Mike Tribe

I am indeed not just "implying" but stating clearly and unequivocally that the Iranian leadership "can't be trusted with a nuclear weapon". And yes, "the leadership of Iran [is] unstable and barbaric." Anyone who cannot see the difference between a leadership which encourages torture of "terrorist suspects" and prasies the torturers and one which twists desperately in the wind first trying to deny it and then to limit it, or between a government which states that all true believers have a duty to murder writers who write things which the leadership finds offensive with one which won't allow the display of religious symbols in public buildings for fear of offending the separation of church and state, or between a government which decorates the bridges of the main highway through Tehran with the corpses of hanged "criminals", including homosexuals, and one which not only permits but encourages diversity... anyone, who can't see these differences should, as I suggested, go live in Tehran for a couple of years. It's really fashionable to claim moral equivalency between the perceived -- and sometimes genuine -- "crimes" of the West and the barbarism of regimes in other parts of the world. I'm certainly not a fan of Pres Bush and his government, but this constant sniping at all things American and silly suggestion that there's "no difference" between a country like Iran where there are no infringements of human rights simply because no human rights are recognized and a country like the USA in which they are sometimes elevated to almost sacred status (and quite rightly so...) I now eagerly await the stream of vitriol suggesting that there's "no difference" between the incarceration of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay and the imprisonment of newpaper editors in Evin Prison outside Tehran... that there's "no difference" between Schwartzenegger allowing the execution by lethal injection of an old, infirm prisoner and the regular public hangings from cranes which take place in Tehran. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4615172.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2303845.stm http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/arti...hp?storyid=3688 http://www.coc.nl/dopage.pl?thema=any&pagi...&artikel_id=406 http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran http://www.opcofamerica.org/press_freedom/..._iranletter.php http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswi...ory.asp?id=8893 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/wl_nm/iran_bahai_dc Read and compare!

Having lived in Iran during and after the Islamic Revolution, I do see quite a big difference between the USA, France or Israel having nuclear weapons and the sort of people I saw in charge there controlling them... If you really can't see the difference, try moving there for a couple of years...

I think we should rejoice that even an avowed right-winger like Tim has taken a view opposed to the death penalty without paying too much attention to semantic caveats. I hope that Tim will be the first of many and that the USA finally joins the ranks of civilized nations and abolishes this feudal remnant...

A very thought-provoking film. Useful for teaching the Cold War to A Level or IB classes. Not sure I'd call it "one of the most important films ever made" though. Hyperbole? Most important films ever made? Answers on a postcard, please, to ...

I agree with John on this matter. It must be quite unbearable for American citizens to hold their heads up in civilised society knowing as they do that a proportion of their taxes goes towards the funding of state sanctioned murder. I frequently disagree with both John and Andy, but in this case I agree completely. Capital punishment is a bizarre anachronism in the 21st Century.

I think I must be missing something, but I'm a bit confused... Why are the kids taking the laptops home? Surely if they have an internet connection at home, then there must be a computer there already? We have justbought a class set of laptops which are connected wirelessly to the school's intranet and from there to the internet. This means everything is nicely controlled and safe from nasty viruses, etc...

Another element might the the amount of coursework as opposed to research involved. When I was investigating doing a PhD a hundred years ago, the US one had about 50% coursework, 50% research while the British one was 100% research...

I can't claim any credit for the following -- I copied it from the IB Online Curriculum Center. Obviously, it specifically addresses some of the requirements of the IB examinations (for example, the inclusion of historiographical issues) so I don't know how useful it would be for you if you don't teach this course. http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/userResources/...c%20Revised.doc I couldn't work out how to attach the file, so I hope this link works!

I find this a bit strange. Applications from EU students were apparently sharply up, but they, too, will have to pay the higher fees and aren't even eligible for loans or grants... Any explanations?

But when a visitor comes to the forum for the first time and sees a sea of posts all about JFK, or fake moon landings, or how the CIA was responsible for 9/11, etc, etc they may well be put off. It's becoming more and more common to check in and find that there's nothing else... I've mentioned this before -- and had my wrist soundly slapped for it -- and am glad to find that I'm not the only one who sees it as a problem. Once again, isn't there any way one can check the latest posts without having to plough through pages of stuff which is only very tangentally connected to "education"...

