean or stereotype - that use seems fine to me.
3. That any depictions of Mohamed are disallowed because many Muslims would consider any depiction to be offensive even where the intent is benign (as in 2, above), because that is what religious tradition and religious authorities dictate.
My impression, and I may have the wrong impression, is that what we are seeing here as regards this case is version 3, which seems like a classical argument from authority and/or tradition.
Difficult to know what happened at the school until there is some kind of facts coming out. In the case of Sam Paty, the teacher beheaded in France, it turns out that the girl who told her parents what Sam Paty said and did and showed in the classroom in relation to pictures of Prophet Mohamed, wasn't actually in the classroom at the time and lied to her father.
Going by the MCB statement, they are focusing on the Hebdo image being offensive.
Other Muslims who get a media voice may be stating for the record that they think all images of Prophet Mohamed are offensive. I can understand why they thought it makes sense to take this opportunity to state how they feel if they have just been given a public platform. Of course it is up to other people whether they choose to respect their feelings or not. A vocal noisy minority stating that all Muslims feel this way is classic tactics to try to bolster their argument - I don't see any evidence that all Muslims think the correct response to this incident is to noisily protest in front of a school rather than through dialogue.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people voicing their feelings about a subject in a respectful constructive way. Presumably we are not advocating that Muslims are not allowed to express their feelings or hurt or displeasure in constructive, law-abiding ways are we? My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.
The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.
For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/old-lady-and-prophet/
-
Gabriella,
The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect,...
That was big of him. WTF?
-
Gabriella,
Why would it need to be investigated?
Generally when a teacher is suspended there will be an investigation as part of disciplinary procedures. Investigation is necessary so people don't jump to conclusions without being aware of the facts.
Yes – it’s “ok” to show all such images. Why? Because they exist as artefacts that illustrate various beliefs and attitudes that have existed. Showing them to pupils isn’t agreeing with them – it’s explaining what people have believed and argued for and how they have portrayed those things.
The current cancel culture and trigger warnings etc that seems to be taking hold in various educational institutions appears to disagree with you.
It’s more than ok – it’s necessary. Someone’s right not to be offended (assuming for now there even is such a right) is overwhelmingly less important than the right to free speech. For reasons that should be obvious we should limit freedom of speech only in vanishingly rare cases, and “I’m offended by that” is not one of those cases. Ever.
See above
-
Gabriella,
That was big of him. WTF?
Glad you approve. I suggest you read the link and comment on the whole article instead of picking one line to comment on if you want any further responses from me to your posts on this. On the other hand if you just want to post one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
-
Gabriella,
Generally when a teacher is suspended there will be an investigation as part of disciplinary procedures. Investigation is necessary so people don't jump to conclusions without being aware of the facts.
But being suspended is itself the a priori decision that matters here. Was there any evidence that s/he broke the law or their contractual obligations to their employer? If not, why go straight to suspension if not only for concern about the reactions of people who felt “offended”. As Stephen Fry noted, the correct response to “but I’m offended by that” is, “so f***ing what?” More politely, Christopher Hitchens’s response to the same objection was, “I’m still waiting for you to make an argument”.
The current cancel culture and trigger warnings etc that seems to be taking hold in various educational institutions appears to disagree with you.
See Stephen Fry above.
See above
Right back acha.
-
Glad you approve. I suggest you read the link and comment on the whole article instead of picking one line to comment on if you want any further responses from me to your posts on this. On the other hand, if you just want to post one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
You are, in your comment above, demonstrating just how thin-skinned Muslims can be!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Why is it that the second the Muslims announce that they are offended about something everyone involved starts to run around doing absolutely everything they can think of to stop the protests without thought of any other aspects of the case?
I am NOT saying that what the teacher did was right, wrong, or just plain stupid, but the speed with which their protest resulted in the teacher's suspension (and possible dismissal) was lightning fast!
Owlswing
)O(
It's not just when Muslims get offended. Have you seen cancel culture in action? People and their families (including their children) and associates and anyone who defends a person's free speech get bombarded with hundreds of death threats via social media by the "liberal extremists".
-
Gabriella,
Glad you approve. I suggest you read the link and comment on the whole article instead of picking one line to comment on if you want any further responses from me to your posts on this. On the other hand if you just want to post one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
You quoted approvingly Mohammed (the "prophet" bit is just your unevidenced faith belief) for not burning down a dying woman's house. All you're telling us with this story is what he wasn't a sociopath. Like I said: big of him. Not much to celebrate though is it.
-
You are, in your comment above, demonstrating just how thin-skinned Muslims can be!
Owlswing
)O(
By telling BHS to carry on if he wants to make one-liner posts on here, thereby exercising his freedom of speech? How is that thin-skinned? Looking forward to an explanation of how you joined the dots there.
-
Gabriella,
It's not just when Muslims get offended. Have you seen cancel culture in action? People and their families (including their children) and associates and anyone who defends a person's free speech get bombarded with hundreds of death threats via social media by the "liberal extremists".
So do you or don't you agree that the right to freedom is speech is overwhelmingly more important than the right not to be offended?
-
Gabriella,
You quoted approvingly Mohammed (the "prophet" bit is just your unevidenced faith belief) for not burning down a dying woman's house. All you're telling us with this story is what he wasn't a sociopath. Like I said: big of him. Not much to celebrate though is it.
I am not quoting anything approvingly - I am just quoting from a link to an essay on Obama and resolving conflict. The "approvingly" is just your unevidenced belief.
-
Gabriella,
So do you or don't you agree that the right to freedom is speech is overwhelmingly more important than the right not to be offended?
I suggest you read my posts. I have a nuanced argument. Reducing your thoughts on complex issues to one liner generalised principles is your style of posting, not mine.
-
Gabriella,
I suggest you read my posts. I have a nuanced argument. Reducing your thoughts on complex issues to one liner generalised principles is your style of posting, not mine.
Actually I suggest you read your own post. Here in fact:
"I don't think there is anything wrong with people voicing their feelings about a subject in a respectful constructive way. Presumably we are not advocating that Muslims are not allowed to express their feelings or hurt or displeasure in constructive, law-abiding ways are we? My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.
The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.
For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her."
You're a muslim. You tell us that muslims "try to emulate" the behaviour of "the prophet". You quoted a story about this prophet not burning down a dying woman's house as an example of the behaviour you should emulate.
I merely suggested that not behaving like a sociopath isn't a particularly high bar for behaviours you think you should emulate.
-
Gabriella,
Actually I suggest you read your own post. Here in fact:
"I don't think there is anything wrong with people voicing their feelings about a subject in a respectful constructive way. Presumably we are not advocating that Muslims are not allowed to express their feelings or hurt or displeasure in constructive, law-abiding ways are we? My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.
The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.
For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her."
You're a muslim. You tell us that muslims "try to emulate" the behaviour of "the prophet". You quoted a story about this prophet not burning down a dying woman's house as an example of the behaviour you should emulate.
I merely suggested that not behaving like a sociopath isn't a particularly high bar for behaviours you think you should emulate.
As I said before, I suggest you read the link I quoted from so you know the context before posting rather than jumping to conclusions.
Not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it.
Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven.[78][79] The rest of the agents left to retrieve their weapons and tried to return to the main building.[78] The attackers entered the main building and attempted to enter the safe haven.[76] They then spread diesel fuel in the room and set fires.[76][78] Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the nearby bathroom, but then decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke.[79] Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned several times but could not find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.[79] Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle, searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Just so we're clear as you seem a bit confused by how a debate forum works - by quoting this link I am not approving of setting fire to buildings or murdering diplomats.
-
Gabriella,
But being suspended is itself the a priori decision that matters here. Was there any evidence that s/he broke the law or their contractual obligations to their employer? If not, why go straight to suspension if not only for concern about the reactions of people who felt “offended”. As Stephen Fry noted, the correct response to “but I’m offended by that” is, “so f***ing what?” More politely, Christopher Hitchens’s response to the same objection was, “I’m still waiting for you to make an argument”.
You'll have to take that up with the school - they made the decision to suspend in accordance with their own internal policies and disciplinary procedures.
See Stephen Fry above.
Right back acha.
Ok I'll get the popcorn out to watch Stephen Fry vs woke cancel culture. I think Stephen Fry is entertaining and enjoy watching him on TV. My point was that while woke culture appears to be prevailing in educational institutions it's a no-brainer for some Muslims to use it to their advantage.
-
Gabriella,
Actually I cut and pasted the wrong quote from you to which I was replying. My apologies: I actually meant to quote this one:
I am not quoting anything approvingly - I am just quoting from a link to an essay on Obama and resolving conflict. The "approvingly" is just your unevidenced belief.
My reply showed that you were quoting the story approvingly (unless you think behaviours you should “emulate” has some other meaning than “approvingly”?).
As for the rest:
As I said before, I suggest you read the link I quoted from so you know the context before posting rather than jumping to conclusions.
Not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it.
Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven.[78][79] The rest of the agents left to retrieve their weapons and tried to return to the main building.[78] The attackers entered the main building and attempted to enter the safe haven.[76] They then spread diesel fuel in the room and set fires.[76][78] Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the nearby bathroom, but then decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke.[79] Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned several times but could not find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.[79] Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle, searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
Just so we're clear as you seem a bit confused by how a debate forum works - by quoting this link I am not approving of setting fire to buildings or murdering diplomats.
Again, try reading your Reply 24 again. Here it is in full:
Difficult to know what happened at the school until there is some kind of facts coming out. In the case of Sam Paty, the teacher beheaded in France, it turns out that the girl who told her parents what Sam Paty said and did and showed in the classroom in relation to pictures of Prophet Mohamed, wasn't actually in the classroom at the time and lied to her father.
