|
作者
|
內容
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 上午 09:43:25
|
|
|
報載保安局警告陳主教,如接受或教唆他人接受無證兒童入學,將有可能被控.
教會應否對此進行抗爭?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 上午 10:47:10
|
|
|
這不是抗不抗爭的問題 - 這是個很複雜的社會問題;教會應該參與;如何參與,不該取決於三數人的行動而該廣泛資詢:因為這已不只是信仰的問題。
如果單純是信仰問題,信眾聽從主教;社會問題,反過來亦不得不聽取信眾、聽取社會。common good 是社會的大前提,信仰的目的亦不離此:這不是多少數的問題而已。
葉局長以其立場而言沒有錯,只不過,單看法律以法律為本位的思想,並不合乎天主教的神學,但這是當今全世界各政府們的predominant取向,咱們有發言的必要,卻必須受法律的規範(因為這兒不是天堂,耐何)。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 上午 11:07:27
|
|
|
施施姐,妳的看法幾有趣.
首先,妳說要廣泛諮詢,但後來又說不是多少數的問題.
妳說到"卻必須受法律的規範",我是不能完全贊同的.首先我不認為保安局對兒童權利公約的詮釋是正確的,這要由法庭決定.就如上次警方濫用職權,強行拖走支聯會的車一樣.未有case,我們不好說,葉太的立場一定對.就算政府對, 這樣做是合法,但又是否合乎公義?
甘地和馬丁路德金已向世人說明,法律之外還可有更大的公義,它要求我們去為此而奮鬥.當然,作為政府律政部門的同事,我可理解妳的看法.
葉太有本事就去拉主教上法庭,看看法官怎樣判.
主教說帶那些兒童去見董生請願,可以預埋我.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 上午 11:50:23
|
|
|
請願當然好!
爭取嘛,對的當然爭 - 了解也很重要,不用急就是了 - 整件事前因後果那麼多,影響甚麼,是否只是百多人,只是他們的公義,很難說了。凡事有舉一反三的顧慮,的確很難做......食又死,不食又死,橫死掂死,為何要聽教會那套?他們不講耶穌的哩。
得承認社會上有很多不同的看法就是了。街上大嬸說他們交過稅才該讀,因為政府出大份錢的......唉,政府現在又窮?!?!
他們全都錯?且別太武斷:內地沒書讀?先讀著看可以嗎?
大家對情況不知了解多深?
我不知答案 - 先了解整體情況才能下判斷。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 上午 11:59:49
|
|
|
Some thing interesting - not only did Martin Luther and Ghandi said that there are justice apart from law - only guys like Kelsen believe in the supremacy of law over everything.
The issue here is not that there is only law - there is a divergene of public opinion, and the government HAS to take heed of this.
Hong Kong is a 'abckward' society - you may say. It is good to 'show' them what else there is apart from legality - I think, if there is simply 100 odd kids, why NOT the Catholic teachers and guys like Cheung Man Kwong run classes for them? They can run extra classes, make shift class rooms in small groups (in the form of private tuition without fees).
My main point is - avoid stirring up things with this Government if there are other solutions available. Set up a petition to the teaching professionals, to private schools to spare a few teachers (only a handful would be enough).
Because if you stir up the Government in things no matter large or small scale, the primary incentive would not come to sight by the general public. They would only SEE Catholics as being antagonistic and NOTHING ELSE.
Trust me - they are viewing things this way. Good for evangelisation?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 下午 12:17:44
|
|
|
Oh yes, one more important point -demonstrations, though good, lacks strength.
Positive remedies are called for in all these cases. Set up a task force to teach the kids would be far better.
Most importantly, therefore, to 'practise' justice does NOT mean taking justice into our own hands.
We do not have a commandment to judge - we have a commandmentto love.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 下午 12:24:16
|
|
|
Oh, Cecilia, I think you are missing a pt here.
Now the government is saying even the church would like to provide the education to the kid, but they can't! We are not asking the government to give us extra money to provide education to those kids. The government is saying we are unlawful to provide education to those kid.
