離教者之家 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: [瘋狂行徑] 屯門馬可賓中學強迫學生去「方舟不是神話佈道大會」 [打印本頁]

作者: 龍井樹 時間: 2010/7/5 11:05 標題: 屯門馬可賓中學強迫學生去「方舟不是神話佈道大會」

各位朋友﹐ 我從“香港科學教育關注組”得知﹐ 屯門馬可賓中學強迫中一及中四學生參加「方舟不是神話佈道大會」。這中學邀請過吳宣倫這個神棍宣揚偽科學﹐ 老師也打壓那些堅持科學的學生。

學生上載學校發給他們的通告：
http://www.facebook.com/photo.ph ... aid=-1&id=730585743

作者: beebeechan 時間: 2010/7/5 11:21

通告不是說明學生可以不去的嗎?
事先告明, 有理由的咪得囉

作者: 淚兒 時間: 2010/7/5 14:44

回復 2# beebeechan

"阿媽無大肚就生左細佬 ,現在在醫院我要去探佢"呀

作者: beebeechan 時間: 2010/7/5 15:53

本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/5 15:54 編輯

回復 beebeechan

"阿媽無大肚就生左細佬 ,現在在醫院我要去探佢"呀
淚兒發表於 2010/7/5 14:44

若是真的
絕對是合理的理由
照寫在通知書交回便是

作者: 三教童 時間: 2010/7/5 20:39

如果真的沒辦法討回公道﹐爭取不到不被暴政壓迫﹐
就勇于地參與﹐勇于表達自己
以後若有類似活動
除以掌聲支持講者精彩的客觀表現之外
也以 “噓” 聲表示演講者主觀片面之詞去導人迷信

學校應該會鼓勵學生參與﹐表達不滿亦是一種參與

作者: weakest 時間: 2010/7/6 00:38

回復 2# beebeechan

同返學一樣...都勉強叫"可以唔去"ge...最少唔係死咗都要搵條屍番去....
不過, "必須出席"的字眼...實有強迫的嫌疑

作者: beebeechan 時間: 2010/7/6 00:42

本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/6 00:45 編輯

回復 beebeechan
同返學一樣...都勉強叫"可以唔去"ge...最少唔係死咗都要搵條屍番去....
不過, "必須出席"的字眼...實有強迫的嫌疑
.
weakest 發表於 2010/7/6 00:38

既然咁講人權, 點解唔用盡佢?
一封家長信: 學生是信佛教的, 不想出席基教活動
校長郁你一條毛就算在我身上哩

又驚人際關係破裂
又唔肯互相千就, 嘰嘰咭咭有鬼用咩

作者: 沙文 時間: 2010/7/6 05:06

回復 1# 龍井樹

校長大人台鑒, 敬禀者
欣聞方舟佈道會拍烏蠅要出memo呼召犬子莅臨,不勝榮幸甚矣哉
屆時犬子必鵲巢鳩佔座位, 以免懵丙入座誤信妖言

耑此
並頌教祺

學生家長
沙文
頓首

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 09:51

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 10:03 編輯

回復 5# 三教童

Note that hey have to paid $20 to get in.
It is too expensive a fee to listen tofor bullshit.

Why aren't the student paid instead?

--------------
Secondly, it is stated in the letter that it is part of the cirriculum. Choosing not to attend may have consequences.

This is how a normal notice for activity look like, observe the difference in wording:
http://www.skhhtcss.edu.hk/%5CActnotice%5C0910%5C20100512-257-%E5%85%A8%E6%96%B9%E4%BD%8D%E5%AD%B8%E7%BF%92%E8%A8%88%E5%8A%83%20%E2%80%93%20%E8%A1%8C%E5%B1%B1%E6%B4%BB%E5%8B%95.pdf

EDB also have a standard for the notice
http://ed-services-ncsc.hkedcity.net/circular/cir1104_c.doc

作者: weiyan 時間: 2010/7/6 11:41

比細路去見識下係幾好．做家長要多些指導．去之前陪仔女先睇謊舟神話．然後交份份量十足的活動報告．大讚神的奇妙，在山上創造了木頭和山洞．早些打免疫針好過讀完醫，做了大醫生才被人騙．

作者: 抽刀斷水 時間: 2010/7/6 11:42

回復 9# dye

No.

文中寫「學校將全費資助，已報名但無故缺席的學生，須於活動後繳付全費」

息事寧人者，面對又要寫家長紙來拒絕，都會乖乖就範。

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 11:45

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 11:51 編輯

回復 11# 抽刀斷水

The school's money either comes from taxpayer or tuition fee.

In either case, it comes from the student (or their parents)
----------------
Consider, does the student that REFUSE to go get a refund?

-----------
"已報名但無故缺席的學生，須於活動後繳付全費"

Strange, is it not?

