最近幾乎天天都只關注基督右派霸權的壞影響及如何補救,但似乎是給了各位一種感覺,是無神論者的身份,比我香港公民身份更重要。雖然稱自己為反基,但我的取態一向都是我先是香港公民,關心香港社會/經濟/政治的發展,然後才是泛民主派的忠實支持者,關心它們的前途,最後才是反基人仕.關心宗教霸權的壞影響及如何補救,。

香港每年的財政預算案一直以來都沒有明顯的意識形態的影子,我的印象是它似乎是為財政司的政治前途處身訂做,又或者是成為曾蔭權討好他的上級中國共產黨而設,除了「派糖」和「不派糖」的思路以外,並無任何新意。

因此我想提出一份合乎我本人的意識形態及政治立場的財政預算案,但因本人才疏學淺,經濟科不是我的強項,因此如有不足之處,敬請見諒。

我的想法是大膽一點,把政府上年的財玫盈餘的40%拿出來作以下用途:
A.公共學者計劃,豉勵民間作獨立之學術研究,防止學術被大學壟斷,或者商業勢力操縱學術研究;
B. 民間電台/民間電視台,發展社區經濟,減低人與人之間的疏離感,加強地區的向心力;
C. 另類能源發展計劃,豉勵民間的科學研究,由政府資助民間的發明家;
D. 在地區推廣Linux,支持開放源碼運動,豉勵發展公共知識產權;
E. 推廣校政民主化,建立全權由學生管理的校際電台;

上次有人提出基督右派最怕發生的自我實現的預言,基督右派催生反基左派,令我曾經提出的香港社會世俗化的主意得以成為社會話題:

我提出的是:
A. 政教分離法,教會不能以教會的身份參與政治,而政府亦不可以立法豉勵或禁制某一宗教,任何政策必須對所有宗教及非宗教人仕公平,以世俗社會的最大利益為考慮的根本;

B. 思想/宗教自由法,個人思想自由乃是所有自由的最根本,必須予以保護,防止公民的思想單元化,盲從一兩種主流的宗教,只因自少到大是接觸在同一種宗教; 個人不信仰宗教的自由比個人的信仰宗教的自由重要,而兩者亦比宗教團體去散播信仰的自由更重要,個人是社會的根本及天然存在部份,而不是團體;

C. 把宗教歧視納入現行的反歧視法內,包括了聯合國的人權宣言中提及的性傾向/膚色/國籍/性別/政治取向,為何香港獨獨宗教排除在外?難道宗教不及性傾向/膚色/國籍/性別/政治取向等重要?主流宗教可以合法歧視其他非主流或無宗教信仰的人?

D. 反仇恨法,針對的對象包括宗教,種族,國籍,性傾向,政治立場....等等;

E. 嚴格規管慈善團體的籌款只可以用作指定的慈善用途(如聯署廿天散播仇恨同性戀的言論),同時不可浪費損款,團體內部的貪污可以受法律制裁等。

F. 公民教育教的應是自由/民主/包容等的公民價值觀,豉勵學生作不同角度的深入思考,而不是用某主流宗教的論述,想都不想就簽回條支持學校的既有立場,成為政治動員工具,欺上暪下; 通識教育教的應是如何去思考社會問題,而不是從某一某主流宗教的既有「道德立場」,堆理由來支持它既有的給論,通識教育的目的在於提供新角度去事情,而不是維護主流論述;而其他科學科目都不應沾有宣揚一己宗教之偽科學如神創論或智慧設計論;如學校是宗教學校,它可以另設一科研究自己的宗教,願者上釣,只供自己的信徒就讀,不能計算在學分內,否則對非信徒者不公平。如果是非宗教學校,宗教科應名乎其實教的是比較宗教(comparative religion),讓學生明白世界各大宗教的特點,信仰內涵,宗教歷史及它和人類歷史發展的關係,同時提醒學生宗教不是道德的唯一來源,如要深究,尚有哲學!

本文的重點不在它們,而在基督右派上綱上線,把家庭暴力例條將同性戀者納入保障範圍當成等如承認同性戀姻婚的法律地世,會有什麼效果。本來,依一般人的理解而言,把家庭暴力條例將同性戀者納入家庭暴力條例保障範圍和承認同性戀婚姻是十萬九千里的事,但因為基督右派強詞奪理,硬把它們連接在一起,所以萬一基督右派真的輸掉此一仗,於同性戀而言,他們可以用基督右派的歪理,來支持在法律承認同性戀婚姻;再者,在心理上,經基督右派此一鬧,兩者無疑是連接在一起了,所以只要將同性戀者納入家庭暴力條例保障範圍,同性戀
的士氣大振,以為自己的婚姻將在法律承認,甚至可以以子之矛,攻子之盾。

我想問到時侯基督右派又是不是要今天的我去否定昨天的我,一如中共的新主子上場一樣,否定之前主子的一套?

所以基督右派一開始就輸了,任何歪曲常理的人終會嘗到自己的苦果。

(From: http://hk-magazine.com/feature/people-s-crusade)

An 800-strong protest march was the beginning of one new group’s effort to protect civil values from the designs of the religious right, writes Nigel Collett.