Sure, you need to understand more of the issue.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 下午 12:29:14
|
|
|
I do think many people will agree with Bishop Zen in this issue.
to stand with the poor and oppressed is a good way of evangelisation, sure some offical don't like it, but to do the "right" thing is one of the mission of the church, isn't it?
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/12/8 下午 06:00:28
|
|
|
陳主教的立場值得支持。我想不是從社會角度來說要接受大眾的意見，而是身為教會，不僅其神性，也在於它的巨大，如果不在這個問題上表態，個別人很難做到工作。即使一個校長願意收這些學生，他也不敢，因為個人這樣做，可以好大鑊，但是天主教教會這麼大的機構站出來講話，效果就大不同，所以今回極支持主教。
在各項事件上，我們都漸漸看到政府對這些血濃於水的同胞，同情心極其有限，反而愈來愈仇視，單單是這種傾向，教會就應該出聲，希望可以糾正，或使之收斂一下。
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/9 下午 02:35:37
|
|
|
I was just reading one newspaper which ran an article saying that H W Ho is also considering getting some private school or tuition for the kids, which I think is feasible - unless those children have to be deported, otherwise can't see how such would violate government policy or the law.
On the other hand, to ask Catholic subsidised schools to do so may run into the risk of having the school principals being prosecuted.
They would face a real dilemma (which they may be willing, of course. To joe a bit, who dare not?)
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/9 下午 02:48:17
|
|
|
I am not those senior officials who know how the mechanism works in detail - it seems that Catholic schools, if subsidised by the Government, would be governed by some 'conditions' regarding 'grant schools' (of whcih they are). Private schools are not so restricted.
Come to think of it, it makes sense - if your child studies at overseas schools they charge you an exhorbitant fee. If you are a citizen if that place, then it is not so. So Mr Ho has a point - if private schools take them, seems there is nothing to violate.
Do think about it seriously and don't be blind on government policies (some of which may be distasteful, but others are not). Just don't be blinded by sheer prejudice, that's what I am saying.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/10 上午 09:57:36
|
|
|
回靚兄,廣泛資詢當然不同少數服從多數 -
你說我不了解,這是不錯的,因為我看的是從多年已來圾實施的政策和法律;主教看的卻不是這些。
廣泛資詢的作用是先了解對方,再win over 對方;學生們辯論時也用這套的,很管用.
我同意主教的立場,卻絕不同意所用的'搏拉'手段:很下三濫(容我得罪了)。
當一切可以解決的時候不來好好處理,動輒'抗爭',這並非公教行為(又容我得罪了)。破壞社會安寧的事從來就不是公教主張,不然,耶穌也不用死在十字架上了;可呼喚天軍滅城可也!
hnadsome哥如果知道整個事件的背景來龍去脈,也不會開出這條線來 - 不過可告訴大家,港區教會跟政府已no longer on ｓｐｅａｋｉｎｇ ｔｅｒｍｓ．這是有人刻意制造出來 － 教區ｇｏｔ ｉｌｌ ａｄｖｉｃｅ 的結果。當然，我不是大人物，再撒野也不會有用，ａｍｅｎ．
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/17 上午 11:03:24
|
|
|
"搏拉"是否下三濫當然可以商榷,我從來也不覺得馬丁路德金博士或甘地的行動下三濫.
我想問問施施姐,梁司長話歡迎志願機構(即教區)給予那些小童旁聽,這應如何理解?即是話你用我的錢就要聽我話(資助學校)?你用自己錢就無問題,就切合實際?這是甚麼樣的思維?究竟政府所說的違法是違了甚麼法?政府說的是刑事責任,那理應不是資助條例的問題吧,律師姐姐?!
法律界的立法會議員和大律師公會的主席都聲言找不到會違反甚麼法律,這會不會是政府的另一次濫權事件?或更好說,恐嚇事件?