作者: 抽刀斷水 時間: 2010/7/6 12:05

我就這樣看。基督教機構在亞洲博覽館這個非基督教地方租場，在金錢上已是為他們流血，不管血從何來，總有大成分的基督教血。

家長送子女到基督教學校，就應該預左有額外駛費供養基督教的了。（如果唔知，就只怪自己蠢，或者沒有看本網吧）

「已報名但無故缺席的學生，須於活動後繳付全費」←　這種懲罰式的收費，亦不罕見的。

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 12:10

Ofcourse they are bleeding. I am only saying that it is too expensive a price to pay to listen to the bullshit.

In fact, the student should be paid to listen to the bullshit.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 12:25

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 12:29 編輯

有何奇怪?
納稅人出錢,教會的自由 - 團體自由大於個人自由就是香港文化嘛,理所當然。
津校制度本身就是這碼子的事,不高興?告他吧? 不過香港人?會嗎?

作者: 抽刀斷水 時間: 2010/7/6 12:29

回復 14# dye

當入場睇笑話囉，都係20文姐。

作者: 沙文 時間: 2010/7/6 12:31

已報名但無故缺席的學生，須於活動後繳付全費
抽刀斷水發表於 2010/7/5 20:05

咁未報名但無故缺席的學生又點呢?

作者: 抽刀斷水 時間: 2010/7/6 12:39

回復 17# 沙文

有未報名既人咩？

「所有中一及中四的同學必須參加」

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 12:39

回復 15# Nomad

It is in fact not US of A. A typical Chinese will only sue someone as a last resort.

See the facebook petition. The first step is to inform the school of the dissent.

-------
The school do have some automony in its spending. "Some"

作者: 沙文 時間: 2010/7/6 12:45

回復 18# 抽刀斷水

學校話必須參加冇話必須報名
我参加但唔報名您吹得我漲咩?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 12:48

回復 19# dye

按照「香港文化」,的「香港法律」,你有得告才算啦。

作者: 沙文 時間: 2010/7/6 12:52

回復 21# Nomad

咁我報名而無故缺席但又唔俾錢, 學校去小額錢債庭有得告才算啦

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 12:58

If the executive branch is wasting their money, the legislative coucil has a duty to keep it in check (NOT the court).

BUT, at least half of the Legco is pro-government by the current political system.
----------------------------
Under basic law
第三十二條
香港居民有信仰的自由。

香港居民有宗教信仰的自由，有公開傳教和舉行、參加宗教活動的自由。

The student has a right to refuse to go. The school has a right to invite.

-------------
Also relevent,
第八條
香港原有法律，即普通法、衡平法、條例、附屬立法和習慣法，除同本法相抵觸或經香港特別行政區的立法機關作出修改者外，予以保留。

The school authority is there before the handover.

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

And

第一百三十七條
各類院校均可保留其自主性並享有學術自由，可繼續從香港特別行政區以外招聘教職員和選用教材。宗教組織所辦的學校可繼續提供宗教教育，包括開設宗教課程。

學生享有選擇院校和在香港特別行政區以外求學的自由。

第一百四十一條
香港特別行政區政府不限制宗教信仰自由，不干預宗教組織的內部事務，不限制與香港特別行政區法律沒有抵觸的宗教活動。

宗教組織依法享有財產的取得、使用、處置、繼承以及接受資助的權利。財產方面的原有權益仍予保持和保護。

宗教組織可按原有辦法繼續興辦宗教院校、其他學校、醫院和福利機構以及提供其他社會服務。

香港特別行政區的宗教組織和教徒可與其他地方的宗教組織和教徒保持和發展關係。

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 13:03

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 13:05 編輯

I am not sure about US of A.  In Canada, UK, or in HK, the losing party in a lawsuit will pay for the fee inccured by the winning party.

The risk of suing others is high.

-----------
In precedent case, you also note that a private citizen has no standing in these kind of cases.  You will probably need to prove you are "injuried" somehow by it.

-------------
In any case, I am only pointing out that going to court is not how it is handle for a mis-spending.  Check is placed (supposively) at Legco when they passed the budget.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 13:11

各類院校均可保留其自主性並享有學術自由，可繼續從香港特別行政區以外招聘教職員和選用教材。宗教組織所辦的學校可繼續提供宗教教育，包括開設宗教課程。

宗教組織可按原有辦法繼續興辦宗教院校、其他學校、醫院和福利機構以及提供其他社會服務。

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

答案就是,在「香港特色的宗教自由」下,教會學校幹甚麼,沒有告狀的余地。
這個討論已經完了。

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 13:13

回復 22# 沙文

到時他們記你大過加寫爛你TRANSCRIPT時,在香港你沒錢出國可能比小額錢債庭告更嚴重。

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 13:16

回復 24# dye

yeah, except, in a publicly funded school in US, that piece of notice alone would cease the funding to the school altogether, and possibly incur a huge fine on the school.
In Hong Kong? Nothing, the same "basic law" protects whatever the school does for shit as long as the legco, which is pretty much dominated by the same interest group, passes the bill.
Enjoy your "HK style basic rights".

