in today's Guardian

[Pam Lunn]

Michael Gove's view that "Every child can benefit from the values of a military ethos" (Report, 7 December) proves how unfit he is for his job. Bertrand Russell, would you were living at this hour to take on this ludicrous categorical statement. Every child? Please speak up, Quakers everywhere, and all others who would challenge this dangerously illiterate and illogical proposition.
Margaret Drabble

 

--------------------

Pam Lunn

pam...@gn.apc.org

 

Swarthmore Lecture 2011

Costing Not Less than Everything: sustainability and spirituality in challenging times

www.quaker.org.uk/shop/swarthmore/2011 

Now also available on www.amazon.co.uk and Kindle

 

 

I blog at:

http://woodbrookegoodlives.blogspot.com  

http://my100objects.blogspot.com 

http://contemplativecamera.blogspot.com

 

 

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

"In June 2012, Gove approved three schools run by creationists leading to concerns about whether Department of Education requirements not to teach creationism or intelligent design as a scientific fact would be met." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Do we really need to respond to this guy about anything?

Chris

[Wim Nusselder]

Hi Chris and Pam,

 

Speaking up and responding do not necessarily require disagreeing or confronting…

Bending in the right direction might be more effective…

 

In such cases I try to take an example from Gandhi’s response to the question “What do you think about civilisation?” upon arrival in Britain: “That would be an excellent idea!” (or something similar).

 

In this case we could consider endorsing the value of sacrifice for higher purposes while reminding that doing so non-violently is more courageous than doing so when armed.

 

“Indeed every child can benefit from the two primary values of a military ethos: self-sacrifice and courage, especially when taught to express them non-violently!”

 

(By the way: who is Michael Gove and what is his job?)

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:23 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

"In June 2012, Gove approved three schools run by creationists leading to concerns about whether Department of Education requirements not to teach creationism or intelligent design as a scientific fact would be met." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
Do we really need to respond to this guy about anything?

[Pam Lunn]

Hi Wim

 

Michael Gove is a senior member of the Conservative government’s cabinet and is minister of state for education.

 

Pam

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

[Wim Nusselder]

Conservative rather than LibDem?

[simon gray]

yes.

although (and realising i might be reading things into your question which oughtn't be read) we have discussed in passing the danger of pronouncements that - with a handful of notable exceptions - support for certain parties is and isn't compatible with quaker beliefs.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Quaker-B" group.
To post to this group, send email to quak...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to quaker-b+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/quaker-b?hl=en.

--
www.star-one.org.uk ~ www.winterval.org.uk ~ www.birmingham-alive.com

[Pam Lunn]

yes

 

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wim Nusselder
Sent: 11 December 2012 16:21
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

Conservative rather than LibDem?

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pam Lunn
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:58 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

Michael Gove is a senior member of the Conservative government’s cabinet and is minister of state for education.

--

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Chris, Pam and Simon,

 

In that case a Quakerly response to "Every child can benefit from the values of a military ethos" (answering that of God in Michael) could be refined from “Indeed every child can benefit from the two primary values of a military ethos: self-sacrifice and courage, especially when taught to express them non-violently!” into a (preferably shorter) statement that also appeals to conservative values.

We don’t have political parties in the Netherlands that dare call themselves ‘conservative’, so I will have to leave that to you British.

 

Supporting values doesn´t imply support for the political parties that pretend to embody them.

Rather the opposite: cf Gandhi’s appeal to civilisation to demand better treatment of his people.

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of simon gray
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:54 PM
To: quaker-b
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

yes.

 

although (and realising i might be reading things into your question which oughtn't be read) we have discussed in passing the danger of pronouncements that - with a handful of notable exceptions - support for certain parties is and isn't compatible with quaker beliefs.

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wim Nusselder
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:21 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

Conservative rather than LibDem?

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Pam Lunn
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:58 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

Michael Gove is a senior member of the Conservative government’s cabinet and is minister of state for education.

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wim Nusselder
Sent: 11 December 2012 15:53
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

Speaking up and responding do not necessarily require disagreeing or confronting…

Bending in the right direction might be more effective…

In such cases I try to take an example from Gandhi’s response to the question “What do you think about civilisation?” upon arrival in Britain: “That would be an excellent idea!” (or something similar).

In this case we could consider endorsing the value of sacrifice for higher purposes while reminding that doing so non-violently is more courageous than doing so when armed.

“Indeed every child can benefit from the two primary values of a military ethos: self-sacrifice and courage, especially when taught to express them non-violently!”

(By the way: who is Michael Gove and what is his job?)

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:23 PM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

"In June 2012, Gove approved three schools run by creationists leading to concerns about whether Department of Education requirements not to teach creationism or intelligent design as a scientific fact would be met." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove
Do we really need to respond to this guy about anything?

[simon gray]

On 11 December 2012 17:11, Wim Nusselder <wim.nu...@antenna.nl> wrote:

We don’t have political parties in the Netherlands that dare call themselves ‘conservative’, so I will have to leave that to you British.

the british conservative (or to give it its full title, conservative and unionist) party is the equivalent of what you folks on the mainland call a christian democrat party; as opposed to the labour party which is what you mainlanders call a social democrat party (not to be confused with the old social democrat party here, which was formed as a breakaway when the labour party wasn't so much a socialist party but an unelectable party and then merged with the old liberal party to become the liberal democrat party. there are indeed still rumps of the liberal and social democrat parties in existence picking up the odd vote here and there). confused? you will be!

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Simon,

 

No, it is not that easy to confuse an employee of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.