另外一個更藉得探討的問題是,教會辦學的自主性,如受政府資助就要"出賣"原則,那麼如有一天政府要我們提倡人工避孕,死刑時,我們又是否照做?
|
|
cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/22 上午 11:26:49
|
|
|
Brother handsome guy, this computer can only type English, so excuse me for not responding in Chinese.
(1) I must let you know that NOT all the lawyers in this world are really experts - let alone those who only make money for more than half of their lives and now wants fame more than anything else after they've got the money. If you say you are an expert in ALL legal areas, you are telling me that you KNOW NOTHING; I simply IGNORE those handful of so-called loud voice experts (disdainful);
(2) The sad thing is you are SUPPOSED to know the law, but actually you don't. This is the common law system in Hong Kong, USA and many other advanced places. However, the law in Hong Kong IS IN A MESS - woe to those 'expert legislators' who actually shifted their responsibilities to the ignorant (You Know Who They Are).
The 'spirit' of the law - what is it? Has our Bishop asked? This is the primary duty of a pastor, isn't it?
Why should we Catholics always engage in irrational (well-intended, though) shouting matches with the ignorant? In doing this, we are NOT seen in any favorable light - let alone evangelising! Just se the heap of accusing letters to the VG's Office (as claimed by our Bishop himself on Ming Pao). I don't like this. Well-intentioned moves should ALSO be wrapped in a proper colour. If the Church can succeed in soccer betting, it can equally succeed in other controversial issues like this one - the task is to CONVINCE, not FIGHT. (I detest this word).
|
|
cecil
|
Posted -
2001/12/22 上午 11:44:32
|
|
|
'我從來也不覺得馬丁路德金博士或甘地的行動下三濫':
The point is, are you in the SAME circumstances as they are? You THINK you are; you WISH you are (to prove you are a heor, eh?) This is sheer nonsense (allow me to be so rude this time - this is my gut feeling). A real hero is one who convinces the masses. If Ghandi and Luther King used this, it is because circumstances called for it. Would you think Hong Kong people consider this heroism? For a handful of kids who can sit back and go to school back home but for whatever real or sham or coerced or misled reasons now CHOSE to 'fight' (they are NOT forced, like refugees).
To upset the social order DEMANDS very exceptional and pressing circumstances - even Christian ethics recognise that social peace and order is a VERY important value in this world, NOT to be upset until there is NO OTHER CHOICE. Well, the Government backed down on this issue, did it not? Assessment of the situation is ABOSULTELY importnat. YES, our Church is in DIRE need of strategic management expertise. It lacks such sadly and glaringly.
Only simpletons would so choose to use civil disobeidience in a situation like this (even idiots). Lucky that NOT many Catholic educators follow suit. Sensibility still prevails in Hong Kong, alleluja!
|
|
Cat
|
Posted -
2001/12/22 下午 09:34:42
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt your discussion. I have some questions and would be happy if you learned and wise people can give me the answers
First, let us agree that government and laws are needed for our society, then:
a. whether the government exists for people or the people for the government? Which come first?
b. Is majority always right? Was it a jury of 500 who sentenced Socrates to death? Was it the crowd who demand the release of Barabbas and leave Jesus to die on the cross?
c. When we come to an issue on moral and justice, should we sacrifice the right of minority?
d. Is the love and respect for others as a human part of “Common Good”?
e. Do people has their right to listen to their conscience over matters of moral and justice? Is this right override the laws of man?
f. Is our conscious the highest guidance of our thoughts, our words and our action.
g. Is civil disobedience some kind of heroism? Have anyone ever read the “On Civil Disobedience” by Henry Thoreau? Thoreau is one of the forerunner of “civil disobedience” and the ideas on civil disobedience of Gandhi and King. Can anyone of you give me a brief on the ideas of Thoreau, Gandhi and King on civil disobedience?
h. Does our Lord teaches us that whatsoever we do to the least of our brothers that we do undo Him? Are the poor what need our help or the wealthy?
i. Would anyone read ccc.1776-1802, 1897-1912, 1928-1942 and tell me what is the teaching of our Church on conscious, authority, common good and social justice?