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 13:21

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 13:37 編輯

Also notice that in HK there's neither tax return nor a "guaranteed" government funding for attending a non-government funded school, which means, if you do not attend a high school run by public funding, you're penalized by double-taxing.

作者: kwongyauleung 時間: 2010/7/6 14:14

迫人睇方舟不是神話

so PK.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:17

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:27 編輯

Basic law also has

THE HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS

Article 15

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

(2) No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

(3) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

(4) The liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions shall be respected.
-----------

There is a ground for suing. But it is basic law against basic law, which one will prevail?

Again, it is easy to ask someone to sue, but why are they suing? Is it not for the betterment of their OWN child? Why should one pay the whole cost for the betterment of the society? (Which may not succed anyway)

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:18

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:31 編輯

回復 28# Nomad

You can pick your public highschool in HK. You HAVE a choice.
----------
http://chsc.edb.hkedcity.net/chi/schoolprofiles_secondary.php

For example, there are 2 highschool with no religious background in the same area to pick from (if they are only interested in fully funded school)

If they are willing to pick from the subsidise ones, there are school with Budhism background, charity background, and Taoism background.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:19

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:22 編輯

回復 27# Nomad

The school still need to follow the circriculum from Education Bureau.

Notice that the Lecgo pass the budget, not the bill.

------------------
Notice that Basic Law is NOT designed and passed by HKers. It is a deal between PRC and UK before 1997. (Hence the 'history')

HK have NO right to ammend the basic law. Any amendment recommendation will need to have 2/3 of the Legco passing it before being sumbited to PRC for approval.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:30

Yeah, you have a choice - some 6% of people, with some prohibiting exam selection can choose to enter a public school because that's all the government is providing*, provided that some 50% of them will end up in church school JUST BECAUSE THERE'LL BE NOWHERE ELSE to go.

Some 800 people out of the 6 million each year has the right to elect that stupid Chief Executive of HK, you "HAVE" a choice, by the same means.

*And to enter a public high school in an area in times involves going into a church elementary school first in which an anti-religious student is subjected to tracking, which means one usually would NOT be able to get through the selection unless he somewhat subject himself somewhat into contemplating whatever religious bullshit the school is forcing upon students.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:36

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 14:40 編輯

回復 30# dye

Which means depending on the intepretation of the basic law the basic law contradicts itself, which means, unless the NPC stand out to intepretate the law, and unless that intepretation is in favor of the individual's : 1. Right to not have his taxation be used in direct religious activities, (as in US) or 2. Right not to be subjected to religious activities in a government funded service (as in US), otherwise, under article 137 the individual still retain no right to sue the school on the basis of forcing him into religious activities, as that "can" be legally a part of the school's religious class.

BTW, while most HK people would go out to protest any arbitrary kind of legislation of Article 23 (which really means, this law better be never legislated), and noticing in the way they react to Article 137, to say that the Hong Kong people did not involve in the signing of the basic law adds no teeth the the counter argument that they had made no effort to fight for that right (therefore, not quite deserving it.)

Again, enjoy your "basic rights fitted into the history of Hong Kong".

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:36

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 14:37 編輯

If people are rushing to attend school other than the Christians, government will change the policy. Right now, there is no sign of such an exodus happening.

--------
The 800 do have a choice.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:37

For your reference, that's where the 6% comes from:
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/SC/Content_689/edsys_c.pdf

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:41

回復 36# Nomad

I am sorry. Which page?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:42

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 14:44 編輯

回復 35# dye

Of course there's no such exodus, because the parents has no choice at all (there simply aren't enough seats to move into - HK education system is SATURATED, look at that damn 43 people class at every high school in the urban area, and then a self-feeding ranking system ensures underfunded schools always gets underfunded), and they won't voice it, period. (oh in fact the students themselves who ARE the ones under the education, is conveniently out of the picture, again.)

No, you have a choice, you can go start a firm or something to become a functional group member and from there, become one of that 800 (just quite like going through that school system selection bullshit), same deal.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:45

回復 37# dye

The 24th, BTW, buying seats from a school DO counts as government funding (at least under US law), since the money does not go to the parents to choose which school (including private) they go but to the school directly.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 14:50

And then of course, as said:

to say that the Hong Kong people did not involve in the signing of the basic law adds no teeth the the counter argument that they had made no effort to fight for that right (therefore, not quite deserving it.)