Going by the MCB statement, they are focusing on the Hebdo image being offensive.
Other Muslims who get a media voice may be stating for the record that they think all images of Prophet Mohamed are offensive. I can understand why they thought it makes sense to take this opportunity to state how they feel if they have just been given a public platform. Of course it is up to other people whether they choose to respect their feelings or not. A vocal noisy minority stating that all Muslims feel this way is classic tactics to try to bolster their argument - I don't see any evidence that all Muslims think the correct response to this incident is to noisily protest in front of a school rather than through dialogue.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people voicing their feelings about a subject in a respectful constructive way. Presumably we are not advocating that Muslims are not allowed to express their feelings or hurt or displeasure in constructive, law-abiding ways are we? My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.
The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.
For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/old-lady-and-prophet/
If you want to talk about the episode in Benghazi referenced in the link that’s fine but it was your use of the story that I replied to (ie, the "emulate" part), not the reference someone else you’d linked it to had also made to it.
-
Gabriella,
You'll have to take that up with the school - they made the decision to suspend in accordance with their own internal policies and disciplinary procedures.
No, I'm taking it up with you because you referenced it ("Generally when a teacher is suspended there will be an investigation as part of disciplinary procedures. Investigation is necessary so people don't jump to conclusions without being aware of the facts").
Ok I'll get the popcorn out to watch Stephen Fry vs woke cancel culture. I think Stephen Fry is entertaining and enjoy watching him on TV. My point was that while woke culture appears to be prevailing in educational institutions it's a no-brainer for some Muslims to use it to their advantage.
You seem to have an odd fixation with "woke" culture (whatever that means). I'm asking you about principles though: do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?
-
Gabriella,
Actually I cut and pasted the wrong quote from you to which I was replying. My apologies: I actually meant to quote this one:
My reply showed that you were quoting the story approvingly (unless you think behaviours you should “emulate” has some other meaning than “approvingly”?).
As for the rest:
Again, try reading your Reply 24 again. Here it is in full:
If you want to talk about the episode in Benghazi referenced in the link that’s fine but it was your use of the story that I was replied to, not the reference someone else you’d linked it to had made to it.
My line about emulating was in reference to not getting angry and showing kindness and tolerance in the face of insults - having garbage thrown at you.
My quote was not of the traditional story. My quote was of the article - hence I linked to the article to show that my bit in italics is from an article. If you opened the link it would have immediately become clear that the author was talking about Benghazi. The author's use of the story was to add on the line about not burning down the house in reference to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
If someone tells you to read an article for clarification it's probably best just to read the article if you actually care about understanding someone else's perspective. On the other hand, if you're just on here to deliver one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
Hence I said read the link when you queried the line about burning down the house. The link was talking about the attack on Benghazi. I assumed that people would remember that the attackers set fire to the consulate.
-
Gabriella,
No, I'm taking it up with you because you referenced it ("Generally when a teacher is suspended there will be an investigation as part of disciplinary procedures. Investigation is necessary so people don't jump to conclusions without being aware of the facts").
As I said it's the school's policy, not mine. I have no idea why they suspend first and investigate later but it seems to be the process these days.
You seem to have an odd fixation with "woke" culture (whatever that means). I'm asking you about principles though: do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?
You seem to have an odd fixation with my use of the word "woke".
I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes.
-
Gabriella,
My line about emulating was in reference to not getting angry and showing kindness and tolerance in the face of insults - having garbage thrown at you.
And you seem to think that not burning down a dying woman’s house for doing that was some kind of indicator of that kindness and tolerance. It isn’t. It just means that you’re not a sociopath.
My quote was not of the traditional story. My quote was of the article - hence I linked to the article to show that my bit in italics is from an article. If you opened the link it would have immediately become clear that the author was talking about Benghazi. The author's use of the story was to add on the line about not burning down the house in reference to the attack on the Benghazi consulate.
Again, read what you actually said about your husband, the mosque, what you’d “heard” about Mohammed and the story about that that you quoted. Either the story in the final paragraph had relevance to all that or it didn't. You choose.
You also posted a link to an article in which the same story was quoted – that too may or not have merit in its own right but it’s a different use of the same story.
In any case, if you’re now saying that someone not burning down a dying woman’s house in response to her throwing rubbish at him isn’t a good indicator of his showing “mercy, humility” after all then I’d stick with that position if I were you.
If someone tells you to read an article for clarification it's probably best just to read the article if you actually care about understanding someone else's perspective. On the other hand, if you're just on here to deliver one-liners for your own amusement, carry on.
Hence I said read the link when you queried the line about burning down the house. The link was talking about the attack on Benghazi. I assumed that people would remember that the attackers set fire to the consulate.
Wrong again – see above.
As I said it's the school's policy, not mine. I have no idea why they suspend first and investigate later but it seems to be the process these days.
Why do you think there was a “policy” involved rather than just concern at the potentially violent responses of some people who felt “offended”?
You seem to have an odd fixation with my use of the word "woke".
Evasion noted.
I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes.
I couldn’t disagree more. Freedom of speech is fundamentally, vitally important to a free society. Tact, diplomacy etc are tactical considerations but the moment you limit freedom of speech for fear that others could be offended by its exercise is the moment you start to lose that freedom. Censorship has always been the handmaiden of despots and dictators and fascists who rely on it to extinguish opposition.
And you know which freedom of speech cases should be defended the most? Yep, the hard ones. Take David Irving’s holocaust denial for example – some countries ban that (Austria I think does) but it was when his arguments were heard in open court and found to be untrue that he was shown to be wrong. And you know who should be among the most vociferous defendants of the right of a teacher to use the cartoons in the classroom? Yep, the same muslims who are waving banners outside the school demanding “justice”.
You can join the dots to the answer why for yourself but if Muslims want to live in a society in which they are free to express their views, then the last thing they should be advocating I’d have thought is limits placed on freedom of speech because one day exactly the same grounds could be used against them. “You want to preach sermons about Mohammed? Sorry, but that offends me so it’s banned...”.
Short version: be very, very careful about what you wish for.
-
<quote>a society in which they are free to express their views, then the last thing they should be advocating I’d have thought is limits placed on freedom of speech </quote>
I think the problem with the term 'freedom of speech' is similar to that expression debated elsewhere 'free will'. It is often determined by a desire rather than being a free expression. It can be an expression of hatred and used to promote violence as in Bristol lately with chants of 'Kill the Bill', Kill the Bill'. Would it be wise to accede to paedophiles having free speech to groom small children? It is not always used as an expression of views, there is often a destructive emotional driving force.
-
ekim,
I think the problem with the term 'freedom of speech' is similar to that expression debated elsewhere 'free will'. It is often determined by a desire rather than being a free expression. It can be an expression of hatred and used to promote violence as in Bristol lately with chants of 'Kill the Bill', Kill the Bill'. Would it be wise to accede to paedophiles having free speech to groom small children? It is not always used as an expression of views, there is often a destructive emotional driving force.
Yes there are (and should be) some exceptions. My point though is that exceptions to the principle should be very rare cases, and that "but I'm offended by that" is never one of those cases.
-
<quote>a society in which they are free to express their views, then the last thing they should be advocating I’d have thought is limits placed on freedom of speech </quote>
I think the problem with the term 'freedom of speech' is similar to that expression debated elsewhere 'free will'. It is often determined by a desire rather than being a free expression. It can be an expression of hatred and used to promote violence as in Bristol lately with chants of 'Kill the Bill', Kill the Bill'. Would it be wise to accede to paedophiles having free speech to groom small children? It is not always used as an expression of views, there is often a destructive emotional driving force.
Well said, I agree with you. At one time paedophiles were given freedom of speech through the paedophile information exchange, expressing their right to have sex with children! >:( That evil organisation was banned in the 80s.
-
Gabriella,
And you seem to think that not burning down a dying woman’s house for doing that was some kind of indicator of that kindness and tolerance. It isn’t. It just means that you’re not a sociopath.
No that's just your unevidenced belief that I "seem" to think that....
What's clear is that when you queried the line about the fire I told you to read the link - you didn't and hence you misunderstood the reference to Benghazi because you did not follow up on my advice. Instead of accepting my explanation of the reference to Benghazi you seem to want to keep restating your misunderstanding and confusion over and over again despite my explanation and my reference to the link. That's your call if you want to keep referring to your misunderstanding despite being directed to read the link.
Why do you think there was a “policy” involved rather than just concern at the potentially violent responses of some people who felt “offended”?
Do you have any facts to go with your speculation?
Evasion noted.
What evasion? I said what I think about free speech v offending people. I think it depends on the situation.
I couldn’t disagree more. Freedom of speech is fundamentally, vitally important to a free society. Tact, diplomacy etc are tactical considerations but the moment you limit freedom of speech for fear that others could be offended by its exercise is the moment you start to lose that freedom. Censorship has always been the handmaiden of despots and dictators and fascists who rely on it to extinguish opposition.
And you know which freedom of speech cases should be defended the most? Yep, the hard ones. Take David Irving’s holocaust denial for example – some countries ban that (Austria I think does) but it was when his arguments were heard in open court and found to be untrue that he was shown to be wrong. And you know who should be among the most vociferous defendants of the right of a teacher to use the cartoons in the classroom? Yep, the same muslims who are waving banners outside the school demanding “justice”.
You can join the dots to the answer why for yourself but if Muslims want to live in a society in which they are free to express their views, then the last thing they should be advocating I’d have thought is limits placed on freedom of speech because one day exactly the same grounds could be used again them. “You want to preach sermons about Mohammed? Sorry, but that offends me so it’s banned...”.