This is a good point, David. I think we history teachers must, in part, bear the blame to the change. We've moved, I think, too much towards a sort of "pick-and-mix" approach to history whereby students study a series of separated and unconnected "topics" which leaves little room for the broad flow of history and for chronlogy and long-term cause and effect. I remember reading a thread on the History Teachers' Forum in which teachers told the topics they taught. It very much seemed that beyond the age of about 14 or 15, students studied only 20th Century history which, possibly, an isolated and unsupported topic on "Black People in the Americas", "Jack the Ripper", or "Plains Indians" thrown in to the mix. Elsewhere, there was discussion of the Enlightenment recently. I reckon there won't be many students with any background knowledge about this, or about Hobbes and Locke... I fear that the IB is currently also falling in with this trend in their new curriculum review. It would be nice to be able to say that these deficiencies could be blamed on faceless educational bureaucrats, but I'm afraid that the impulse comes, all too often, from teachers themselves.

Sorry, I must have missed something. I thought Tim was saying, in reply to Daffyd, that he had read that Hitler was atheist. What does that have to do with the admittedly dark record of all churches, including my own, in collaborating with Hitler? Does that make him a Christian? You've lost me somewhere along the line. Tim did make a good point in observing that many Christian did oppose Hitler, even to the extent of sacrificing their own lives. Many of them did so from the standpoint of their religious beliefs. Hitler's personal beliefs were, I believe, somewhat bizarre, being a mixture of Norse mythological folk religion and some sort of Mother Earth thing. Certainly they were in no way Christian. Mussolini was even more forthright in his rejection of the whole concept of God and frequently declared himself an atheist, despite signing the Lateran Pacts with the pope. I understand that it makes a lovely debating point to say that Bush proclaims his Christianity and is bad therefore Hitler, since he was bad, must also have been a fundamentalist Christian, but it's hardly good history.... By the way, I was recently threatened with excommunication from the Forum for having failed to provide a photograph. I note that there are STILL some contributors to this debate who remain photoless. Is this another example of some pigs being more equal than others, or is it a "politcal conspiracy"? I think we should be told!

I'm sorry if I misrepresented your views, John. I did say that I couldn't remember the context in which you made the comment or the exact words you used. As I said, I have no time for people who attempt to use violence within a democratic society to overturn decisions democratically arrived at. I condemn the extremist attacks on abortion clinics as strongly as you do. What worries me is that, unlike you, Andy seems to be challenging the right of people with any sort of religious belief to participate in the democratic process. Again, as I said above, I came to oppose abortion before I became a catholic. I even ran for Parliament and made my views on the subject know to whoever asked me about them. Would Andy suggest that because I held views which he found unacceptable, I should not have been allowed to run? John, I started contributing to these threads because you asked me to do so. I was under the impression that views which dissented from the "libertarian socialist" norm would be welcomed. Since then, I have had my views belittled and constantly misrepresented here. I think I'll follow Doug's lead and withdraw from the debate. Un abrazo Mike

I don't quite understand this constant attribution of total intolerance to Doug. When has he ever shown himself unwilling to debate anything with anyone, despite some pretty discourteous statements about his deeply held personal beliefs? Speaking from personal experience, I have held long and sometimes productive debates with Muslim fundamentalists about all sorts of things. I was in Tehran during the Islamic Revolution and such discussions were almost unavoidable. I remember an occasion when two revolutionaries -- they were from the subsequently banned Fadayeen-e-Khalq and were probably later "eliminated" by the Khomeinists -- came round to our apartment to buy a music center I was trying to sell. We spent two hours passing the English/Persian dictionary backwards and forwards as we discussed their hopes and fears for the future of their country. I don't see why you should find such interatcion between people who hold differing but deeply-held religious beliefs difficult to accept. Again, both Doug and I have said repeatedly that we DON'T WANT (sorry to shout!) our governments to regulate citizens' moral (or immoral) behaviour with regard to their personal lives. Why do you keep insisting that we do? I do wish you would try to be a little less aggressive when you write about what we believe. You constantly belittle anyone who holds beliefs different from your own in a way which I can hardly associate with what I understand by the term "liberal".

So its OK for the State to abolish a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy but its not OK for the State to legislate to control people's right to choose their preferred lifestyle and sexuality?? I fear the actuality is that once we start to allow the religious to govern away our individual rights then to quote Mike "that's the thin end of a pretty thick wedge which may to lead in all sorts of most unpleasant directions" Once again, I think this is two points rather than one. To deal with the second point first, I don't think I was in any way suggesting that "we start to allow the religious to govern away our individual rights". I believe abortion under most circumstances to be wrong. My elected representatives have decided that it should be allowed. I think they're wrong, but, as a member of a democratic society, I accept their decision. I may express my opposition to their decision, but that, surely, is one of the "individual rights" to which you refer. I would certainly reject any attempt to overturn that decision through any but the established democratic process. What's the problem with this? On the question of "a woman's right to choose", I do have a problem. I do not support my church's position regarding the use of artificial birth control. I think that is where the "right to choose" lies. My problem with this supposed right is where it contravenes another greater right, the right of the unborn child to life. On a practical level, the problem of where one draws the line arisises. In most societies, abortion is only permitted up to the point where the fetus is deemed "viable". As medical science advances, that point moves. This leaves us with choice of either further restricting the period of time during which abortion is permitted, or allowing the abortion of "viable" fetuses. What's your position on that, Andy? And the again, any line that is drawn must be arbitrary. On day x, abortion is legal; on day x+1, it isn't. I have a problem with that. The thick wedge to which I referred concerns this point. If we accept that some lives are more worthy of defending than others, where do we draw the line? I also have a problem with your dismissal of any opposition to abortion as being prompted by religious principles. I only became a catholic in my early 30s. I arrived at my views regarding abortion long before this. As you can imagine, my anti-abortion opinions within the Liberal Party and especially the Young Liberals during the 70s were less than popular! There are many non-believers who also oppose abortion. In fact, I seem to remember a post some time ago when John S also expressed some doubts in this area -- please don't jump down my throat on this; it's only a vague memory and I could easily be wrong. It seems that there is an inclination on your part to accept the relevance of a moral element in government and politics only so long as this moral element has no connection with religious belief. I simply don't see this. I agree, for example, with Robin Cook, that there should be a "moral element" in foreign policy, and I think it would be appalling if all moral considerations within government were to be replaced with cold logic and simple utilitarianism. If we reduce politics to Bethamite "hedonistic calculus" through which government policy is right if it causes more pleasure than pain, then where is the room for

For me, that's really two questions, not one. As far as I'm concerned homosexuals and unmarried people can do whatever they like with/to each other so long as it doesn't frighten the horses. I don't want to put words in Doug's mouth, but I think he would also see such issues as relating to one's personal moral responsibility. If you decide that you wish to enter into a relationship outside of marriage or with a person of your own sex, that's your decision and nothing to do with the state. I think abortion is a different proposition in that it relates to questions of the nature of life itself. I believe that life begins at conception and that the decision to terminate it is not to be taken lightly. I think there is a duty on the state to protect those incapable of defending themselves and would extend that to the unborn. Part of Locke's social contract was that the government took on the responsibility for defending the lives of its citizens... On a practical level, once we start saying that some sorts of life are more valuable than others, then that's the thin end of a pretty thick wedge whcih may to lead in all sorts of most unpleasant directions... Is that clear enough? If not, let me know and I'll do my best to elaborate further.

There's truth in all of the last few posts. I do think that you were less than respectful in the way you presented Doug's beliefs, Andy. It is always tempting to dismiss everyone who holds any sort of religious belief as a "fundamentalist". From what I've read of what Doug has written here and in "the other place" he possesses a level of tolerance I have yet to encounter in a fundamentalist. Doug has firmly held religious veiws, some of which I share. I also believe that men should follow God's laws. So would a moslem, or a jew or any other believer. But surely people who don't believe in any sort of God may also believe that people "should" behave in one way or another. George Bush "shouldn't" invade other people's countries. Tony Blair "shouldn't" privatize the NHS. Governments "should" protect the individual rights of citizens. What's the problem with any of this unless I move from feeling you "should" behave in a certain way towards "obliging" you to behave in that way? I think it's also unfair to suggest that Christians are unwilling to engage in "free expression". Surely neither Doug nor I would be participating in this if we weren't prepared to accept the free expression of dissenting views. Again, I would be very surprised if Doug or any Christian claimed to "understand what God means". To a Christian, one's whole life is a journey of discovery through which one constantly uncovers new aspects of "what God means". Finally, to suggest that in some way Christians dismiss the importance of government as a result of their beliefs simply isn't good history. If this were the case, then it would be difficult to account for the constant efforts of churches and other religious institutions to influence or even control the instruments of state power. On the other hand, I think most Christians and many non-believers would reject the idea that it is the role of the state to "enforce" a moral code. Most Christians believe in the concept of free will -- God has allowed us to choose between good and evil. If the only alternative presented to us is to behave in a "good" way, then we have been deprived of the free will. On the other hand, John D is right as well. Basically, arguments between believers and non-believers about the existence of God, etc are, to an extent pointless because both start from mutually incompatible premises. Christians believe they have a personal relationship with their God -- call it divine revelation if you wish -- which allows them to "know" without the need for scientifically measurable evidence. When Job said "I know that my redeemer liveth", he didn't mean he had a color photo of an old man with a long white beard. He knew within himself. To a non-believer, this is nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense to a believer...