Benjamin Franklin once said "They who sacrifice their essential liberty for a temporary safety, deserves neither liberty nor safety"*, to those who would give up their essential liberty without even buying　any national security, I wonder what he would say.

* (of course that's the same guy who would try to conscript Americans into the army, so yeah, it's hard to apply this one into national security, really.)

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:53

The government directly funded 6% of the highschool. They are non-religious.
For 38.5% of the subsidized school, not all are religious. Of those that are religious, not all are Christians.
For the ones that is buying seat, it is a simliar situation.
The 9% private school is still the same.

-------
Conclusion, you have more than 6% of the seat from non-Chistian school.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 14:54

回復 38# Nomad

Note that functional group and the election committe for Chief executive are different.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:00

回復 42# dye

Except you can join them, get through their test, and become on the the election member, then have a choice.
It's a long test, not many people get there, but by the same means, it's a choice.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:01

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 15:03 編輯

It is not Hong Kong people did not involve. But Hong Kong people is not ALLOWED to be involved.

It is then a British colony. It is now a PRC "colony"

---------
When people in HK is fighting for democracy, they are fighting to be involved to begin with.

If everyone in Legco is elected by the populace today, HK people will have 'some' influence over the matter.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:05

回復 43# Nomad

THe election of the functional group is complex. Not all are corporate vote. Many of them are individual vote.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:09

回復 41# dye

First thing get REALLY clear about this, 6% public school, means 6% schools FUNDING, OWNED, AND RUN by government. That is, what you claimed, to be "Public High", would mean in any other parts of the world, which I proved to be under 6%. I did NOT refer, however, to all non-Christian choices, and that includes the concern of the fact that most of them are underfunded, under-ranked, (therefore has no selection of students), and therefore consistently botched. (particularly that poor PLK, they never had the ability to hire good teachers, at all)

Now,
http://chsc.hk/secondary/tc/advancesearch.asp
That's our stupid EDB tool on school searching (high school)
Total number of schools: 459
Total number of Protestant "funded" schools: 123
Total number of Protestant "direct subsidized" schools: 22
Total number of Catholics "funded" schools: 82
Total number of Catholics "direct subsidized" schools: 6
Total number of subsidized schools EXCLUDING schools subsidized on a attendee basis: 233
Percentage: 50.76
A good assumption is most schools, particularly excluding Rural Area, in which public and non-religious schools has a higher percentile, is of similar size, which means funded religious schools takes up 50% of the seats, and with a circularly rating system, most government funding.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:10

Had the Basic Law been change and refuse to maintain the status quo then, would the government then be able to maintain the stability before and during the handover?

The promise to keep thing unchange for 50 years serve a purpose then, and may have consequences today (just like the civil servant's high salary) But how can you have the present without a past?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:13

回復 44# dye

Nope, they did. By "fighting" to be involved they DID fight to get a certain intrepretation of the basic law, and by any means, the same kind of protesting can certainly be done for ANY OTHER PARTS of the basic law, just like they did to Article 23, which is "postponed indefinitely". Was there a single protest for the rights discussed in this threat by the HK public that has anything even remotely comparable to that scale? No, period. Not even 1/10, 1/100, nor even 1/1000.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:18

No they cannot. Article 23 is not changed and cannot be changed. The protest simply stop it from moving forward.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:18

回復 47# dye

No, you can't have a present without a past, but who lives on the past, using it as an excuse not to deal with things they don't want to, won't ever get to the future, because they dwell on it. What I have shown, is even that was a limitation of the past is shown in Basic Law, just like how Article 23 is effectively ignored, if the people ever has any piece of a bit of determination, that piece of freedom is FAR EASIER, than, for example, universal suffrage 2012.

And then again, a people who cares only about voting but not their constitutional rights has clearly been shown in history - it's called German Republic post WWI.

The reason why past exist, most of the time, is that we need to learn a lesson from it.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:19

回復 49# dye

It is that simple: is there even a mentioning of legislation of Art. 23 now? No, it's postponed indefinitely, period.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:20

回復 46# Nomad

The fully funded school is definitely not religious.
The subsidize school may not be Christian.

I am not the one mentioning 6%, you are.

I am only saying that there are choices other than Christian school.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:21

They do have a protest against the government reform the school system. They are concern, just not in your particular narrow topic.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:23

回復 52# dye

#31:

回復 Nomad

You can pick your public highschool in HK. You HAVE a choice.

For exampl ...
dye 發表於 2010/7/6 14:18

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:24

回復 53# dye

Which means they simply don't care about their own religious freedom, and what's a people who would freely submit that? Someone in one of those "Islamic Republic" maybe?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:27

回復 54# Nomad

And not including the tracking problem part, that's what I replied:

#33:
Yeah, you have a choice - some 6% of people, with some prohibiting exam selection can choose to enter a public school because that's all the government is providing*, provided that some 50% of them will end up in church school JUST BECAUSE THERE'LL BE NOWHERE ELSE to go.

