Doug Belshaw

It's now been over 3 years since the very enjoyable time we spent in Toulouse discussing ICT for collaborative teaching and learning. Since then, I've moved on to a new school, and the shareforum has gone from strength-to-strength. Some observations: 1. Be a catalyst I went to the Head of my current school to ask what could be done about the situation we had. Lots of hardware and software, but no training for staff. As of this academic year I'm E-Learning Staff Tutor with a reduced teaching timetable and a budget. 2. Have patience After a few incarnations, I'm fairly happy with the shareforum. It's now at www.historyshareforum.com and currently stands at just under 700 members. It's turned into a great place to get resources you can actually edit to be useful! 3. Run with new technologies Web 2.0 has been somewhat of a revolution. The biggest changes to the way I work and collaborate have come through the micro social-networking site Twitter and the hard-to-explain FriendFeed. 4. Start new communities The famous ice hockey player Wayne Gretzsky once said "You miss 100% of shots you never take." Taking that as a principle, I've attempted to start several communities around a theme. One that worked and is now a year old is EdTechRoundup. We're a group of mainly UK-based educators, but with no geographical bar on membership. We meet virtually on a Sunday night to discuss issues and resources relating to educational technology, and then release our discussions as podcasts. It's going well so far! I'd like to take this opportunity to thank again all those involved in the project and for inviting a fresh-faced NQT to present. : Doug

Interesting? Only in so far as they'd probably be a quite a competition for the Most Unimaginative Use of Classroom Space Award 2006! A lot of rows with the occasional 'C' shape with a few desks in the middle. I like the idea of having individual workstations which 'snap' together somehow for infinite possibilities... : Doug

It's an ICT suite, but Andrew Field has mused about room layout at the EffectiveICT.co.uk Forum... : Doug

I think you've covered most bases there Dan, but the important things would be the way things interacted: A guarantee that technical support was available at short-notice The ability for screenshots/text/content from students' PDAs/tablets to be wirelessly transferred to the projector A school ICT infrastructure which wasn't flakey! : Doug

That looks like a fantastic project and one which would work well if replicated in many areas of the UK. I grew up in what was known as the 'largest mining village in the world' - Ashington, Northumberland. The mines have now shut and unemployment is rife. Men have lost their sense of identity and haven't found one to replace it. Some kind of project which brings the community together like the one you have been part of here would be just the ticket. Well done! Doug :hehe:

This shall be my last post, Andy - I don't want this to get personal. ...but still haven't defined what you mean by certain terms you have used (e.g. 'fundamentalist'), despite my repeated asking! I have been willing to debate these issues and care enough to 'unclog' your head. Before I became a Christian I used to think much like you, Andy. So without patronizing you (as you have done to me) I, in turn, hope you come to realize the truths I have discovered. Signing off, Doug

Given the two statements above, when are we going to see some coherence in your posts, Andy? It's easy to espouse contemporary beliefs and assumptions, however wrong they may be. Can you explain your system of beliefs in a coherent way as I believe I can? Doug PS I'm still waiting for your definition of 'fundamentalist'!

Why don't you have a look rather than just assume?! I'll leave it to neutral observers of this thread as to whether the 'religious' or 'non-religious' are being the more tolerant and rational here... Doug

Here's a summary of what I've said so far Andy: Nowhere have I said that Christianity should have no influence on legislation, and in fact I applaud the work the Christian Institute does in the UK. I'm not going to get involved in right-to-life debates as I'm not an expert in these matters. I'm sure you'd agree, Andy, that in a multicultural and cosmopolitan society all views should be considered - although in the end any legislation is going to offend someone. Doug PS I'm still waiting for you to define your terms - do you still equate a 'liberal' with an 'agnostic'?

Now try imagining persuading a Muslim fundamentalist and Doug to debate in a tolerant way about who is the true prophet. Worse still try imagining either of them having the final say over the social legislation of a multi cultural nation state. Fundamentalists do believe and are sure. If you are actually right, then it is absurd to be tolerant of those who are wrong. You are putting words in my mouth, Andy. It is not absurd to be tolerant of those who are wrong - but it would be absurd not to try and demonstrate to them why you think you are right. As you keep insisting I am a fundamentalist, could you define your terms please? As far as I can see your rather blunt definition sees those who are 'sure of their faith' as fundamentalists, and presumably those who 'are a bit unsure' as liberals. If these are accurate descriptions of the terms you are using, please could you use more accurate ones? Doug

(As an aside, Andy Walker has refused to continue our debate via personal correspondence. He has also rejected my offer to send him a Bible so he can check what he's arguing against)

John, you keep talking about 'what I'm going to do about people having sex outside of marriage'! I'm going to do nothing about it, apart from evangelize to them. It's not my role to judge as I'm a sinner as much as them. The difference is I've been saved through my trust and faith in, and relationship with, Jesus Christ. People often comment that Christians are 'hung up' on the issue of sex. I think you'll find that it's the secular world that blows this out of all proportion... I wholeheartedly agree with Mike when he says: As Mike notes, issues regarding abortion are completely different: the termination of life is of a different order to issues regarding sexual morality. Ultimately we are all accountable to God, not the state. Doug

Sorry Andy, I shall keep my posts nice and serious from now on and without the smilies you provided for forum users. Which part of the second post on this thread don't you understand? Oh, the famous get-out: I'm older than you therefore you will end up like me - 'enlightened'. I've just sent you a personal message to ask to continue our debate privately. I shall be interested to see how you respond. Doug

When asked "What is the Enlightenment?" Inmanuel Kant replied Sadly it does not apparently yet to have appeared to have influenced either the United States of America or certain areas of Yorkshire Andy, I'm quite happy to continue this debate privately or on a separate thread. However, for the sake of your students, hadn't we better stick to the topic? Doug PS Know much about Mr Kant, do you?