Short version: be very, very careful about what you wish for.
I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is because I think society is more than just principles at an abstract intellectual level. Yes you need free speech to fight despots. However, on a practical level we are not just concerned about fighting despots. As we have seen in many situations part of the norms we develop for interaction involves regulating people's behaviour in order for people to live together fairly peacefully so that our energies can be spent collaborating to defend ourselves against things like viruses rather than fighting each other.
This isn't just about Muslims but all groups in society. As I have stated before on here and on many other threads, I think that lots of people have beliefs about intangibles and abstract ideas. Some may feel these ideas are important or sacred to them. So this is not just about a religious belief.
Hence my answer is I can't list every situation in which I think people should be free to view Hebdo cartoons or any other offensive material or speak offensively, but I think it is possible that the cartoons are not the right material for the classroom if one goal is collaboration and cooperation rather than marginalising people in a classroom. That might not be an important consideration, but again you come up against other people living in your community who have a different view. The arguments I have heard is that other groups are protected from being offended if they are vocal enough and lobby enough to protect their interests so some vocal members of the Muslim community are more than happy to jump on that bandwagon when it might work in their favour.
-
Gabriella,
No that's just your unevidenced belief that I "seem" to think that....
“Emulate” was your word, not mine. If you now want to resile from that, then do so.
What's clear is that when you queried the line about the fire I told you to read the link - you didn't and hence you misunderstood the reference to Benghazi because you did not follow up on my advice. Instead of accepting my explanation of the reference to Benghazi you seem to want to keep restating your misunderstanding and confusion over and over again despite my explanation and my reference to the link. That's your call if you want to keep referring to your misunderstanding despite being directed to read the link.
No, what’s clear is that you made a series of points culminating in a story about Mohammed not burning down someone’s house. You then posted a link to an article that referenced the same story. What you’re trying to do now is to dissociate the story paragraph from the paragraphs that preceded it, and to claim instead that it should be read only in the context of the link that followed it. If that had actually been your intention though you’d have needed to say something like, “anyway, entirely unrelated to anything I’ve just said here’s a story with a link after it and you should follow the link to know why I’ve written out the story here”.
Doesn’t wash does it.
Do you have any facts to go with your speculation?
The use of a “?” at the end of a sentence tells you that the sentence is a question, not a speculation.
What evasion? I said what I think about free speech v offending people. I think it depends on the situation.
The “fixation on woke” comment evasion.
I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is because I think society is more than just principles at an abstract intellectual level. Yes you need free speech to fight despots. However, on a practical level we are not just concerned about fighting despots. As we have seen in many situations part of the norms we develop for interaction involves regulating people's behaviour in order for people to live together fairly peacefully so that our energies can be spent collaborating to defend ourselves against things like viruses rather than fighting each other.
You’re not getting it. Sometimes the right to freedom of speech conflicts with the “right” not to be offended. It should be an “absolute blanket” in such cases that the former should prevail over the latter.
Do you agree?
This isn't just about Muslims but all groups in society. As I have stated before on here and on many other threads, I think that lots of people have beliefs about intangibles and abstract ideas. Some may feel these ideas are important or sacred to them. So this is not just about a religious belief.
No-one said otherwise.
Hence my answer is I can't list every situation in which I think people should be free to view Hebdo cartoons or any other offensive material or speak offensively, but I think it is possible that the cartoons are not the right material for the classroom if one goal is collaboration and cooperation rather than marginalising people in a classroom. That might not be an important consideration, but again you come up against other people living in your community who have a different view. The arguments I have heard is that other groups are protected from being offended if they are vocal enough and lobby enough to protect their interests so some vocal members of the Muslim community are more than happy to jump on that bandwagon when it might work in their favour.
That “hence” is a non sequitur. Either you think that the right to freedom of speech should always outweigh the right not to be offended, or you don’t.
Which is it?
-
Gabriella,
“Emulate” was your word, not mine. If you now want to resile from that, then do so.
No, what’s clear is that you made a series of points culminating in a story about Mohammed not burning down someone’s house. You then posted a link to an article that referenced the same story. What you’re trying to do now is to dissociate the story paragraph from the paragraphs that preceded it, and to claim instead that it should be read only in the context of the link that followed it. If that had actually been your intention though you’d have needed to say something like, “anyway, entirely unrelated to anything I’ve just said here’s a story with a link after it and you should follow the link to know why I’ve written out the story here”.
Doesn’t wash does it.
No what is clear is that when you queried the line about the fire I told you to read the link and you either did not read it or you were not clued up enough to make the link to the fire in Benghazi. Instead of asking for further clarification you continued on with one of your usual blundering flights of fancy and you still seem to be firmly stuck on that path of misunderstanding despite having been referred to the link and despite having the Benghazi reference explained to you. Not surprisingly (and this has been pointed out to you before) people ignore you telling them how to post and what they should have written...but keep persevering if you want.
The use of a “?” at the end of a sentence tells you that the sentence is a question, not a speculation.
I suggest any questions you have about the suspension you direct to the school. The only information I have is what is in the media - the teacher was suspended by the school. We have not been informed how that decision was reached or why.
The “fixation on woke” comment evasion.
An evasion of what?
You’re not getting it. Sometimes the right to freedom of speech conflicts with the “right” not to be offended. It should be an “absolute blanket” in such cases that the former should prevail over the latter.
Do you agree?
Clearly you're not getting it. I repeat - I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence.
That “hence” is a non sequitur. Either you think that the right to freedom of speech should always outweigh the right not to be offended, or you don’t.
Which is it?
Already asked and answered.
-
Gabriella,
No what is clear is that when you queried the line about the fire I told you to read the link and you either did not read it or you were not clued up enough to make the link to the fire in Benghazi. Instead of asking for further clarification you continued on with one of your usual blundering flights of fancy and you still seem to be firmly stuck on that path of misunderstanding despite having been referred to the link and despite having the Benghazi reference explained to you. Not surprisingly (and this has been pointed out to you before) people ignore you telling them how to post and what they should have written...but keep persevering if you want.
If you want to stick with that story with a straight face that’s up to you. I take the view that a paragraph clearly intended to illustrate the arguments that precede it should be treated as such, but hey – that’s just me and my “blundering flights of fancy” I guess.
I suggest any questions you have about the suspension you direct to the school. The only information I have is what is in the media - the teacher was suspended by the school. We have not been informed how that decision was reached or why.
Yes I know you have. You also know perfectly well though that no school has the policy “don’t offend Muslims” so its response will actually be driven by minimising the risk of violent retribution.
An evasion of what?
The question you were asked.
Clearly you're not getting it. I repeat - I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence.
Perhaps if you stopped twisting in the wind about this I would get it. OK, now you have why in your view isn’t the right to freedom of speech a blanket right to cause offence?
I think it exactly is that blanket right. Why don’t you?
Already asked and answered.
It is now. Hence my question: why don’t you think the right to freedom of speech is also a blanket right with reference to any offence that may be taken from its exercise?
I now know what you think (which is frankly alarming) but I don’t know why you think it.
Do you?
-
Gabriella,
If you want to stick with that story with a straight face that’s up to you. I take the view that a paragraph clearly intended to illustrate the arguments that precede it should be treated as such, but hey – that’s just me and my “blundering flights of fancy” I guess.
Yes I have no problem sticking to the facts, which is you queried the line about the fire, I then referred you to the link to the article to show that the fire was the author's tag on line in reference to the burning of the consulate in Benghazi. When you still seemed to think the traditional story included the reference to not setting fire to a house, I then spelled it out in #37 by stating that "Not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it."
Yes I know you have. You also know perfectly well though that no school has the policy “don’t offend Muslims” so its response will actually be driven by minimising the risk of violent retribution.
The policy I was referring to was the school's policy on what happens when a complaint is made against a teacher. I suggest you check your speculations with the school as to how they arrived at their decision to suspend. It may have been to minimise the risk of violent retribution or it may be part of their disciplinary process after their initial investigation into the complaint. We don't have the facts.
The question you were asked.
What question was that?
Perhaps if you stopped twisting in the wind about this I would get it.
Another one of your flights of fancy. You asked me a question in #40 about my views on whether protecting free speech always trumped the right to not be offended and I replied in #42 that "I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes."
OK, why in your view isn’t the right to freedom of speech a blanket right to cause offence?
I think it exactly is that blanket right. Why don’t you?
It is now. Hence my question: why don’t you think the right to freedom of speech is also a blanket right with reference to any offence that may be taken from its exercise?
I now know what you think (which is frankly alarming) but I don’t know why you think it.
Do you?
I answered all of this in #47. It's the bit where I start "I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is....."
-
Gabriella,
Yes I have no problem sticking to the facts, which is you queried the line about the fire, I then referred you to the link to the article to show that the fire was the author's tag on line in reference to the burning of the consulate in Benghazi. When you still seemed to think the traditional story included the reference to not setting fire to a house, I then spelled it out in #37 by stating that "Not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it."
Bless. So when you said:
[My husband said that at our local mosque, the Friday sermon was that we may feel hurt by the pictures because of our love for Prophet Mohamed but the Sunnah (the way Prophet Mohamed behaved that Muslims try to emulate) is to show mercy, humility.
And followed it immediately with a thematically linked story that illustrates this supposed “mercy, humility” behaviour, namely:
The Prophet faced many insults when he started preaching and the traditional sayings and stories I have heard is that he did not react with anger and hatred.
For example the traditional story many Muslims tell about the old lady who used to throw garbage at the prophet Mohammed every day, as he passed on his way to the mosque. One day, the lady didn't come out to throw the garbage. The prophet`s response was to knock at her door and ask for her. When he came to know that the old lady was ill and lying in bed, he helped her out in the house. The prophet did not set fire to her house for showing disrespect, he looked after her."