Of which I certainly has demonstrated the calculation.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:28

186 school with no religious background
23 budhism school
7 Taoism
1 Islam
1 confucian
5 listed as other (other than above and Chritsian, in which 4 of them is really confucian, 1 Christian)

---------
Compare with
88 Catholic
and 147 Christian

From the link you provided.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:31

There are more options. It is not either fully funded government highschool, or Christian subsidize school.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:39

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 15:43 編輯

回復 55# Nomad

If the government is begining to force people into believing, they will care. But right now, the government is not doing much.

There are other pressing issues.

---------------
To press the point, not EVERYONE in US sue the government over the Patriot Act. Do we conclude the US citizen do not caer about their freedom at all? Are they willing to live under a dictatorship?

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:40

回復 54# Nomad

You do have a choice in picking a school

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:41

First, one is still paying for those schools with tax money, in which Christians are overrepresented by their service by at least 5 times (some less than 10% of people are Christian in HK in total), with which if he so decides that he should go private school, that money is NOT refunded (unlike US)

Then again:

Of course there's no such exodus, because the parents has no choice at all (there simply aren't enough seats to move into - HK education system is SATURATED, look at that damn 43 people class at every high school in the urban area, and then a self-feeding ranking system ensures underfunded schools always gets underfunded), and they won't voice it, period. (oh in fact the students themselves who ARE the ones under the education, is conveniently out of the picture, again.)

No matter how that's distributed, how people "wants" to choose some 50% of people will end up there, no escape from that, period.

and that still neglects the funding/ranking attribution issue. And then of course, since the general public are only informed by a botched ranking, they never really would care.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:43

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 15:49 編輯

There is an escape, if there is an exodus, school will and can change hands.

For representation, there is a HISTORY in Hong Kong education system.

People did voice their opinion over the Small Class problem. Government even responds to it somewhat.

See their information http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=4189&langno=2

------------
And the school is not divided between public and private in HK, period.

It is a continum from public to private. From public to somewhat public to private. The public part is definitely irreligous. The somewhat public and private school only some are religious, and of those religious, only some are Christian.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:48

回復 62# dye

The question is: escape to WHAT? Some underfunded, circulatorily underrated school? Or International schools? PLENTLY of parents learnt enough to push their kids to ISes on A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS TUITION A YEAR, did the government do a jack shit to promote international school? No, thank you.

And then, as said:

No, you can't have a present without a past, but who lives on the past, using it as an excuse not to deal with things they don't want to, won't ever get to the future, because they dwell on it. What I have shown, is even that was a limitation of the past is shown in Basic Law, just like how Article 23 is effectively ignored, if the people ever has any piece of a bit of determination, that piece of freedom is FAR EASIER, than, for example, universal suffrage 2012.

And then again, a people who cares only about voting but not their constitutional rights has clearly been shown in history - it's called German Republic post WWI.

The reason why past exist, most of the time, is that we need to learn a lesson from it.

I would expect one would aware that if a HISTORY is an excuse for everything, then the HISTORY of democracy in Hong Kong definitely shows that HK people deserves nothing remotely close to a democracy. Yes, everywhere has a history and a culture, try not to abuse that argument, thank you.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 15:53

>And the school is not divided between public and private in HK, period.

>>Of course there's no such exodus, because the parents has no choice at all (there simply aren't enough seats to move into - HK education system is SATURATED, look at that damn 43 people class at every high school in the urban area, and then a self-feeding ranking system ensures underfunded schools always gets underfunded), and they won't voice it, period. (oh in fact the students themselves who ARE the ones under the education, is conveniently out of the picture, again.)

No matter how that's distributed, how people "wants" to choose some 50% of people will end up there, no escape from that, period.

and that still neglects the funding/ranking attribution issue. And then of course, since the general public are only informed by a botched ranking, they never really would care.

Same shit, same reply.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:55

History is an an excuse, but history is a reality that cannot be changed. You can only change the present and future, but not the past. However, what you have today DEPENDS on the past.
-------------

Christian or not, it is the SAME pool of school.

An escape is an escape from the Christian school with SIMILIAR quality education. If you wish to have an education above normal, ofcourse you will need to pay a price.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:57

Article 23 is NOT ignore. It is simply stopped from developement. If anyone is violating Article 23 in a outrageous fashion with no doubt, he will be charged for sure. (As I repeated, the law is still there! HK people have NO right to abolish it unless they have a bloody rebellion against PRC)

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 15:59

Same shit, same reply. There is a choice. You compare option with option, not with some randomly set idealistic brenchmark.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:04

It is the same for reputation of a school. It is built on history. Rome is not built in a day.