Oh dear Andrew. You think that anyone with religious faith who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist?! I believe Jesus saves and that everyone should come into a relationship with him, yes. Religious people do tend to think they're correct, just as atheists do. I am interested in debating matters seriously and openly. If you can prove to me that my 'religion' is erroneous then I will change my system of beliefs. Could you say the same, Andy? What would it take for you to alter your belief system? Thanks for simplifying what I said and patronising me, Andy. Government action is a very pertinent question for Christians, hence organizations which aim to have a Christian influence on legislation, etc. All I was saying was that governments, being secular, have no final say over morality. I believe others (non-Christians) have said this within this thread. Please don't misrepresent me unfairly to your students, Andy - I wouldn't do the same to you. Disagreement and debate is healthy. Misrepresentation and patronising behaviour is not. Doug

That's not for me - or the government - to judge! Lock him up and throw away the key! Doug

I think what you're trying to say, Andy, is that the 21st century is radically different from the times in which the Bible was written. And you're correct - at least in terms of technology and (natural) knowledge. It's just that the same isn't true of human nature: we're still pretty much in the same position... Although it may sound controversial, Christian marriage is (God-willing) supposed to result in children. Doug PS I'm going to ignore your point about married couples 'not being allowed to enjoy sex' as it was childish.

John, I think you have missed the point with most of what you have said above. Sex is for procreation and, fortunately for us, also happens to be pleasurable. Part of the reason for homosexuality being regarded as sinful by Christians, therefore, is the inabilility (note: not the prevention) of the action being for the purposes God intended it. This, again, is part of the reason why marriage is sacrosanct for Christians and casual sex so damaging. Birth control within marriage is different from casual sex in that, according to the Bible, the purpose of this relationship is procreation, whereas the latter is purely for pleasure. Birth control simply gives married couples more control over when to conceive. It cannot really be compared with birth control outside marriage. Doug

I understand the 'eye of the needle' was a camel shaped hole in a city wall that allowed a camel with a set load to pass through toll gates, Thus an early means of calculating tax. Unload the camel until it fits through. Then you can move onto market to sell goods and make your money. A 'rich man' then would be a grossly overloaded camel. I've heard this as well, but as with many things to do with the seemingly more radical parts of the Bible, I think that many Christians try to change what Jesus actually said to what they want it to mean. Man's - and especially a rich man's - love of money can prevent him from identifying how he needs to change. To focus on what is important in life it is important to cut away the chaff. As the passage that John quoted continues: Mark 10:23-27 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." The situation regarding the rich young man was that, as many Jews had done all their life, he had obeyed the Law. However, this was not enough. His heart needed to be changed, which required radical action. Jesus cut right to the heart of the matter by identifying the man's love of material wealth. This was what was stopping him from entering into a saving relationship with God, but this can be different for everyone. At the end of the day, as the saying goes, you can't take it with you. Without turning this thread into an overtly evangelistic one, Jesus - as John Simkin has mentioned - advocated radical action to do with the poor. This, however, was as much for the giver's sake as the receiver's! Doug

Political ideology? Erm... I strongly believe in a minimal state: that the government should not interfere unnecessarily in the everyday lives of people. For this reason I oppose such 'innovations' as ID cards. I suppose this makes me fairly right-wing to do with the grand scheme of things. Although we obviously need some form of taxation to provide public services, it is up to the individual, I believe, to decide issues such as the giving of money to charitable causes. I suppose this makes me fairly socialist to do with local and small-scale things. Doug

I should imagine it will be interesting for Andy's students to see how people's worldviews impinge on absolutely everything, leading to fundamental differences within a society. Doug

I agree wholeheartedly, if you trust the Government to spend money wisely. I know that everyone perhaps doesn't think like me, but I'm quite happy to give time and money to things that don't benefit me directly. Perhaps education rather than taxation is the answer? Doug

I think that this is one thing upon which we can all agree. It is not the place of the state to force people into 'moral' decisions. It is true that the state encourages donations through charities being able to claim back tax, but perhaps if income tax was reduced people would actually end up giving a greater percentage of their income away? Doug

Just as I would like to see you get out of explaining yourself on Judgement Day... Doug

Great! The Bible has good bits too (Matthew 6 v24, 7 v12-13, Mark 11 v17) But I don't want to seem like a J Witness.... Or, indeed Acts 2v44-45 and 4v34-35. Christians (or at least most evangelicals) would say that man's seeming inability to share resources comes from his sinful nature. But all this is tangential... Doug