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/12/23 下午 04:46:58
|
|
|
我再岔開話題。在這件事上，我原則上完全認同主教，但做事手法是否這樣，我保留。不過，聽到一些小道消息，就是主教對於教會內持不同意見的人非常不滿，要求整個教區口徑一致。我對這樣的做法同樣地覺得不滿，因為這不是極權還是什麼呢？當我們的主教要求別人尊重人權的同時，在他治下卻力壓不同的意見，這是否有點雙重標準呢？
|
|
Ignatius
|
Posted -
2001/12/23 下午 05:40:55
|
|
|
話明是小道消息，又會是真實嗎？
你可上香港電台的網頁，重聽昨天（星期六）二台的清談一點鐘的節目，該節目訪問了陳主教．
|
|
Ignatius
|
Posted -
2001/12/23 下午 05:50:42
|
|
|
陳日君主教對政府十二月十七日的新聞稿的即時個人反應：
1.極歡迎以理性態度（最好合情合理）討論問題。
2.把一些準確數字交代大眾是件好事（早應該做了），這樣大家可評估問題的幅度，但無論如何，不准這些兒童入學始終是個嚴重的問題。
3.本人還是以為把這些兒童的身分簡化，稱為訪客或逾期居留者、不準確又誤導，那些被引用的入境條例並不合用。
4.非常歡迎政府重新評核個案並在評核時讓教育署署長有更大的酌情權。
|
|
Cat
|
Posted -
2001/12/24 上午 01:35:03
|
|
|
Sorry that I have interrupted your discussion by posting the questions.
Well, may be I am a bit old and nasty, but this issue really annoyed me. Have you seen the interview of the children on TV? I see Christ in them. Let’s pray for them; especially on Christmas, a time of love.
Regarding “civil disobedience” and “common good”, I think that these are very important as they are being used very often in discussion of social/moral issues.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Essences of civil disobedience are:
1. In a imperfect world like us, government is necessary.
(this may not be agreed by people who prefer there is no government and laws)
2. Government exists for the benefit of people, not vise versa; and people are of higher priority than the government.
(this may not be agreed by the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes/supporters)
3. Government decisions/actions and laws can be wrong/immoral.
4. People should and has to right to obey his/her conscious.
(this may be reject by people who put law and order over conscious)
5. On moral issues, when one find that one’s conscious oppose the law/government, one should refrain from supporting the government on the issue and take peaceful action/inaction to voice his disagreement.
(remember --- peaceful)
(people who exercise civil disobedience should not aim as being a hero or a martyr. He is just doing what he should do – replying to the call of God. It is possible that he may be imprison, persecuted… and he should prepare for it and not run away but that is not his aim/objective).
The 3 main components of common good are:
1. respect for human person.
2. social well-being and development of the group
3. peace
Essence of common good is summarized in ccc1912 ---- The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons. “The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around.” This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.
So, for our issue on hand:
1. Is the right of the children being respected? Do the good Sumerian consider which tribe/nature the dying Jews belongs to before helping him?
2. We cannot judge the conscious of the reporters and Bishop Cheng and we should not presume that they are just acting hero. They may be following their conscious and be a good man.
3. Does providing education in the transition period would really cause unrest, chaos and destabilized the society? Would millions of child cross the boarder in HK just for this? I think not, the key point is whether the court will confirm their right to stay. If the court confirm their right, then others may follow, but this is another case. Don’t put the cart before the horse and be distracted by the government.
4. Is providing education to the children by private school not a peaceful mean?
5. Does the deprival of the personal right of those whose adobe right is not yet confirmed (who may have the right to stay in HK as found out by court) in line with the truth, justice and love we practice/seek and preach?
6. Does the promotion of discrimination against others benefit to well-being and the development of the society?
There is a picture in my mind: One day, two policeman found a man in the street, dying of cold and hunger. Instead of taking him to the hospital, they first check the adobe right of the man. If he is a HK resident, he will be sent to the hospital. But if he is an II or a person whose adobe right is not yet confirmed by the court, they will leave him to die on the street in fear of encouraging others like him to come to HK.