Parents rush to apply to certain school not because they have religious background, but because they have a HISTORY of providing quality education.

In a sense, it only make sense for school providing quality education to have more funding (which in turn is able to provide even better quality education). If government reverse the scheme and fund school with poor quality education, is it not an encouragement for poor management of schools?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:06

>You can only change the present and future, but not the past.

And are people showing any effort to change it? no, period. same argument still applies.

>An escape is an escape from the Christian school with SIMILIAR quality education.

and then a self-feeding ranking system ensures underfunded schools always gets underfunded), and they won't voice it, period. (oh in fact the students themselves who ARE the ones under the education, is conveniently out of the picture, again.)

One has to be quite dishonest to say that the education quality is SIMILAR, particularly when the schools on numbers, AND funding, are misrepresented by proportion.

FYI
Article 23:
>香港特別行政區應自行立法禁止任何叛國、分裂國家、煽動叛亂、顛覆中央人民政府及竊取國家機密的行為，禁止外國的政治性組織或團體在香港特別行政區進行政治活動，禁止香港特別行政區的政治性組織或團體與外國的政治性組織或團體建立聯繫 [1] [2]。

The Article ONLY SPECIFIES the government to MAKE THAT LAW, and that Law, up to this moment, is NOT legislated, it does not exist. For the article to be read word by word it is impossible for a person to be charged by article 23 alone as the article ONLY SPECIFIES THE LAW BE LEGISLATED, NOT THE LAW ITSELF, and as long as that a legislation out of Art.23 is not done, there's no legal charge to make on the basis of a law out of article 23, it's that simple. And will that EVER be brought to the table? not in forseeable future. (in fact, Art. 23 dont even have a date, how nice)

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:07

They have protest, they have write letters. They have shown effect but you refuse to watch, period

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:08

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law_Article_23

>The law was then shelved indefinitely.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:09

The law is article 23. It is there. Article 23 IS a law.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:10

回復 70# dye

>They do have a protest against the government reform the school system. They are concern, just not in your particular narrow topic.

>>Which means they simply don't care about their own religious freedom, and what's a people who would freely submit that? Someone in one of those "Islamic Republic" maybe?

That, or you want to swallow your own words again?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:12

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 16:13 編輯

In English:

Article 23:
>The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own ...

It is a law to specify the HK government to legislate that law, not a law directly on itself, if you can neither read the Chinese nor the English version of it, that's your problem. In fact, if that law even exist, there'll be no need for the legislation, nor the debate around it.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:12

By contrast,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau_national_security_law

THIS, for example, is a case where that law exist.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:13

回復 69# Nomad

One has to be particularly dishonest to say they have no option. You must compare option with option. With or without religion, there WILL be ranking. Even, with or without government, there WILL still be ranking.

Even public school system in Canada has an underground ranking.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:14

回復 76# dye

Except in US they don't receive government funding out of the ranking - as schools in HK does, they receive funding out government funding out of this thing called the state budget. Without this part, one would NOT have a circular system to drive outside school into the bottom.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:16

回復 76# dye

And no, I did NOT, say, for example, NO ONE, has the option, but only saying that option is very limited and the substition service provided is by no means similar. In the same argument, a heck lot of liberty impaired can be said liberty granted.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:17

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:19 編輯

The school that recieve the best student (usually also meant richest student) WILL be very differently funded regardless of what the government do (or not do). The basic drive behind the whole idea is the wish for every parent to give their children the best education.

For example, in PRC, you will notice that the land price increase sharply in famous (public) school area.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:20

回復 73# Nomad

The second part is YOUR word. Not mine.

I have said from the begining that they do care about their education and freedom. Just not the way YOU wish them to be.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:22

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:24 編輯

The government is NOT funding the school differently BECAUSE they are of a PARTICULAR religion. So they ARE simliar.

If the only library intact is Alexandria, and government protect it, it does not mean government is favouring paganism. It is only that they are favouring quality.

In order to have an argument, you have to show that the government is having a different scheme of funding base on religion, instead of merit.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:23

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 16:24 編輯

回復 79# dye

Flat wrong: for a school that's government funded to begin with, like that in HK, its core funding (like teacher salary, therefore the ability to hire teacher with good qualification), comes from the government, which means the government decides how good they runs a school - by most part. Donations usually comes for facilities (mostly one-time construction), and is less critical than the ability to hire better teachers from the market, which in the case of HK, is pretty much all government money for most schools. Which is why in US cutting of state budget in education usually is a disaster, like now).