In fact you intended the story to have nothing at all to do with the preceding claim it (supposedly) illustrated?
Riiiiiiight…
The policy I was referring to was the school's policy on what happens when a complaint is made against a teacher. I suggest you check your speculations with the school as to how they arrived at their decision to suspend. It may have been to minimise the risk of violent retribution or it may be part of their disciplinary process after their initial investigation into the complaint. We don't have the facts.
No one has suggested that the teacher broke a school policy. I’ve been a school governor: if a complaint about a teacher’s behaviour is made then there’s a review as to whether or not the complaint is frivolous, malicious etc. The teacher isn’t suspended at that stage (except in rare cases of accusations of abuse) – that comes later only if there’s a prima facie case to be answered.
What question was that?
“…do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?”
Another one of your flights of fancy. You asked me a question in #40 about my views on whether protecting free speech always trumped the right to not be offended and I replied in #42 that "I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes."
Very funny. So what you were trying to say but couldn’t quite bring yourself to say was “no”.
Are we now agreed that your answer is no?
I answered all of this in #47. It's the bit where I start "I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is....."
No you didn’t. You just expanded on your theme that we rub along better if offence isn’t caused. I agree. That’s not the question though. The question is what should happen when someone thinks the offence they take at a comment, picture etc should justify the banning of the expression of it?
My view is that “I take offence at that” should never justify preventing someone from saying it.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t think that too, and the reason I don't understand that is that you haven't told me.
-
Gabriella,
Bless.
Thanks and same to you. So when you said:
And followed it immediately with a thematically linked story that illustrates this supposed “mercy, humility” behaviour, namely:
In fact you intended the story to have nothing at all to do with the preceding claim it (supposedly) illustrated?
Riiiiiiight…
As I said I have no problem sticking to the facts, which is you queried the line about the fire, I then referred you to the link to the article to show that the fire was the author's tag on line in reference to the burning of the consulate in Benghazi. When you still seemed to think the traditional story included the reference to not setting fire to a house, I then spelled it out in #37 by stating that the last line about not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. "Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it."
No one has suggested that the teacher broke a school policy. I’ve been a school governor: if a complaint about a teacher’s behaviour is made then there’s a review as to whether or not the complaint is frivolous, malicious etc. The teacher isn’t suspended at that stage (except in rare cases of accusations of abuse) – that comes later only if there’s a prima facie case to be answered.
As I said you will have to check with the school as to why they suspended the teacher and the timeline of how the decision unfolded.
“…do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?”
A question which I did not evade - in case you are having trouble reading my answer was in #42 where I said "I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes."
Very funny. So what you were trying to say but couldn’t quite bring yourself to say was “no”.
What I was trying to say was exactly what I said. I've reminded you before that people tend to ignore your need to have people respond with the script you seem to want to write out for them.
Are we now agreed that your answer is no?
Unless you can think of another interpretation of my response #47 where I said "I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is....."
No you didn’t. You just expanded on your theme that we rub along better if offence isn’t caused. I agree. That’s not the question though. The question is what should happen when someone thinks the offence they take at a comment, picture etc should justify the banning of the expression of it?
Based on what has happened in the recent past in various countries such as the banning of the use of the word "nigger" or banning Holocaust denial https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54509975 I would echo what Zuckerberg wrote. I think that people will "struggle with the tension" between free speech and banning such posts and each person will arrive at what they think "is the right balance".
My view is that “I take offence at that” should never justify preventing someone from saying it.
What I don’t understand is why you don’t think that too.
Because I've thought about the various consequences and have decided that the "right balance" is in a different place from you and would want to approach it on a case by case basis.
-
The problem with using a Hebdo cartoon as a teaching tool is that it is very crude and if it has caused a rise in Islamophobic bullying as has been alleged, it indicates that its value as a teaching tool is compromised. Especially given the apparent media-driven skewing of public perceptions linking terrorism and Muslims.
https://theconversation.com/the-hypocritical-media-coverage-of-the-new-zealand-terror-attacks-113713
-
I have to say I find the whole thing extremely tedious and tiresome and predictable.
Shouldn't schools know by now that it is not a good idea to use cartoons of Mohammed and have policies in place around this issue?
Shouldn't teachers also pause for thought when thinking of using said cartoons?
Do certain parts of the Muslim community have to be so predictable and outraged in their response?
Did the school have to be so knee jerk in it's reaction in suspending the teacher?
Couldn't all the pillocks involved just have talked it out somehow, somewhere before it got to this ridiculous stage?
-
I have to say I find the whole thing extremely tedious and tiresome and predictable.
Shouldn't schools know by now that it is not a good idea to use cartoons of Mohammed and have policies in place around this issue?
Shouldn't teachers also pause for thought when thinking of using said cartoons?
It's only not a good idea because of the reactions of others. If all it takes to get things effectively banned are protests and threats then we will be unable to have discussion. It's the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech.
-
It's only not a good idea because of the reactions of others. If all it takes to get things effectively banned are protests and threats then we will be unable to have discussion. It's the very definition of a chilling effect on free speech.
Well quite. But given that the reaction was entirely predictable could there not have been a way around this by prior discussion that would have addressed the issues?
As others have noted free speech comes with some restraints in society. Why is restraint not ok in this area?
-
Well quite. But given that the reaction was entirely predictable could there not have been a way around this by prior discussion that would have addressed the issues?
As others have noted free speech comes with some restraints in society. Why is restraint not ok in this area?
Because the restraint is enforced by threats. If we are only allowed to discuss that which does not offend someone, then we will have no discussion. Jerry Springer - The Opera offended lots of people - should the writers have restrained themselves from writing it?
-
Because the restraint is enforced by threats. If we are only allowed to discuss that which does not offend someone, then we will have no discussion. Jerry Springer - The Opera offended lots of people - should the writers have restrained themselves from writing it?
OK. Still strikes me that it was entirely predictable and more of an effort could have been made to find a work around prior.
Still I look forward to images of the Pope buggering little boys and seeing no outcry whatsoever.
-
Gabriella,
As I said I have no problem sticking to the facts, which is you queried the line about the fire, I then referred you to the link to the article to show that the fire was the author's tag on line in reference to the burning of the consulate in Benghazi. When you still seemed to think the traditional story included the reference to not setting fire to a house, I then spelled it out in #37 by stating that the last line about not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. "Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it."
I really don’t know why you insist on doing this to yourself, but fine – have it your way. The part of your post that I actually commented on that illustrated the claims and arguments made in the paras that immediately preceded it you actually put there for reasons entirely unconnected to those preceding paras. I guess the next time you post some claims and follow them with an illustrative story I’ll have to check with you first whether you actually intended the story to have anything to do with the claims it illustrated in the preceding paras.
Will that do?
As I said you will have to check with the school as to why they suspended the teacher and the timeline of how the decision unfolded.
That’s not what you said. What you said concerned what happens if a policy is applicable (“The policy I was referring to was the school's policy on what happens when a complaint is made against a teacher.”) I was just explaining to you that it’s entirely possible that there isn’t a school policy involved at all – just a pragmatic response to the risk of violence from thugs who would take the law into their own hands. The policy part is your assumption.
A question which I did not evade - in case you are having trouble reading my answer was in #42 where I said "I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes."
That’s just a repeat of the same evasion. Again, the question is: “Do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?”. It’s a binary question (because the “always” is a categoric) – the only cogent answers are “yes” or “no”. The “it depends” reply also means “no”. So what you’re telling us is that in your view the right to freedom of speech is not always more important than the right not to be offended. Fine – if that’s your position so be it. I’d find it hard to disagree with you more about that, but at least we now know what your position is.
What I was trying to say was exactly what I said. I've reminded you before that people tend to ignore your need to have people respond with the script you seem to want to write out for them.
But exactly what you said was a circumlocution around the answer “no”. That’s ok though – now we know the answer to be “no” so we can move on to try to find out why you think that.
Unless you can think of another interpretation of my response #47 where I said "I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is....."
Aw, now you’re back peddling again. Let’s stick instead with the closest you’ve come to clarity so far though – that you don’t agree with the statement “the right to free speech is always more important than the right not to be offended”. Call that a “blanket” right if you like, but it’s the same thing: “there is no amount of offence that could be taken that would justify the banning of expressing the statement, image etc that caused it” is the position you’re now disagreeing with right?
Based on what has happened in the recent past in various countries such as the banning of the use of the word "nigger" or banning Holocaust denial https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54509975 I would echo what Zuckerberg wrote. I think that people will "struggle with the tension" between free speech and banning such posts and each person will arrive at what they think "is the right balance".
No doubt, but to get back to the question I asked you: what should happen when someone thinks the offence they take at a comment, picture etc should justify the banning of the expression of it? This is what I’m actually asking you, Gabriella – not Zuckerberg, not anyone else. In your opinion should such a person’s degree of offence taken ever justify the banning of the right to express whatever caused the offence to be taken? Please try to remember here that “it depends” also means “yes”.
Because I've thought about the various consequences and have decided that the "right balance" is in a different place from you and would want to approach it on a case by case basis.
So you now seem to think that the consequences – murdering a Danish cartoonist for example – can justify banning the freedom to express the idea at which the offence was taken? Well, in the short term I can see some expediency in that. Provided enough murderous Muslim (or any other type of) thugs threaten to tool up and take the law into their own hands, it’s probably safer not to take the risk right?
