A supply teacher in a London school has been sacked, allegedly for claiming in a religious education lesson that most suicide bombers were muslim. Apparently, this upset the pupils, and that, according to the deputy head teacher, is the important thing.
I think the teacher was wrong, anyway. He should have said that right now, not most, but all suicide bombers are muslim.
In any case, what did he expect at the predominantly muslim school? Gratitude for pointing out the obvious truth?
February 4th, 2007 at 12:22 am
As you’ve guessed Bel, I have a milk-and-water take to wind you up with.
Problem is, not all school kinds are very bright.
They can easily confuse ‘most suicide bombers are muslims’ with ‘most muslims are suicide bombers’.
I had this sort of problem at school. When the Warrington bombs happened, several people came up to me and said ‘your lot have been at again.’
It would have been best for the political angle not to have been mentioned at all in a lesson about religous TEACHINGS.
Sorry. I’ll get off my fence, have a fag and go to bed now.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:46 am
The lesson was about the pros and cons of religion. Please could you tell me how that topic could have been discussed without mentioning the issue of islam and suicide bombing?
And since when is stating the plain fact that suicide bombers use islam as their justification a ‘political angle’. It is plain fact.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
But would the same teacher in discussing Christian denominations refer to the use of religion by the UVF, say?
Would it be appropriate in discussing the teachings of Guru Nanak to mention the assasination of Indira Gandhi?
Religous Education should be about what religions say, not what some of their adherants do.
Focussing on hatreds existing amongst a minority of religous people perpetuates negative religous stereotypes. In this day and age simply sayinf the word ‘muslim’ or ‘islam’ already conjures up a negative image in the minds of non muslims, which is unfair on the majority of muslims- this sort of thing happened to Jews in Germany in the twenties- and look what happened in the thirties.
I write this after just coming back from Mass, where twenty children received First Holy Communion- how glad I am that all members of my Faith are no longer seen as ‘enemies of the state’ as they were once. But at one time that is how people of my faith were treated.
I’m glad those twenty children will grow up in Catholicism without a negative badge to carry. I wish the same for Young Muslim children too.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“But would the same teacher in discussing Christian denominations refer to the use of religion by the UVF, say?”
I would expect so. If you are discussing the ‘cons’ or religion, your discussion will not be complete unless you give examples of atrocities committed in the name of religion. I would expect your above example to fit the bill.
This is not just an anti-islam thing. Surely, Joe, you must accept that that lecture would not have been complete without a reference to the current atrocity being committed in the name of religion, ie suicide bombing.
In this day and age simply sayinf the word ‘muslim’ or ‘islam’ already conjures up a negative image in the minds of non muslims, which is unfair on the majority of muslims- this sort of thing happened to Jews in Germany in the twenties- and look what happened in the thirties.
Are you suggesting that facts should no longer be taught, simply because muslims might take offence? Whether you accept it or not, suicide bombing is being carried out in the name of islam. Every single suicide bomber at the moment relies on islam for justification (so far as their motives have been established). Would you rather no one mentioned this inconvenient truth?
I’m glad those twenty children will grow up in Catholicism without a negative badge to carry. I wish the same for Young Muslim children too.
So do I. However, recall the cartoon riots of 2005. There were young muslim children (as young as five) on the streets of London, carrying placards saying ‘I heart Osama’ and ‘Behaed those who insult islam’. I appreciate your concern for young muslim children, but isn’t it the case that they are more in danger of being damaged by their own community, than by anyone else?
February 4th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
The facts should no longer be taught…
Interesting. Let’s have a look at this one.
I would argue that in some ways, you don’t have to lie to create fear and tension, it’s how you present the facts.
Let’s take a look with the Nazis. They used true facts to support anti-semitism, it’s how you interpret them, but if you prsent ONLY the facts that;
1. Most banks and Newspapers are owned by Jews.
2. Karl Marx was a Jew.
3. It was Worker’s strikes brought the WW1 war machine down.
4. Unions supprt Social Democrats, who are Marxists.
5. Unemployment is rising (Great Depression), but very Jews are unemployed.
Oh look, it must be a Jewish plot to destroy Germany!!!
Selective presentation of facts can be dangerous. Of course, it is true that most, of not all at the moent, suicide bombers are Muslim. But if you focus on facts like that and ONLY on facts like that, you encourage people to lump all Muslims together as an out-group, thereby ENCOUAGING disaffected young Muslims to view the sciety which brands them in that way as their enemy.
And don’t forget, this craven Ingsoc-style regime we have here is quite happy to fan the flames of anti-islam hysteria when it wants to, quite cynically.
It would have been better to have discussed what the Quran actually teaches on living with other faiths and left people to make up their own minds.
I quote Sura 109 of the Quran for the benefit of those who think Muhammed ever preached violence;
Say; ‘unbelievers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.’
Translation approved by Supreme Sunni Council.
That is what RE should actually debate.
February 4th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Joe, one question:
do you think it is just coincidence that most of the suicide bombers at the moment are muslims?
February 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
No, I don’t. That wasn’t the point I was trying to make.
But let’s remeber which comes first the cart or the horse.
The suicide bombers are united in their interpretaion of Islam, but Islam in itself does not cause suicide bombing, and we should be wary of making statements which could lead to such inference.
