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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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 ﹖


當年 54 非基督教運動﹐靠的是學生寫文章、貼佈告欄


學生都尚且沒有 guts
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.


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?

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?


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.
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.
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies