weakest

Not only that people with different religious beliefs should be invited into the group, but also those without any religious belief. Since this would make more balanced judgements to represent the view of the society.

However, it seems that it is difficult to know the religious belief of different people. After all, only a few would just get certificate from religious parties, and we can't observe the mind of others directly. In addition, the religious belief of people could be changed rapidly. In what basis (observable basis) should we use to check the religious beliefs of different people?

weakest

And also requires that the reason of judging an article should not appeal to religious belief?

weakest

"sorry cant quite agree

>>>> it seems that it is difficult to know the religious belief ofdifferent people.

yes , but , not too difficult , it does have 'the ways ,
let's just ask !! y[[=why]] not !!!!!???? it works !! .........

e.g. : :::::
曾當奴 does have publiccly admitted [[ when being asked ]] he's a Catholic , a devout Catholic

e.g. : :::::
http://exchristian.hk/forum/view ... &extra=page%3D1
>>>>>>>>> 美國2008年大選總統候選人宗教信仰一覽
>>>> we can't observe the mind of others directly.
+
>>>> In what basis (observable basis)
>>>> should we use to check the religious beliefs of different people

in my own humble opinion : ::::: v dont need to `````observe'''' nor `````check'''' ,
let's just ask !! y[[=why]] not !!!!!???? it works !! ......... ask them2declare,
they should declare
they must declare
they MUST declare , their decisions 'r directly + indirectly affecting or effecting the public !!"

1. But, how can you guarantee that they won't be telling lies? If they know that people would think it is problematic if the group is formed by all Christian, and using the Christian doctrine as the rule to judge, it seems that it is of their interest to hide this fact to public (just go to 佛堂 for 1 or 2 times, or just declare that they are 無神論者, etc.).


回復 8# 的帖子
"If, say 90% of the population is Christians, what is wrong with having a panel with 90% Christians?  What would you have felt if 99% of the poplation is atheist and 50% of the panel is Christian for the sake of balance?

What does it mean to have a balance of opinion?

If we must have every religious group in the panel, we will need: all sect of Christians (a couple hundred), Islam (at least 2), Hindu (a few million), Jedian , IPUian...etc"

2. You get a point. As I said, it is something too difficult to observe (not like those information of profession, you can check it up via the database of 工會, and the academic qualification could be check up by looking at certificates). In addition, even if we assume that people don't tell lies, it seems not so practical to figure about religious belief of the whole population. There is a census for every 10 years (and 5 years if by-census are taken into account). If we use the figures of population census to figure out how much people believe in certain religion, could we use the data as a guidence in forming the group of 淫審處? (But it may have the problem that the data maybe out-dated after 1-2 years. After all, people may have their personal religious beliefs changed due to some reasons. Otherwise, how come there is ex-christians, for example?) I don't know if this idea would be practical.....


"Rather, I suggest following the current mechanism of the judical system.  Have citizen randomly poll into the panel.  Make it illegal for failing to attend with no proper reason.  Provided that the sample is large enough (statistically, a dozen or so will be good enough for a million people), it will reflect the public opinions properly.

In order to fix loop holes, there can also be a repeal policy.  Cases should be repeal a couple of times even if nothing change to ensure that the sample is representative."

3. But the problem is that: Is the panel really selected RANDOMLY? Or simply by the preference of the authority? If you think that the existing system is good enough, and the group is representative of the HK population, we may come up with a conclusion that we don't want to get: Those ask for 送檢the bible are just minority, and simply a group of disturbance..., and that the 中大學生報is really an unacceptable material...

weakest

I think the system of 淫審處 do have some problem. If the system adopting now could really represent the social point of view, that means 大衛像, 中大學生報, 秋天的童話, etc. would all be not appropriate in the social point of view. (Of course, we may don't want to have this conclusion, but this is not the reason that I think the system is problematic, it is a bit of side-issue). However, if the 大衛像, 中大學生報, 秋天的童話 etc. are appropriate, the system would likely to be problematic. Is it more likely that the "system is ok", or that "the 大衛像, 中大學生報, 秋天的童話 etc. are appropriate in the social point of view"? You may say that these would simply be some case of normal sampling errors of an appropriate system, however, would the cases of errors be too many from being "normal sampling errors"?

If it is the case that it is too costly to make a good system for 淫審處, and for the 淫審處 to implement it, would it be a better option for the society to simply shut it down, rather to have a 淫審處 that could not represent the ideas of the society, but to allow an organization to exercise some political power to support only their own subjective ideas?