The argument would also make those "best publics" like the california ones which dominates the UCB entry, looks like miracles.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:25

回復 80# dye

Oh except all you talk about is your little "quality" of education (which by history of what people protest about is mostly about exam grades or even more particularly, language grades, as much as news shows) freedom? no one sounds like they care.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:27

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:28 編輯

In Hong Kong, most school is not runned by government. It is only REGULATED. Even if the governmene run school, there will be difference in quality (not dictated by the government, but by the effort of the staff of the school).

Are you telling me in US publich school, if the school consistently produce student with horrible score will face no consequences whatsoever?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:28

回復 81# dye

From "HISTORY", before the handover, the British government had always been biased on Christian schools as Buddhists had always applied the same way, and not get fundings, then two problems are around as 1. older schools tends to climb higher up the rank as people know more about it and 2. there WAS a funding bias BACK THEN, and now that would not change because the ranking system drives previously underfunded schools to stay underfunded.

One has to see BS like this to appreciate this nice little thing called affirmative action.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:31

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:32 編輯

If the government begin an affirmative action based on religion, would it not be a unfair?

In fact, is it not a debate in US and Canada on the reverse discrimination created by affirmative action?

It does not happen to you that older school that manage to gain a reputation in the past has experience, tradition that is of some value? Simliarly, it is not a conincident that company with a shining past is highly price?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:31

回復 82# Nomad

On this, the VERY SAME SCHOOL I am sitting on right now is a government funded school that started when this piece of land has nothing but cows and land is cheap as dirt (compare to other cities, this piece of land still is.) and they started this crap because no one can affort education in this state - it is now the second strongest university in Plasma Physics.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:33

回復 84# dye

They change the administration to improve the quality, but NOT go around screw with funding basis on bad result coz, as shown in the case in HK, a reduction of funding due to current performance further declines the school.

And again, you missed the word: most schools are FUNDED, by the government. That makes a difference.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:34

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:36 編輯

回復 87# Nomad

So it shows with effort you can change the future!

But history has its restrain. The fame is not there at the begining, it will take time and effort to build it.

---------
Simliarly, if say Budhism consistently outperform school of simliar funding, it will rise in ranking to challenge the next ranking level until it reaches the top.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:35

本帖最後由 Nomad 於 2010/7/6 16:38 編輯

回復 [url=redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=62677&ptid=5457]86#[/url] dye

Thedebate in US is usually something goes like in UCB, for example, that40% of the faculties are CHINESE, over representing the ethnicity'spopulation in the state by a heck lot and therefore they stoppedaffirmative action. The argument that the whole thing calledaffirmative action should not be started, has far less supporters thanthe former.

And then when a system was dominated by a singular group of people for a long enough time, one changes the system to fit their own performance to bar competition - it's never always a better performance that makes a firm survive - look at those oil companies.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:38

The debate is that in Canada, being a minority give you a unfair chance to be a lawyer even if you fail the exam. (When the White Anglo Saxon Male fellow is unable to be a lawyer even if he pass all exams)

The same happen in PRC for their minorities. It is part of the reason the Hans hated the Islamist in Xinjiang.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:40

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 16:46 編輯

The affirmative action is a disgraceful law to begin with.  Are you saying that the minorities NEED the special treatment to reach the top?

If the system is based on merit, minorities should and will eventually succeed in reaching the top.  If the cat can catch a mouse, does it matter if it is black or white?

Think about what would happen if they have affirmative action in World Cup.  If they required that the final 8 team must come from the all different continent just to be 'fair'.  Is it fair?  Rather, it will be a look down on the country that the law is trying to protect!  What, the Brazilian and Agentina team can compete because we have enough from South America?  Or we can't have a whole final four with only European countries?

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:42

回復 Nomad

So it shows with effort you can change the future!

But history has its restrain. The ...
dye 發表於 2010/7/6 16:34

Effort? Well, a person of the general public can ALWAYS, protest on the grounds that to force a student to attend a religious class of a certain religion and put arbitrary out-of-school time into a part of it is a violation of their religious freedom, on the grounds that a funded school is supposed to be a government property. Anyone put any effort anywhere close to that? what about tax incentives for private schools? No.

作者: Nomad 時間: 2010/7/6 16:45

The affirmative action is a disgraceful law to begin with. Are you saying that the minorities NEED ...
dye 發表於 2010/7/6 16:40

Still flat wrong.

A previously prestigious group hold higher economical power because of their they pocketed money from their previous power, therefore one needs subsdizary to the a previously un-prestigious group as their community lack the social and economical status for in-group support.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:48

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 17:13 編輯

回復 93# Nomad

If religious class is (truly) bad for student, the merit base system will make them pay!  How is the government know what is best for the kids?

Again, if religious class is (truly) bad for student, they will not learn (right?)  If they consistent fail their exam, the government and parents will make them pay.

Now, suppose the religious class is waste of money, they will forego other learning opportunities.  If they consistent underperform (compare to school of simliar funding), the government and parents will still make them pay.

--------
The logic is beyond religious activities.  The school can have astrology, hemeotherpy activities too.  If they are harmful (or not effective), they will face face the same consequences.

On the other hand, if the government put a heavy restriction on what idealogy can be taught in class, would it not be like replacing it with 'goverment religion'?  (The non-religious school in HK replaces Religion Class with Civil Class, which is just pro-government class.)

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 16:50

回復 94# Nomad

Wealth, just like reputation, and experience is gathered through time. The weaker group will eventually catch up just like your school.

The underdog usually has an advantage of growing faster.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 17:07

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 17:08 編輯

"it's never always a better performance that makes a firm survive - look at those oil companies."

Ofcourse it is not (the key here is ALWAYS, because it usually is). Not all system is based on merit, and merit or goal is measure differently for different stakeholder.

For a Christian, for example, he/she is probably more interested in getting the kid indoctrinated than educated. For HK government, merit is basically based on getting an educated workforce.

For the investor of a company, profit is a merit, and so is corporate governance, and corporate conscience.

----------
The gatekeeper in HK education system is HK government monitored by the Legco.

作者: 三教童 時間: 2010/7/6 20:00

其實要解決這些問題﹐關鍵在於學生
就算這次取消了﹐那麼下一次呢﹖
為何沒有學生作罷課行動去抗議呢 ﹖
一間學校真的大部份學生都喜歡聽聖經課 ﹖

試想想﹐全港大部份學生都罷聖經課
甚至罷其他課抗議
而引起傳媒、政府注意
那些學校可以點樣﹖難道全部將學生趕出校嗎﹖

當年 54 非基督教運動﹐靠的是學生寫文章、貼佈告欄
資訊不算發達﹐亦算已經一挫了當年基督教學校的氣焰
壓制了它們強勢獨裁的作風

今時今日互聯網如此發達﹐資訊傳達如此發達
要聯繫一間甚至多間學校學生有幾難﹖

連對付基督教學校霸權這些不會流血的抗爭﹐
學生都尚且沒有 guts
恐怕連以"噓聲"表達不滿的膽子都沒有

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 23:08

本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/6 23:30 編輯

The US constitution is kept being used in the debate like this.  What did the Constitution say?

The following will give an insight:

In Zelman v Simmons-Harris [2002]

The court rule that it is constitutional to allow the government voucher money goes to the religious school.

Why?

Because
1) "The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a State from enacting laws that have the “purpose” or “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion"

2) "There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion. "

3) "To answer that question, our decisions have drawn a consistent distinction between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools and programs of true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals. While our jurisprudence with respect to the constitutionality of direct aid programs has “changed significantly” over the past two decades, our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice programs has remained consistent and unbroken. Three times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing. Three times we have rejected such challenges.... "

4) "There are no “financial incentive” that “ske[w]” the program toward religious schools"

5) "In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause."

------------
For a very simliar line of reason, in EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EWING ET AL. [1947], The court rule that it is constitution for government to fund the buses that send children to religious school.

In particular, because it serve a secular purpose
"Its legislation, as applied, does no more than provide a general program to help parents get their children, regardless of their religion, safely and expeditiously to and from accredited schools. "

-----------
You would wonder, with the seperation of Church and State, why is USA's holiday on Sunday but not Tuesday, on Christmas but not Lunar New Year?

McGOWAN ET AL. v. MARYLAND [1961]
The court gives us an answer.

"Moreover, it is common knowledge that the first day of the week has come to have special significance as a rest day in this country. People of all religions and people with no religion regard Sunday as a time for family activity, for visiting friends and relatives, for late sleeping, for passive and active entertainments, for dining out, and the like. "Vast masses of our people, in fact, literally millions, go out into the countryside on fine Sunday afternoons in the Summer. . . ." Sunday is a day apart from all others.  The cause is irrelevant; the fact exists. It would seem unrealistic for enforcement purposes and perhaps detrimental to the general welfare to require a State to choose a common day of rest other than that which most persons would select of their own accord. For these reasons, we hold that the Maryland statutes are not laws respecting an establishment of religion.... "

In other words, yes it has a Christian beginning, but it is a custom of the people.

Not convinced?

MARSH v. CHAMBERS [1983]

The Legislature is using government money to hire a chaplain to gives a prayer to each opening.  It is constitutional, too!

The court says
"In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

In other words, yes it is religious, but it is custom and history of the people.

作者: dye 時間: 2010/7/6 23:39

回復 88# Nomad

HK is ALSO changing the administration. (Which eventually lead to the Catholi challenging it and losing the legal battle with the government.)

You are the one that miss the point all along.

歡迎光臨離教者之家 (https://exchristian.hk/forum/)