Here’s the thing though – is that really the type of society you want to be part of? Ideas suppressed because of the threats of violence if they’re expressed rather than allowed to fight their corner on the basis of debate and argument and evidence? It seems to me that that kind of society would in the longer run be a much more dangerous, impoverished, dispirited one than a society where freedom of speech always trumps offence taken at its expression.
I’m surprised that you don’t think that too by the way, but then again…
-
Gabriella,
The problem with using a Hebdo cartoon as a teaching tool is that it is very crude and if it has caused a rise in Islamophobic bullying as has been alleged, it indicates that its value as a teaching tool is compromised. Especially given the apparent media-driven skewing of public perceptions linking terrorism and Muslims.
https://theconversation.com/the-hypocritical-media-coverage-of-the-new-zealand-terror-attacks-113713
Which would you say is the bigger problem - banning freedom of speech on the grounds of short-term expediency, or arriving at a society where anyone's offence taken can justify banning expressing any ideas, comments, drawings, music etc? Try to remember here by the way that you don't have the option of "ban the Hebdo cartoons but everything not offensive to Muslims is fine". Once you take the cork out of that bottle anyone's offence at anything carries the same weight of argument. My view is that that weight is precisely zero, but you seem to think otherwise.
-
Trent,
Well quite. But given that the reaction was entirely predictable could there not have been a way around this by prior discussion that would have addressed the issues?
As others have noted free speech comes with some restraints in society. Why is restraint not ok in this area?
Because those other cases are in a different category to taking offence. The famous case of not being allowed to rush into a crowded theatre and shout "fire" for example is not the same category of not being able to say something because someone could be offended by it. As I just explained to Gabriella, if you do allow that in one case then you have no defence against any other use of the same justification to ban free speech: "You want a cross in your living room window. Sorry but I'm offended by that, therefore..." etc.
-
Trent,
OK. Still strikes me that it was entirely predictable and more of an effort could have been made to find a work around prior.
Still I look forward to images of the Pope buggering little boys and seeing no outcry whatsoever.
First, no doubt there would be an outcry but that's the point - should "outcry" ever be sufficient to ban freedom of expression? Was the outcry at "Jerry Springer: The Opera" justification for banning it? Why not?
Second though, the Pope is a living person who could then therefore sue for defamation if he was so minded.
-
By telling BHS to carry on if he wants to make one-liner posts on here, thereby exercising his freedom of speech? How is that thin-skinned? Looking forward to an explanation of how you joined the dots there.
It is quite simple and you should not need a sign-post!
And, if you do, you are not the person I thought you to be.
Owlswing
)O(
-
From today's Independent
Batley Grammar School: Teacher fears he will be killed amid continuing cartoon anger
“He should never teach again,” one demonstrator, 20-year-old Hash Hash, told The Independent on Friday. “We’ll keep coming here until he is gone.”
Now, the teacher’s father has spoken about the full impact the episode is having on the whole family.“My son…knows that he’s not going to be able to return to work or live in Batley,” he told the Daily Mail. “It’s just going to be too dangerous for him and his family.
“Look what happened to the teacher in France who was killed for doing the same thing. Eventually they will get my son and he knows this. His whole world has been turned upside down. He's devastated and crushed.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/batley-grammar-school-latest-cartoon-row-protests-b1824270.html
-
From today's Independent
Batley Grammar School: Teacher fears he will be killed amid continuing cartoon anger
“He should never teach again,” one demonstrator, 20-year-old Hash Hash, told The Independent on Friday. “We’ll keep coming here until he is gone.”
Now, the teacher’s father has spoken about the full impact the episode is having on the whole family.“My son…knows that he’s not going to be able to return to work or live in Batley,” he told the Daily Mail. “It’s just going to be too dangerous for him and his family.
“Look what happened to the teacher in France who was killed for doing the same thing. Eventually, they will get my son and he knows this. His whole world has been turned upside down. He's devastated and crushed.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/batley-grammar-school-latest-cartoon-row-protests-b1824270.html
Come on Gabriella - defend your fellow Muslims who have put this teacher in this situation that he fears for his life and the lives of his family! Tell him that if he and his family are killed it will not be by "True" Muslims! Just by a .lunatic fringe - no that it will make a blind bit of difference, they will still be just as dead, won't they!
Owlswing
)O(
-
From today's Independent
Batley Grammar School: Teacher fears he will be killed amid continuing cartoon anger
“He should never teach again,” one demonstrator, 20-year-old Hash Hash, told The Independent on Friday. “We’ll keep coming here until he is gone.”
Now, the teacher’s father has spoken about the full impact the episode is having on the whole family.“My son…knows that he’s not going to be able to return to work or live in Batley,” he told the Daily Mail. “It’s just going to be too dangerous for him and his family.
“Look what happened to the teacher in France who was killed for doing the same thing. Eventually they will get my son and he knows this. His whole world has been turned upside down. He's devastated and crushed.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/batley-grammar-school-latest-cartoon-row-protests-b1824270.html
hmm.. I've assumed from the start that that was exactly the result he/she (though of-course it must be a "he") was after.
Another martyr for "free speech" and a good boost for Islamophobia - well done all round!
-
Udayana,
hmm.. I've assumed from the start that that was exactly the result he/she (though of-course it must be a "he") was after.
Another martyr for "free speech" and a good boost for Islamophobia - well done all round!
So just to be clear - do you think freedom of speech should be sacrificed to violence and thuggery just as a matter of self-preserving expediency, or that it's a good basis for the kind of society you'd want to live in?
-
Udayana,
So just to be clear - do you think freedom of speech should be sacrificed to violence and thuggery just as a matter of self-preserving expediency, or that it's a good basis for the kind of society you'd want to live in?
Thanks, BH - you asked the question for me!
Owlswing
)O(
-
This looks like an example of 'freedom' of speech in support of violence and thuggery...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-56577064
-
ekim,
This looks like an example of 'freedom' of speech in support of violence and thuggery...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-56577064
Yes it does, presumably because trying to recruit people to a banned terrorist organisation is deemed equivalent to running into a crowded theatre and shouting “fire”. These are never easy cases though – once the principle is established, the potential for abuse comes with it. Various organisations now thought to be freedom fighters for example were historically deemed by their gov’ts to be terrorists, so their views were banned. Some of the IRA’s views too weren’t so far away from what the Good Friday agreement now actually says, yet Thatcher’s gov’t banned broadcasters from playing them (which they got round with voice dubbing).
My view is that the banning of free speech should be a very rare event, done only in exceptional circumstances. I’m aware of course that defining which circumstances exactly is impossible, and that even allowing for that concession is fraught with the potential for abuse. That’s the messy nature of the thing. Notwithstanding, I cannot for the life of me see how “but I’m offended by that” should be one of these circumstances.
-
Freedom of speech in support of things, which encourage violence and harm to people should be banned, the scum who are parroting it should be prosecuted.
-
Floo,
Freedom of speech in support of things, which encourage violence and harm to people should be banned, the scum who are parroting it should be prosecuted.
Well, that's Churchill's "We will fight them on the beaches" speech on the banned list then.
-
Floo,
Well, that's Churchill's "We will fight them on the beaches" speech on the banned list then.
You are being silly! ::)
-
Floo,
You are being silly! ::)
No I'm not - it's a much more complex and nuanced issue than you think.
-
Udayana,
So just to be clear - do you think freedom of speech should be sacrificed to violence and thuggery just as a matter of self-preserving expediency, or that it's a good basis for the kind of society you'd want to live in?
Of-course not. No one is suggesting banning freedom of speech. And, violence and thuggery are certainly against the law and should be prosecuted if used.
People can say whatever they like, though, on the whole, I'd prefer that they say things that are worth saying.
So, what was this chap saying?
-
Udayana,
Of-course not. No one is suggesting banning freedom of speech. And, violence and thuggery are certainly against the law and should be prosecuted if used.
People can say whatever they like, though, on the whole, I'd prefer that they say things that are worth saying.
So, what was this chap saying?
He could have been saying one of several things – best guess is that he was using it as a teaching aid to illustrate what happens when modern western liberal values collide with mediaeval religiously-inspired barbarity, but his purpose is another matter. The primary question is whether in your view the taking of offence should ever justify the denial of the freedom to express the thing that triggered it.
My view is no. So far as I can tell Gabriella is equivocal about that. What do you think?
-
I have to say I find the whole thing extremely tedious and tiresome and predictable.
Shouldn't schools know by now that it is not a good idea to use cartoons of Mohammed and have policies in place around this issue?
Shouldn't teachers also pause for thought when thinking of using said cartoons?
Do certain parts of the Muslim community have to be so predictable and outraged in their response?
Did the school have to be so knee jerk in it's reaction in suspending the teacher?
Couldn't all the pillocks involved just have talked it out somehow, somewhere before it got to this ridiculous stage?
I agree that this was predictable. I am more outraged and frustrated rather than finding it tedious though. I have felt that way about the thousands of death threats made against politicians, JK Rowling, anyone speaking out publicly on an issue, the unarmed non-violent people who have been assassinated all over the world throughout history simply for speaking up about their ideas.
The impression that the media has created is that either the police do not have the resources or there is not a policy of tracking down the people who make these threats or the police are prevented from identifying these people by the social media companies or the courts will not do anything that will protect the public until the person making the threats has actually carried out a violent act.
There are also people who do not send death threats but seem to turn up intent on carrying out violence - the murder of teacher Sam Paty for showing a Hebdo cartoon, the murder of the Muslim Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah for posting an Easter message on Facebook to his customers, the murder of Jo Cox MP for not supporting Brexit etc
If this particular Hebdo cartoon was part of the curriculum as is being reported by the teacher's father, not sure why the school made a statement that it was inappropriate of the teacher to use it. Given some of the murders that have already taken place, as part of their risk assessment and duty of care to the children the school can't have failed to anticipate that the children and/or teachers were at risk from physical violence. In which case parents and any other people who are against censorship will presumably want to know what measures the school has put in place to protect the children from witnessing extremist violence and the murder of their teachers if the school decides to carry on using the cartoons as teaching aids.
