返回列表 回覆 發帖

[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」

There are more options. It is not either fully funded government highschool, or Christian subsidize school.
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?
回復 54# Nomad

You do have a choice in picking a school
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.
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.
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)
Same shit, same reply.  There is a choice.  You compare option with option, not with some randomly set idealistic brenchmark.
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?
They have protest, they have write letters.  They have shown effect but you refuse to watch, period
The law is article 23.  It is there. Article 23 IS a law.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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?
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.)
返回列表
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個