To paraphrase your question;
Do you think it is just coincidence that most members of the Provisional IRA at any time are Roman Catholics?
February 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I don’t think it is coincidence, Joe.
I have never said otherwise.
My point is that the teacher was not demonising muslims. ‘Most suicide bombers are muslims’ is a very different statement from ‘Most muslims are suicide bombers’.
You seem determined to believe that the teacher implied the latter. Not so.
February 4th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I didn’t suggest he did- merely that his remarks allows unthinking to make that inference- and we need to guard against that inference.
Making general statements such as ‘most suicide bombers are Muslims’ has negative connotations. It is also completely peripheral to discussions of religous creeds in the same way that the six counties situation is peripheral to any discussion about Christian faiths.
The man was a supply teacher on short term contract, so technically he wasn’t sacked anyway.
Suicide bombing is a facet of politically motivated islamic fundamentalism, it is not a basic tenet of any strand of Islamic teaching.
A debate on the difficulties faced in reconciling Islamic traditions with western values is one thing, focussing on the negative responses by some Muslims to that confrontation is another.
I would have been quite hurt as a child if any teacher of mine had said ‘Most of those who blow up abortion clinics are Catholics’ or ‘Most people who plant boms in Britain today are Catholics’.
However true those statements might have been at the time, the implication would seem, simply by making those remarks that Catholic beliefs were in themselves to blame for those facts.
I don’t believe Islam in itself is responsible for suicide bombers. A strand of political muslim thought IS. The subtleties of this differentiation would be missed on the adolescents of Slough, therefore it is best left out of school teaching, as opposed to a debate you and I, being better informed, might have on a page like this, where it is perfectly legitimate.
February 4th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Actually, I agree with you to a greater extent than you might realise.
However, sacking the teacher because ‘the pupils were upset’ is what I do not agree with. The underlying message is that one must not offend muslims, even the little ones. And if this means not teaching a few basic facts, then so be it.
My question is, why did the syllabus include a lecture on the ‘pros and cons of religion’, if the current ‘con’ of religion (ie suicide bombing by muslims) was not to be mentioned at all?
February 4th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Well, exactly, Such a ‘debate’ is bound to open a can of worms. My case is its insertion into the syllabus is to serve the secularist case of ‘why do we have religions at all’, which is the agenda being pushed on us by the Islington set. of course, it can backfire spectacularly in this day and age. But there is definitely a deliberate attempt to denigrate all religions being forced upon us- only the powers that be now have to tread carefully with Muslim sensibilities.
It is a shame that they don’t care about the sensibilities of other faiths one iota- I notice you haven’t written on the adoption agencies fiasco, but I can tell you, it is causing deep resentment- I have posted on it’s implications for Labour at UK Polling Report, so I won’t repeat those points here, but Cameron hasn’t exactly covered himself with glory there either, so little so, he may have lost my vote and even IDS never managed that.
I digress. It’s probably true to say that teachers- like so many others get caught in the crossfire of competing political agenda and a lowly supply teacher is unable to pick up the necessary political nuances of a given situation at a given time. Schools are increasingly politicised. It was starting to happen in my day- when we studied Nazism at GCSE, it was always pointed out that Hitler was right-wing(Funny way to describe National SOCIALISM, I always thought) as was Thatcher. Again, we were supposed to draw the obvious inferences, aged 15. This would have been in about 1994. By the time my brother sat his GCSEs the politicisation had increased tenfold- over four years.
Pupils these days aren’t taught how to think, but given big hints what to think. thing is, they aren’t quite sure what that should be.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
My case is its insertion into the syllabus is to serve the secularist case of ‘why do we have religions at all’, which is the agenda being pushed on us by the Islington set.
Exactly!
As to the adoption issue, I deliberately refrained from posting. It is an issue I feel strongly about, and I didn’t think I was in a position to summon up the necessary ‘distance’ I needed to write the post.
As an evangelical Christian, I am not too happy about people being forced by law to act against their conscience. What about freedom of conscience? Is that now a minor ‘right’ in this society, to be disregarded at will?
I can see both sides of the adoption argument, but I bitterly resented Catholics etc being branded as ‘bigots’ and ‘intolerant’ because their beliefs do not fit in with the common morality of our times.
February 4th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The irony on that issue, Bel, is privately, I have no problem with Gay adoption- if the choice is that or the children’s home- but I resent my own faith being bullied when I know that the Adoption agencies concerned have an examplory and should be left to run themselves as they think fit- it works and it is not the Government’s business to tell our clergy that they are discriminatory and their beliefs ‘unacceptable’ today.
I don’t personally think it’s bad to be gay, but I don’t like my church being told what it should think or do, especially when their record of caring for communities over two thousand years contrasts with the INGSOC regime’s record over ten years.
I’ll get off my RC soapbox.
I suppose what I’m getting at, is sometimes I know how muslims feel. I’m sick of being told that AIDS in Africa is the Pope’s fault, so I know how sick Muslims must be of hearing some of the things they do. I’ve got the Quran, I’ve read it and I don’t see a religion of hatred there.
The underlying message Minitrue- sorry, the media- put out is Islam is a threat, but beneath that softly, softly, is the whispered suggestion; ‘as are all religions, as are all religions, they’re all the same.’
I’ve been saying to my friends for years,there are a lot of comparisons between what is happening here and now and what happened in Germany in 1933. It’s scary.