-
Gabriella,
I agree that this was predictable. I am more outraged and frustrated rather than finding it tedious though. I have felt that way about the thousands of death threats made against politicians, JK Rowling, anyone speaking out publicly on an issue, the unarmed non-violent people who have been assassinated all over the world throughout history simply for speaking up about their ideas.
Including the Charlie Hebdo staff presumably too. Good, we agree on this then.
The impression that the media has created is that either the police do not have the resources or there is not a policy of tracking down the people who make these threats or the police are prevented from identifying these people by the social media companies or the courts will not do anything that will protect the public until the person making the threats has actually carried out a violent act.
Actually making threats is a crime too provided certain criteria are met (identification of the target for example) but I’m not sure in any case that it’s so much a media creation as simply true. There are countless opportunities to make threats, and there aren’t enough cops to investigate them all.
There are also people who do not send death threats but seem to turn up intent on carrying out violence - the murder of teacher Sam Paty for showing a Hebdo cartoon, the murder of the Muslim Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah for posting an Easter message on Facebook to his customers, the murder of Jo Cox MP for not supporting Brexit etc
Quite so. If the “offendee” really has murderous intent then his better strategy is not to threaten at all but to sneak up on his victim unannounced. The only way to protect against that would be to have a police officer on the doorstep of every potential victim 24/7 – clearly an impossibility.
If this particular Hebdo cartoon was part of the curriculum as is being reported by the teacher's father, not sure why the school made a statement that it was inappropriate of the teacher to use it.
Best guess is that they were trying to damp down the flames of the uproar it caused. I can’t imagine actually showing the cartoon(s) is part of the curriculum (otherwise all or most schools would be doing it) – rather it seems the teacher made that decision himself to illustrate the point he was teaching.
Given some of the murders that have already taken place, as part of their risk assessment and duty of care to the children the school can't have failed to anticipate that the children and/or teachers were at risk from physical violence. In which case parents and any other people who are against censorship will presumably want to know what measures the school has put in place to protect the children from witnessing extremist violence and the murder of their teachers if the school decides to carry on using the cartoons as teaching aids.
Nah, I don’t suppose the school even knew he was going to do that. I remember a German language teacher I had bringing in some sauerkraut one day for us to try. Nothing in the curriculum would have told him to do it though.
-
Gabriella,
I really don’t know why you insist on doing this to yourself, but fine – have it your way. The part of your post that I actually commented on that illustrated the claims and arguments made in the paras that immediately preceded it you actually put there for reasons entirely unconnected to those preceding paras. I guess the next time you post some claims and follow them with an illustrative story I’ll have to check with you first whether you actually intended the story to have anything to do with the claims it illustrated in the preceding paras.
Will that do?
And I really don't know why you insist on doing this to yourself BHS. It's not difficult to grasp. You queried the last line in the para that I quoted and I explained that the last line was not part of the traditional story but had been added by the author of the article because he had written it after the US consulate in Benghazi had been set on fire by extremists.
I linked to the article not just because of the traditional story but because the article had lots of what I thought were useful points in relation to the current topic about freedom of speech and people with different values trying to live together and work together to solve bigger issues in society than a cartoon. The article discussed how Obama might address the Prophet Mohamed cartoon issue in the same way he addressed the Reverend Wright conflict in the US by going to the heart of the issue rather than focusing on the symptoms. The article referenced his "A More Perfect Union" 2008 speech where he made it clear that solving these big problems required sacrifice and struggle:
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time......
....But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through
And yet all you could do was make inane one-liners about not setting fire to a house. The contrast between your focus on one line and Obama's eloquent perspectives on real issues were irritating but not entirely unexpected given some of your previous posts.
That’s not what you said. What you said concerned what happens if a policy is applicable (“The policy I was referring to was the school's policy on what happens when a complaint is made against a teacher.”) I was just explaining to you that it’s entirely possible that there isn’t a school policy involved at all – just a pragmatic response to the risk of violence from thugs who would take the law into their own hands. The policy part is your assumption.
And I kept saying that given the absence of facts, while we can speculate about all kinds of possibilities, only the school and the teacher can clarify what actually happened.
That’s just a repeat of the same evasion.
You can think it's evasion if you want. It's not evasion for the simple reason that people are free to not consider issues in the simplistic terms that you demand they see them and to reply in a more nuanced way than perhaps you would like. Again, the question is: “Do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?”. It’s a binary question (because the “always” is a categoric) – the only cogent answers are “yes” or “no”. The “it depends” reply also means “no”. So what you’re telling us is that in your view the right to freedom of speech is not always more important than the right not to be offended. Fine – if that’s your position so be it. I’d find it hard to disagree with you more about that, but at least we now know what your position is.
But exactly what you said was a circumlocution around the answer “no”. That’s ok though – now we know the answer to be “no” so we can move on to try to find out why you think that.
Glad you have finally understood that I answer questions based on my own posting style and not based on yours. We got there in the end.
Aw, now you’re back peddling again.
Aw not another one of your tedious flights of fancy, Let’s stick instead with the closest you’ve come to clarity so far though – that you don’t agree with the statement “the right to free speech is always more important than the right not to be offended”. Call that a “blanket” right if you like, but it’s the same thing: “there is no amount of offence that could be taken that would justify the banning of expressing the statement, image etc that caused it” is the position you’re now disagreeing with right?
It is the position I have been disagreeing with right from the start.
No doubt, but to get back to the question I asked you: what should happen when someone thinks the offence they take at a comment, picture etc should justify the banning of the expression of it? This is what I’m actually asking you, Gabriella – not Zuckerberg, not anyone else. In your opinion should such a person’s degree of offence taken ever justify the banning of the right to express whatever caused the offence to be taken? Please try to remember here that “it depends” also means “yes”.
And as I already posted, I echo what Zuckerberg said. Do you have trouble understanding what the word "echo" means or do you have trouble reading Zuckerberg's comment and understanding how it relates to your question?
So you now seem to think that the consequences – murdering a Danish cartoonist for example – can justify banning the freedom to express the idea at which the offence was taken? Well, in the short term I can see some expediency in that. Provided enough murderous Muslim (or any other type of) thugs threaten to tool up and take the law into their own hands, it’s probably safer not to take the risk right?
Here’s the thing though – is that really the type of society you want to be part of? Ideas suppressed because of the threats of violence if they’re expressed rather than allowed to fight their corner on the basis of debate and argument and evidence? It seems to me that that kind of society would in the longer run be a much more dangerous, impoverished, dispirited one than a society where freedom of speech always trumps offence taken at its expression.
I’m surprised that you don’t think that too by the way, but then again…
Why would you think that I think murdering a Danish cartoonist would justify banning his freedom to express his idea? I have not said that I think the Danish cartoonist should have been banned from publishing his cartoon. What I said was that in certain cases in society I would support restricting freedom of speech ie, I would consider individual situations or look at it on a case by case basis rather than as a blanket rule either to give complete freedom or to ban all offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohamed or any other subject matter. This seems to be another one of your flights of fantasy.
-
Gabriella,
Which would you say is the bigger problem - banning freedom of speech on the grounds of short-term expediency, or arriving at a society where anyone's offence taken can justify banning expressing any ideas, comments, drawings, music etc? Try to remember here by the way that you don't have the option of "ban the Hebdo cartoons but everything not offensive to Muslims is fine". Once you take the cork out of that bottle anyone's offence at anything carries the same weight of argument. My view is that that weight is precisely zero, but you seem to think otherwise.
If you are going to quote me, then I suggest you stick the subject of my quote - which was the limited effectiveness of a puerile Hebdo cartoon in school as a teaching tool. I am not talking about society.
-
It is quite simple and you should not need a sign-post!
And, if you do, you are not the person I thought you to be.
Owlswing
)O(
In other words you had no idea what you are talking about and wrote a knee-jerk comment without thinking it through logically. And now you can't justify it.
-
Come on Gabriella - defend your fellow Muslims who have put this teacher in this situation that he fears for his life and the lives of his family! Tell him that if he and his family are killed it will not be by "True" Muslims! Just by a .lunatic fringe - no that it will make a blind bit of difference, they will still be just as dead, won't they!
Owlswing
)O(
Why would I defend my fellow Muslims? Are you really so misguided or bigoted that you are under the impression that we all think the same? Would you have defended British soldiers who raped or murdered civilians just because they were your fellow soldiers? Would you have told the victims' families that those soldiers were not true representatives of the British army?
-
Udayana,
He could have been saying one of several things – best guess is that he was using it as a teaching aid to illustrate what happens when modern western liberal values collide with mediaeval religiously-inspired barbarity, but his purpose is another matter. The primary question is whether in your view the taking of offence should ever justify the denial of the freedom to express the thing that triggered it.
My view is no. So far as I can tell Gabriella is equivocal about that. What do you think?
Don't think that freedom of expression should be restricted because of possible offence, but neither should the freedom to object when offended and seek appropriate redress.
-
Don't think that freedom of expression should be restricted because of possible offence, but neither should the freedom to object when offended and seek appropriate redress.
What do you mean by 'appropriate redress'?
-
What the "offendee" thinks is appropriate of-course.
-
What the "offendee" thinks is appropriate of-course.
Err I don't see how you can mean that, it implies that Rishdie getting murdered for The Satanic Verses would be 'appropriate redress".