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2001/12/24 上午 08:05:24
|
|
|
為免糾纏，我再一次說明先：原則上，完全支持主教。
然而，如何處理呢？就講智慧。主教要求天主教教區322間學校都收這些學童，是否有智慧的說法呢？(我知道主教在電台上否認他講過322間，但是實際上，他確實把那封信下達322間學校)天主教表達立場，向政府施壓，是否更有效地處理這件事呢？為什麼要拖所有學校下水呢？
有校長在電視上表達了不同的意思，你知道該校所屬的修會現在受了多大壓力呢？
還有，終有一天，那些學童終於被判無居留權，我們的主教又如何做呢？如何公民抗命呢？如果到時又讓政府遣返這些在天主教學校讀書的小朋友，我們是否又不道德呢？不能做到自己之前強烈表達的立場呢？到時主教發動教友前去捍衛這群小朋友的人權時，請今天指責人不夠愛德的人，出來公民抗命吧。
地獄之路由好心鋪成的，各位共勉之。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/27 上午 10:53:35
|
|
|
聖誕快樂!聖誕小休沒有即時回應,sorry.
我想我首先回應施施姐的責難
(1) 當然不是所有律師都能是法律專家,以此謀生者亦然,正如哲學家一樣.我在真理面前,只能"驚訝"(karl barth),我唯一知道的是我的無知(蘇格拉底)
但這不可以就此說我們不能講述真理,我不是說我知悉全部法律,我只是說請政府拿出他的法理依據.按普通法,不是政府說的是法律,而是法庭判的才是法律,對否?
(2)我看不到為何我們反對政府的做法就是不理性,你從何角度認定主教是 ignorant?莫非只有妳閣下才是expert?其他的法律意見只能是 ignorant的意見?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/27 上午 11:17:11
|
|
|
The point is, what you means of the SAME circumstances?I don't THINK we are or WISH to be hero. This is sheer nonsense
(also allow me to be so rude this time - this is also my gut feeling).We are just doing what we "have to" do. As is the cases of Ghandi and Luther King, it is because
circumstances called for it. We don't care you or Hong Kong people would consider this heroism, or not?because the pt is not to be hero. The pt is to be JUST! For a handful of kids who sit there and can't go to school when they are waiting their judgement is not just!
,they are FORCED NOT to go to school in HK, worst than the kids who lived in prison!
Is allowing the kids go to school upset the social order? How? Christian ethics recognise that social peace and order is a
VERY important value in this world, That is true, however, it doesn't mean because we don't want to upset it we can do something unjust! THE END DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE MEAN! The Government back down, why? Because they know they won't win both in court and in the media.
Assessment of the situation is ABOSULTELY importnat. YES, our Church CAN'T Compromise our conscience. If she lacks her conscience, it is really sad and glaring.
Only simpletons would say using civil disobeidience is disgraceful ( I won't say they are idiots, since calling you brother idiots has a cost). Lucky that NOT many educated Catholics will think that way. Sensibility still
prevails in the Church of Hong Kong, alleluja!
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/27 上午 11:38:00
|
|
|
試答貓貓
a)民為本,社稷次之,君為輕.
b)not so. yes, 蘇格拉底死於他們手中,耶穌也死於群眾手.
c)no.
d)yes
e)yes,angin yes.
f)yes
g)not at all. will check back this book. 另一本可讀的,而且是中文的書是"福音與和平抗爭"
h)yes, you know what exactly what it said.
i)那裡已寫得很清楚.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2001/12/27 上午 11:43:50
|
|
|
貓哥的第二個posting很難答, 首先我同意你的分析.
這幾天我在想雙果原則是否在這情況下可用(用以justify不給予無證兒童入學).但想來想去也想不通.
究竟我們可以以甚麼倫理原則不給予適齡兒童教育?
|
|