Retirement age here in Spain is already 65. You can retire earlier, once you have 35 years' contributions in the scheme, but you lose 8% of the pension for every year early you retire... So, at 56, I'm looking at another 9 more years... Still, the pension arrangements here are much better from the point of view that the full pension, if you get it, is much more generous. I'll be able to live quite comfortably on it if I live that long!

Part of the difficulty in any trans-Atlantic political debate is one of language. The similarity between English and American is sometimes superficial! Thus an American "liberal" would make a "one-nation tory" look like a raving trotskyite... On the other hand, I think people on both sides of the Pond, we hinder communication when we resort to hyperbole by hurling around words like "extremist", "fascist" and so on. One example is the suggestion that Bush has embarked upon a "genocidal" attack on Iraq, or even on Islam. This clearly doesn't make any sense at all. The Bush-Blair policy may be misguided, or dictated by sinister oil interests (or by the military-industrial complex), or just plain stupid. But without an Orwellian re-writing of the dictionary, there's just no way it could be defined as "genocidal"... There are many, many things about Bush I find abhorrent -- his unwavering support for the death penalty, his consistent intent to permit the destruction of the remaining wilderness sites in the US, his self-serving denial of the very concept of global warming, his theft of at least one of the two presidential elections which he "won", the "cronyism" which has typified his administration, the outrages he repeated commits against the English language, etc, etc -- but even so, I'm still not convinced he's what I'd call an "extremist". Doesn't the concept of the extremist imply that there are very few to the right of a right-wing extremist? From what I've read, there are quite a few people in the former-colonies way to the right of Mr Bush... BTW why is a thread which seems to have more to do with the political ideology debate aand it's subheadings posted under "JFK Assassination Debate"? I almost missed it!

I'm sure Daffyd will explain what he means much better than I could, but to be a devil's advocate for a moment, this also goes back to the dichotomy which grew up between liberty and equality and democratic ideals. Clearly, to western sensitivities, The Soviet State was far from "democratic" since it trampled on all the individual liberties we hold dear. Today, there are few old Stalinist dinosaurs who would claim that "democratic centralism" as practiced in the CPSU was in any way democratic. However, if we look at a variant view of democracy, something like Rousseau's idea that true freedom can only be achieved through obedience to the General Will, then it is possible to see the Stalinist Regime as "forcing men to be free". Again, it could certainly be argued that a society in which all economic power is concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority in society (like our own) can hardly be said to enjoy true democracy. After all, these days it costs well over $1 million just to run for the Senate in the United States, and there hasn't, as far as I know, been a poor US President this century. In the Soviet Union, some would claim, this huge variation between rich and poor didn't exist. Poor miner's sons like Khruschev could aspire to the very highest levels of party and state leadership. Personally, I don't hold with these views but there is some sort of argument behind them.

An electoral system which allows the "winner" to have less than 50% support within the electorate is clearly undemocratic. There are inconvenient elements within most types of PR and they have been well-rehearsed, but to re-cap for any of Andy's students who haven't studied it yet: 1. PR leads to unstable coalition governments because parties are less likely to gain absolute majorities without the support of partners. The political compromises necessary for coalition government leads to instability. Eg: Weimar Germany, Italy 2. Coalition governments based on negotiation and compromise often abandon many if not most of the manifesto commitments they made in order to get elected. 2. First-Past-The-Post elections usually based on relatively small electoral districts ensure a more intimate relationship between the representative and the electors than do PR systems which often operate on national lists. 3. Most PR systems put power over who actually gets elected in the hands of party leaders who construct party lists. 4. PR systems are often very complicated. I don't think these drawbacks are necessarily inherent within PR systems, and, even if they were, I'm not convinced there wouldn't still be a good case for PR. 1. Many of the most stable systems in the world are based of coalition government (eg: Germany, Scandinavia) so these are not necessarily unstable. 2. It is possible to tinker with PR to make sure there isn't a proliferation a smaller parties. The system used in Spain (sistema D'Hont) has ensured that government majorities have been stable ever since the return of democracy post-Franco. 3. PR systems like STV (Single Transferable Vote), AV (Alternative Vote) ot the sistema D'Hont maintain the concept of local representation. 4. Coalition government does lead to compromise and negotiation and this is a strength rather than a weakness. Under first-past-the-post, there's a take-it-or-leave-it element. If you don't like the existing government, all you can do is elect the other leading party which may be even less to your liking. Voting for a third party more to your liking may result in the governing party losing their overall majority and being forced to moderate their policies in order to form a coalition. This all assumes, of course, that you recognize the validity of a system based on representative democracy in the first place. Some don't.