-
Err I don't see how you can mean that, it implies that Rishdie getting murdered for The Satanic Verses would be 'appropriate redress".
No it doesn't, as murder is against the law. All I'm saying is, given the same freedom of expression, those who feel that it would be appropriate can campaign for the law to be changed or otherwise express their feelings within the law -as indeed they did.
Actually, it is not a bad book but, as usual with Rushdie, I struggled to get further than halfway through - so maybe not half bad :)
-
Why would I defend my fellow Muslims? Are you really so misguided or bigoted that you are under the impression that we all think the same? Would you have defended British soldiers who raped or murdered civilians just because they were your fellow soldiers? Would you have told the victims' families that those soldiers were not true representatives of the British army?
And just who, precisely and exactly has the teacher raped or murdered? No-one, but you seem to me to be saying that because the offended are Muslim they are entitled, as per their religious rules, to murder anyone who offends against their religion in any way, shape, or form.
I lost two friends to the Muslim who attacked the Orlando gay club - I didn't go out and murder two Muslims in revenge, I left the law to do the job!
It is the way Muslims seem to think that because the Koran tells them they can murder, at least I assume that is where they get their rules from, it is OK as long as they can state that their religion had been in some way attacked or offended by the person murdered! This was the reason given for Orlando, gays were an abomination unto Nuggan - Sorry, wrong deity, Islam!
Owlswing
)O(
-
you seem to me to be saying that because the offended are Muslim they are entitled, as per their religious rules, to murder anyone who offends against their religion in any way, shape, or form.
Owlswing, Gabrielle is not saying that at all.
She is merely pointing out that she is not responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. Just as I am not responsible for the thoughts and actions of Boris Johnson with whom I share a common heritage, unfortunately.
If you implemented the same rules against me I would be apologising for that person till the day I die. Something I assure you that I am not ever going to do.
-
Owlswing, Gabrielle is not saying that at all.
She is merely pointing out that she is not responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. Just as I am not responsible for the thoughts and actions of Boris Johnson with whom I share a common heritage, unfortunately.
If you implemented the same rules against me I would be apologising for that person till the day I die. Something I assure you that I am not ever going to do.
OK OK OK! I aologise for my misinterpretation of the lady's posts!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Owlswing, Gabrielle is not saying that at all.
She is merely pointing out that she is not responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. Just as I am not responsible for the thoughts and actions of Boris Johnson with whom I share a common heritage, unfortunately.
I don't, of course, believe that Gabriella is responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. That would be bonkers.
However your analogy isn't a good one. That you (or I) have the same cultural heritage as Boris Johnson isn't a choice on our part. We cannot alter the accident of our birth into the cultural heritage of the UK. That isn't the same for belief systems, which are a choice. We can choose our belief systems, whether political or religious and therefore therefore we should expect to justify those beliefs and also to how and why we do not agree with the thought and actions of others, based on the same broad belief. That doesn't apply in the same manner to something over which we have no choice - such as a shared cultural heritage.
-
I don't, of course, believe that Gabriella is responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. That would be bonkers.
However your analogy isn't a good one. That you (or I) have the same cultural heritage as Boris Johnson isn't a choice on our part. We cannot alter the accident of our birth into the cultural heritage of the UK. That isn't the same for belief systems, which are a choice. We can choose our belief systems, whether political or religious and therefore therefore we should expect to justify those beliefs and also to how and why we do not agree with the thought and actions of others, based on the same broad belief. That doesn't apply in the same manner to something over which we have no choice - such as a shared cultural heritage.
You and I can probably agree that belief is a choice.
I have spoken to many believers who find it inconceivable that I could choose to disbelieve in the Christian God. Many believers claim that they have no choice in their belief.
My analogy was but a way of trying to get Owlswing to see that whatever group you belong to you don't have the responsibility of defending that group.
All religions have variants (some produce as many as Covid), why should Gabriella have to defend a view she clearly does not subscribe to.
-
Gabriella,
And I really don't know why you insist on doing this to yourself BHS. It's not difficult to grasp. You queried the last line in the para that I quoted and I explained that the last line was not part of the traditional story but had been added by the author of the article because he had written it after the US consulate in Benghazi had been set on fire by extremists.
I linked to the article not just because of the traditional story but because the article had lots of what I thought were useful points in relation to the current topic about freedom of speech and people with different values trying to live together and work together to solve bigger issues in society than a cartoon. The article discussed how Obama might address the Prophet Mohamed cartoon issue in the same way he addressed the Reverend Wright conflict in the US by going to the heart of the issue rather than focusing on the symptoms. The article referenced his "A More Perfect Union" 2008 speech where he made it clear that solving these big problems required sacrifice and struggle:
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time......
....But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through
And yet all you could do was make inane one-liners about not setting fire to a house. The contrast between your focus on one line and Obama's eloquent perspectives on real issues were irritating but not entirely unexpected given some of your previous posts.
This is bonkers. Try reading your Reply 24 again. You set out various claims and statements about “the Prophet” not reacting “with anger and hatred” and followed them immediately with a story (in quotes) that (supposedly) illustrated this trait. I then said that the story you used to illustrate not reacting with anger and hatred set the bar pretty low (ie, not burning down a dying woman’s house).
Nowhere did you say “oh, and here's a story has nothing to do with anything I’ve just said but is pertinent to something else in a link that follows it to which I’ve made no reference whatsoever”. (For what it’s worth by the way I assumed the link was your citation for the quote you’d just posted as is standard practice here.) As I said before, if you want to stick with your version with a straight face that’s up to you but you can hardly blame someone for commenting on a thematically identical story that immediately followed various claims for thinking you intended the story to illustrate those claims.
And I kept saying that given the absence of facts, while we can speculate about all kinds of possibilities, only the school and the teacher can clarify what actually happened.
Which is different from claiming knowledge that is was a policy matter, but ok.
You can think it's evasion if you want. It's not evasion for the simple reason that people are free to not consider issues in the simplistic terms that you demand they see them and to reply in a more nuanced way than perhaps you would like.
You’re prevaricating again. “Simple" and “simplistic” are not the same thing. The question is, “do you think “I’m offended by that” is ever justification for the denial of the right to express the thing at which the offence was taken?”. It’s simple inasmuch as the answer is binary: Y/N – either you do think that or you don't think that.
The minute you try an “it depends” though you allow for the possibility that there could be cases when the degree of offence taken justifies the banning of the right to make the statement, so "it depends" is also “yes”.
Glad you have finally understood that I answer questions based on my own posting style and not based on yours. We got there in the end.
I make no comment on your posting style (other that is than weariness at your tendency to tell someone how a watch works when all they asked you for was the time of day) – I was just trying to get a straight Y/N answer from you to a perfectly simple question of principle.
Aw not another one of your tedious flights of fancy,
Hardly.
It is the position I have been disagreeing with right from the start.
“It depends” isn’t disagreeing from the start at all, but I’m glad you’re now saying that it doesn’t depend after all: we’re aligned then in thinking that there is no amount of offence taken that would justify the banning of the right to say something right?
And as I already posted, I echo what Zuckerberg said. Do you have trouble understanding what the word "echo" means or do you have trouble reading Zuckerberg's comment and understanding how it relates to your question?
No, but you do it seems have trouble understanding basic concepts. Zuckerberg was making a statement about commercial expediency and the way his business chooses to act. He wasn’t arguing for a philosophical principle. You though are being asked about that kind of statement. I’m not asking you how you’d run your business when addressing free speech issues, I’m asking you as a philosophical principle whether you think offence taken should ever justify banning free speech.
Why would you think that I think murdering a Danish cartoonist would justify banning his freedom to express his idea? I have not said that I think the Danish cartoonist should have been banned from publishing his cartoon. What I said was that in certain cases in society I would support restricting freedom of speech ie, I would consider individual situations or look at it on a case by case basis rather than as a blanket rule either to give complete freedom or to ban all offensive cartoons of Prophet Mohamed or any other subject matter. This seems to be another one of your flights of fantasy.
No, it’s just you returning to the same evasiveness. How can I put this more simply for you…
…try this. When considering the right to free speech on a case-by-case basis, would any part of your considerations include the offence taken by the exercise of that right?
If you are going to quote me, then I suggest you stick the subject of my quote - which was the limited effectiveness of a puerile Hebdo cartoon in school as a teaching tool. I am not talking about society.
But you are, for the reason I just explained. Schools are part of society and if you let the cork out of the bottle by accepting offence taken as the justification for banning the right to free speech about a cartoon, then you have no argument to prevent the same justification of offence taken to prevent the expression of anything else. Your cartoon of Mohammed is someone else’s rainbow flag – it doesn’t matter once the underlying principle (that freedom of speech trumps offence taken) is abandoned. You can equivocate about this all you like by telling me you’d consider it on a case-by-case basis etc but actually the question is a matter of principle, not circumstances: when someone says to you “I want you Gabriella to ban the expression of X because I’m offended by it” would you throw them out before they got one word further or you wouldn’t you? Which is it?
-
Udayana,
Don't think that freedom of expression should be restricted because of possible offence, but neither should the freedom to object when offended and seek appropriate redress.
No-one's saying that the (lawful) right to object should be restricted either, but why should someone have redress because they've been offended?
-
Owls,
Come on Gabriella - defend your fellow Muslims who have put this teacher in this situation that he fears for his life and the lives of his family! Tell him that if he and his family are killed it will not be by "True" Muslims! Just by a .lunatic fringe - no that it will make a blind bit of difference, they will still be just as dead, won't they!