It is the kind of mess one can expect in a political system that effectively limits the number of political parties to 2 or occasionally 3, but we see worse messes in some of the 20+ countries where we work.

 

Equating your Conservatives with our Christian Democrat Appeal must be too crude; the CDA only drew 8,51% of Dutch votes last September…

In the Netherlands conservative sentiments hide to a large extent under the flag of liberalism…

If you don’t want confusion, better not try to translate politics across languages and cultures…

I prefer to leave British politicians to you British Quakers to speak truth to in love.

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of simon gray
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:20 PM
To: quaker-b
Subject: Re: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

the british conservative (or to give it its full title, conservative and unionist) party is the equivalent of what you folks on the mainland call a christian democrat party; as opposed to the labour party which is what you mainlanders call a social democrat party (not to be confused with the old social democrat party here, which was formed as a breakaway when the labour party wasn't so much a socialist party but an unelectable party and then merged with the old liberal party to become the liberal democrat party. there are indeed still rumps of the liberal and social democrat parties in existence picking up the odd vote here and there). confused? you will be!

 

[simon gray]

On 11 December 2012 17:37, Wim Nusselder <wim.nu...@antenna.nl> wrote:

It is the kind of mess one can expect in a political system that effectively limits the number of political parties to 2 or occasionally 3, but we see worse messes in some of the 20+ countries where we work.

i'm not sure it's either a 'mess' or that we 'limit' the number of political parties to two or three. in mainland europe (and indeed most of the rest of the world which models their political systems along similar lines to european liberal democracies).

in the rest of the world most parliamentary parties are organised into broad groupings of 'left', 'right', and 'centre' parties, with the fringe parties also fitting where they fit. after an election those parties organise themselves into coalitions according to the election result. in britain, contrary to popular belief, our three main parties are themselves coalitions of thought, so the only difference is that in britain people know what they are voting for in advance of the election, whereas most other places people get something which broadly maps to what they voted for. notwithstanding the issue of our voting system, i don't believe either position could be described as being inherently superior or inferior.

 

In the Netherlands conservative sentiments hide to a large extent under the flag of liberalism…

as they did in britain until about 100 or so years ago, before the creation of the conservative party.

 

If you don’t want confusion, better not try to translate politics across languages and cultures…

I prefer to leave British politicians to you British Quakers to speak truth to in love.

well you did ask the question - you can't really complain about receiving an answer... 

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Simon,

 

I agree that the British voting system is not inherently superior or inferior to the Dutch system.

It is just … more British.

In your system you know whom you get (while what you get in terms of ideas is more messy, because of that internal freedom of thought).

In our system you know what you get (while whom you get is more messy, because parties rather than voters choose candidates).

It fits our cultures: Dutch value content over form, British value form over content, it is said (which is a simplification of course).

 

I don’t complain about the answer.

Rather the opposite, because it makes it easier for me: I can leave it to you.

If Michael were LibDem I might have had to suggest a refinement for the Quaker response to him myself, because LibDems have a better Dutch match (in Democrats ’66) than the Conservatives.

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

That's very interesting Wim.  We are not allowed to use the Meeting for political purpose (or else we get taxed).  That doesn't mean we can't talk about issues but we need to stay away from advocating candidates for office. I wonder if that says anything about American culture.

Chris

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Chris,

 

Well, it confirms my prejudice that politics in the USA is -even more than in Britain- about politicians rather than about their ideas and that American culture focuses to an unhealthy extent on financial incentives and disincentives (e.g. taxation).

Americans are so free to express their opinions on issues, that it has no political effect anymore and can easily be tolerated by politicians.

Expression of opinions on politicians, however, can land one in court far more easily than in the Netherlands.

American politics appears to be about trust in persons to use power wisely rather than about integrity in applying party ideology, as in the Netherlands.

 

More in general I understand American culture as firmly rooted in British culture (valuing form over content), while adding appreciation for individual independence and as tending to formalism and love of authority (the way we Dutch relate to policemen and soldiers would be quite unadvisable if even thinkable in the USA) in combination with friendliness and easy-going manners (superficial by Dutch standards).

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

---

[Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA]

Hi Wim

I don't think UK/US people motives are inherently different.  What we suffer from here are inordinately long (and hence expensive) elections and this corrupts the whole process.  My boss (a scheduler of civil engineering projects ) used to claim "cut down on the duration of a job and you will save money".  When I was an immigrant alien I used to tell people "what you need is a queen.  Then she could disband Congress and six weeks later it's all over and there's only so much money you can spend in six weeks."  The way it works now is the lobyists write legislation and the politicians fundraise for the next election:  http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/ - sad.

Chris

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Chris,

 

You were wondering about American culture and you are now responding primarily on the more superficial level of election ‘mechanics’…

Motivation is a wholly different realm.

 

With f&Friendly greetings,

 

Wim

---

From: quak...@googlegroups.com [mailto:quak...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Roberts, Newton Meeting, Camden NJ USA
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 4:12 AM
To: quak...@googlegroups.com
Cc: wim.nu...@antenna.nl
Subject: [Quaker-B] Re: in today's Guardian

 

I don't think UK/US people motives are inherently different.  What we suffer from here are inordinately long (and hence expensive) elections and this corrupts the whole process.  My boss (a scheduler of civil engineering projects ) used to claim "cut down on the duration of a job and you will save money".  When I was an immigrant alien I used to tell people "what you need is a queen.  Then she could disband Congress and six weeks later it's all over and there's only so much money you can spend in six weeks."  The way it works now is the lobyists write legislation and the politicians fundraise for the next election:  http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/ - sad.