Just as I would like to see you get out of explaining yourself on Judgement Day... Doug Does that also include the billions of other people on this planet who weren't born into the Judeo-Xian regions as you or I were? We the people should create our own Judgment Day (Yezhov style) on earth. I'm glad to see that the forum's high standards of debate are being effectively maintained in this thread aimed at providing input for Andy's students. This was, in fact, a very good question indeed. On the face of it, it seems that the answer must be that government is secular and therefore ought not to be influenced by religious considerations. However, looking at it a bit more deeply, we run into issues like Sikh protests against wearing crash helmets. Does the State have the right to compel citizens to perform acts they consider morally or religiously offensive? If one replies in the negative, then clearly this would have implications for the question posed by Andy's student. On the other hand, if we say that the State does have the right to impose its will on dissenters (to "force mean to be free" according to Rousseau), then where does that leave something like the Nuremburg Trials which executed Nazis who claimed they were only following orders on the basis that men had the duty to disobey illegitimate or immoral orders? My response to all this, now that I think about it, is essentially pragmatic rather than based on any systematic ideology. There are some circumstances in which I would expect my representatives to legislate against the religious beliefs of some citizens. Examples of this would include the illegalization of female circumcision or suttee. I would also support legislation to ensure the equal rights of girls from Islamic backgrounds with regard to marriage, education, etc. On the other hand, although I am personally strongly opposed to abortion, I would not consider it inappropriate for my democratically-elected representatives to legalize it. There's not much of a logical basis behind my position, I'm afraid.

It is an unfortunate aspect of democracy that sometimes people with views one doesn't share manage to get elected. Who was the American politician who said "the People have spoken, damn them!"? Again, it's a bit difficult, sometimes, to tell whether the religious beliefs claimed by politicians are genuine or simply adopted for electoral gain. It is undoubtedly true that religious zealots can make awful political leaders. European History is strewn with examples from Savonarola onwards. On the other hand, as Ed pointed out, you could just as easily find examples of awful political leaders who had no or negligible religious views, or who actively opposed religion. Despite Daffyd's views, Stalin is an excellent example of this sort of leader. Other examples would include Hitler, Mussolini, Mao and some of the bloodier leaders of the French Revolution ("The world will be happy when the last priest is strangled in the guts of the last aristocrat" Jacques Roux) I suppose Doug would suggest that this all says something about some sort of inherent "badness" in Mankind. I would say that the fact that these people tend to be horrible exceptions and that they don't last long suggests the opposite.

I'm not too sure, like some other correspondents, that income tax is a moral issue. In a democracy, the elected representatives of the people decide on the level of income tax which should be charged. Thus it is a political question rather than a moral one. BTW, a few weeks ago, I was threatened with exclusion from the forum for failure to supply a photograph. I note that there are still some correspondents on this thread without one. Have they been similarly meanced?

I suppose it depends what one means by "neutral". I got into a sort of argument with John about this some months ago. One could insist that no one could ever be truly neutral since we all bring our innate and inbred prejudices with us when we enter the classroom. On the other hand you could also argue that what's required is not an absolute "tabula rasa" but rather an honest attempt to present both sides of any argument, whether one agrees with it or not. I frequently debate current affairs issues in class, and don't mind answering questions about my personal beliefs, but I do try to be even-handed and present the arguments against my point of view as well. I do think it's very wrong to try to convert people to one's political beliefs in the classroom. Like it or not, when we stand at the front of the class, we're in an authority position and to prosletyze would be take unfair advantage of this position. Also, if people are allowed to do this for positions we find acceptable, we'd be a little hard put to protest when, say, a BNP sympathizer, decided to do the same...