It's not Gabriella's job to defend the actions of the fruit loops in her faith, any more that it's the job of the local vicar to defend the actions of the KKK. I do think people of faith (any faith) might give pause though when their "because that's my faith" as the rationale for benign beliefs is precisely the same rationale for malign ones (eg blowing up aeroplanes). The moment you claim "faith" to be any better at identifying epistemic truths than just guessing is the moment you give up the same ground to anyone else with the same claim.
-
Gabriella,
This is bonkers.
I agree. You being fixated on one line in one post out of all my posts on this thread is bonkers. Try reading your Reply 24 again. You set out various claims and statements about “the Prophet” not reacting “with anger and hatred” and followed them immediately with a quote that (supposedly) illustrated this trait. I then said that the quote you used to illustrate not reacting with anger and hatred set the bar pretty low (ie, not burning down a dying woman’s house).
Yes you did and I said read the link, which had many interesting (IMO) things to say in relation to cartoons of Prophet Mohamed and I took it to mean that societies need to have difficult conversations about prejudices and also that theoretical freedoms or rights do not mean much unless people struggle, protest, carry out civil disobedience and stand up for the ideals they claim they believe in - whether it is free speech or anything else.
Nowhere did to say “oh, and the following story has nothing to do with anything I’ve just said, but is pertinent to something else in a link that follows to which I’ve made no reference whatsoever”. For what it’s worth by the way I assumed the link was your citation for the quote you’d just posted as is standard practice here. As I said before, if you want to stick with your version with a straight face that’s up to you but you can hardly blame someone for commenting on a thematically identical story that immediately followed various claims for thinking you intended the story to illustrate those claims.
We've already established that I don't write my posts according to whatever script you deem acceptable so you repeating what you think I should have said is also bonkers. What I did say when you queried the link was that you should read the link. I assume if I link to something and people want to quote my post that they would at least have the courtesy to read the link rather than picking out one line and fixating on it, especially when they have been told to read the link when they did fixate on one line. When you still kept fixating on that one line, I explicitly stated that the line about burning down a woman's house (I'm not sure she is dying in the story, just ill I think and therefore not up to chucking rubbish on Prophet Mohamed as he walked past) was not part of the traditional story and was added by the author of the link in reference to the consulate in Benghazi. Therefore it is bonkers that you are still fixated on this.
Which is different from claiming knowledge that is was a policy matter, but ok.
What I said was that you would have to take up the decision to suspend the teacher with the school as they made the decision to suspend in accordance with their own internal policies and disciplinary procedures. The school seems to have policies in relation to suspending teachers - for example the school caretaker presumably can't suspend a teacher, I would assume that the decision to suspend is taken by the head and there must be an internal school policy that governs how he makes this decision.
You’re prevaricating again. “Simple" and “simplistic” are not the same thing. The question is, “do you think “I’m offended by that” is ever justification for the denial of the right to express the thing at which the offence was taken?”. It’s simple inasmuch as the answer is binary: Y/N.
The minute you try an “it depends” you allow for the possibility that there could be cases when the degree of offence taken justifies the banning of the right to make the statement, so that’s a “yes”.
That is exactly what I was saying - in some cases yes.
“It depends” isn’t disagreeing from the start at all, but I’m glad you’re now saying that it doesn’t depend at all: we’re aligned then in thinking that there is no amount of offence taken that would justify the banning of the right to say something right?
You are mistaken. I am still saying it depends.
You said “there is no amount of offence that could be taken that would justify the banning of expressing the statement, image etc that caused it” is the position you’re now disagreeing with right? I am disagreeing with your statement in speech marks because I think there are some things that are so offensive that it would justify banning the expressing of a statement or image - at least in public anyway.
No, but you do it seems have trouble understanding basic concepts. Zuckerberg was making a statement about commercial expediency and the way his business chooses to act. He wasn’t arguing for a philosophical principle. You though are being asked about that kind of statement: I’m not asking you how you’d run your business when addressing free speech issues; I’m asking you as a philosophical principle whether you think offence taken should ever justify banning free speech.
Zuckerberg was quoted as arguing that while he personally found “Holocaust denial deeply offensive” he believed that “the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech.” He then changed his mind about allowing Holocaust denial posts to remain on FB (no doubt financial considerations had a lot to do with that but he is arguing from a philosophical perspective) and went on to say “My own thinking has evolved as I’ve seen data showing an increase in anti-Semitic violence, as have our wider policies on hate speech.”
So I echo what he says. If free speech results in an unacceptable level of hate crimes then I can see an argument for limiting free speech. I would also argue that in many cases people feeling offended is not a good enough reason to ban something, but I can see instances where it might be a good enough reason, if enough people feel offended by it. You think people's feelings never matter when it comes to free speech. I disagree, given people are not a bundle of abstract philosophical principles but are in fact emotional beings. I do not understand the logic of making rules for emotional people to live by that try to deny the emotions that influence their behaviour and thoughts. Your championing of free speech is itself based on your emotional reaction to situations where free speech is denied.
But you are, for the reason I just explained. Schools are part of society and if you let the cork out of the bottle by accepting offence taken as the justification for banning the right to free speech about a cartoon, then you have no argument to prevent the same justification of offence taken to prevent the expression of anything else. Your cartoon of Mohammed is someone else’s rainbow flag – it doesn’t matter once the underlying principle (that freedom of speech trumps offence taken) is abandoned. You can equivocate about this all you like by telling me you’d consider it on a case-by-case basis etc but actually the question is a matter of principle, not circumstances: when someone says to you “I want you Gabriella to ban the expression of X because I’m offended by it” would you throw then out before they got one word further or you wouldn’t you? Which is it?
Schools may be a part of society but for many centuries now, we have different rules in school and for children compared to those in wider society for adults. So offensive cartoons in schools such as minorities drawn with bombs on their heads is a big no from me, given children are forced to share space with other children they can't away from and mindless bullying due to ignorance and immaturity is already an issue that is dealt with poorly.
So no, I wouldn't throw anyone out before they got one word further because I think that's a really poorly thought through way of dealing with issues in society. I would have a conversation about it.
-
And just who, precisely and exactly has the teacher raped or murdered?
My post has not suggested the teacher murdered or raped anyone. My point was that just because some members of a group do something bad e.g. some British soldiers raping and murdering people, you would not assume that the rest of the British army would defend the behaviour of those soldiers. And they would probably say those soldiers are not representative of the British army's ethos. In the same way just because some Muslims make death threats, why would you assume that because I belong to the group "Muslims" that I would automatically defend their behaviour?
but you seem to me to be saying that because the offended are Muslim they are entitled, as per their religious rules, to murder anyone who offends against their religion in any way, shape, or form.
Given that's the complete opposite of what I am saying your powers of comprehension and interpretation are way off. Where have I said Muslims are entitled to make death threats let alone murder people? You would need to quote me to justify your statement.
I lost two friends to the Muslim who attacked the Orlando gay club - I didn't go out and murder two Muslims in revenge, I left the law to do the job!
Sorry for your loss.
It is the way Muslims seem to think that because the Koran tells them they can murder, at least I assume that is where they get their rules from, it is OK as long as they can state that their religion had been in some way attacked or offended by the person murdered! This was the reason given for Orlando, gays were an abomination unto Nuggan - Sorry, wrong deity, Islam!
Owlswing
)O(
Some Muslims might try to justify their criminal acts by saying the Koran tells them they can murder in certain circumstances according to their interpretation. The same way some British soldiers think the British army rules of engagement or the stress of combat situations allow them to murder.
You can't generalise from that that all Muslims or all British army soldiers think the same way.
-
OK OK OK! I aologise for my misinterpretation of the lady's posts!
Owlswing
)O(
Thanks. Apology accepted.
And thanks Trent for explaining my position to Owlswing.
-
I don't, of course, believe that Gabriella is responsible for the thoughts and actions of every Muslim. That would be bonkers.
However your analogy isn't a good one. That you (or I) have the same cultural heritage as Boris Johnson isn't a choice on our part. We cannot alter the accident of our birth into the cultural heritage of the UK. That isn't the same for belief systems, which are a choice. We can choose our belief systems, whether political or religious and therefore therefore we should expect to justify those beliefs and also to how and why we do not agree with the thought and actions of others, based on the same broad belief. That doesn't apply in the same manner to something over which we have no choice - such as a shared cultural heritage.
I am fairly sure on various other threads there were many atheist posters who argued that you cannot choose to believe something you don't actually believe and you can't choose to disbelieve something you believe. Though I agree that beliefs can be influenced by environmental factors such as individual life circumstances or exposure to different ideas and cultures.
-
Udayana,
No-one's saying that the (lawful) right to object should be restricted either, but why should someone have redress because they've been offended?
My point was that if someone feels that they want redress for being offended they should have the freedom to argue for it.
As to whether redress may be required, it seems to me that it's possible to claim that offensive behaviour has similar effects to targeted bullying, harassment and other victimisation, particularly wrt. mental health. Also, much ridicule relies on gross generalisations that potentially stigmatise whole communities, giving rise to discrimination, violent attacks and other issues. It is not as if speaking has no consequences or feelings are not important and don't matter.
-
I am fairly sure on various other threads there were many atheist posters who argued that you cannot choose to believe something you don't actually believe and you can't choose to disbelieve something you believe. Though I agree that beliefs can be influenced by environmental factors such as individual life circumstances or exposure to different ideas and cultures.
I agree.
I do not think you choose your beliefs. Beliefs are emergent
-
I agree.
I do not think you choose your beliefs. Beliefs are emergent
I am with BR. The idea of choosing of beliefs makes no sense.
I am not with BR. On that basis, arguing that your beliefs are right becomes impossible on a straightforward idea of right.