On Sunday, February 15, a new group took to the streets to protest against the fundamentalist Christian right’s growing voice in Hong Kong politics. The march occurred just a few weeks after 18-year-old Form 7 student Alva (or Aliber) Chun formed a group on Facebook named the Civic Movement Network (CMN), which rapidly gathered numbers of like-minded liberals (2,772 now and still rising) who have become very angry over the last few years at what they see as the lying and bullying behavior of the Christian right. (The group’s Facebook site is at www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47471402827.)

In early February, Chun and his 25-member organizing committee pledged that they would get more than 500 CMN supporters out on the streets within two weeks. On February 15, somewhere between 700 and 800 people marched from the Lai Chi Kok MTR station along Cheung Sha Wan Road to Boundary Street. They did so, they proclaimed before marching off, “to show their belief in a broad and open civic society and to fight the closed and insular society ruled by intolerance, misinformation and bigotry which the Christian right is seeking to impose on Hong Kong.”

The mission statement Chun drafted for CMN, which is on the Facebook site, expands further:
“We call ourselves ‘The Civic Movement Network.’ We come from many walks of life, including students, professionals, teachers and parents. Some of us believe in religion, others do not, but despite our differences we share a common belief. Together, we treasure the core values of our civic society—equality, human rights, democracy, rule of law, mutual dialogue, rational debate, tolerance, free and independent thinking, pluralism, transparent governance, care and concern for minorities and underprivileged groups, respect for an individual’s rights and freedom to choose their lifestyles in pursuit of their happiness as long as others are not harmed.”

The CMN is outraged by the way they believe Christian fundamentalists have tried to hijack recent public debates by appearing before Legco in a large number of ostensibly separate groups, so as to be accorded more time and attention than their real numbers warrant. There such groups have misrepresented the case for extending the Domestic Violence Ordinance to same-sex couples as a Trojan horse for same-sex marriage, and argued that the welfare of local children hinges on the widening of the Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance to cover the internet.

The CMN has also documented on its Facebook site examples of the way some fundamentalist Christians misuse their positions of authority in Hong Kong’s schools and social services. The Facebook site shows copies of letters handed out by fundamentalist teachers for their pupils and their parents to submit to Legco and the government in support of conservative Christian views, letters so similar in form to official school letters that parents have, according to the CMN, been duped into sending them in the belief that they were complying with the wishes of their children’s schools. The CMN has also started to collect details of cases in which teachers have publicly abused gays and lesbians.

The CMN’s members are now working on another issue which disturbs them. They have evidence, they say, that fundamentalist teachers are teaching creationism and “intelligent design” as acceptable alternative theories to evolution. They fear that fundamentalists have their sights set on amending the secondary school syllabus, which is now being redrafted for issue in September, to include a provision in the biology syllabus ensuring that students are “encouraged to explore” explanations other than Darwinian evolution.

The marchers who turned out on February 15 came from many walks of Hong Kong life; most were young, and some of them portrayed their protest as a revolt by young netizens against the conservative establishment of their elders. The march’s organization was self-funded and all the groups whose banners were carried were financed by their volunteers. There were new groupings here, on the streets in Hong Kong for the first time, including the Hong Kong University’s Social Work and Social Administration Society and a group named TruthBible.net.

Some participants, as the latter indicates, were Christians of a liberal persuasion, including Chan Sze-chi, senior lecturer in theology at Hong Kong’s Baptist University, who blessed the march with a prayer at its start. Towards its close, the march deliberately passed the Prince Edward offices of the fundamentalist Society for Truth and Light, one of the principal opponents of the domestic violence legislation. Marchers tied blue ribbons on nearby railings as a sign of their dislike of the policies advocated by the organization.

The organizers made it clear that the march was just a beginning for the CMN. “We will organize workshops and public talks for the people to hear our views,” said Virginia Yue. Fellow organizer Ken Lam added: “The fundamentalists want to censor the Net and impose their conservative views on our society. People who value their beliefs must fight. This march is just the start.”

(From: http://fridae.com/newsfeatures/article. ... warticle=1)


Something unique and very new emerged onto Hong Kong's streets on Sunday, Feb 15, an organized and vocal answer to the fundamentalist Christian right. Nigel Collett reports.


A brand new civil rights organization calling itself the Civic Movement Network (CMN) has exploded onto Hong Kong's moribund human rights scene in the space of about a month, showing its strength (and reminding those of us who needed it of the power of the net) with a march through the streets of Kowloon.


Some 700 people turned out onto the streets of Kowloon on Sunday, Feb 15, 'to show their belief in a broad and open civic society and to fight the closed and insular society ruled by intolerance, misinformation and bigotry which the Christian right is seeking to impose on Hong Kong.' Bottom image: co-organiser Virginia Yue.
From its Facebook group which was launched only in January this year, the CMN has already grown to a strength of over 2,000 net members. Between 700 and 800 people turned out onto the streets of Kowloon to march all the way from Lai Chi Kok's MTR Station down the Cheung Sha Wan Road to Prince Edward. They marched, they said, 'to show their belief in a broad and open civic society and to fight the closed and insular society ruled by intolerance, misinformation and bigotry which the Christian right is seeking to impose on Hong Kong.'

A mere four weeks ago, Alva (Alliber) Chun, a Form 7 A-Level student and Mensa member, found himself so angered by the bullying behavior of the religious right, and the misrepresentations they made in their campaign against the extension of the Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO) to same sex couples, that he decided something had to be done. Determined to fight for the civic values in which he believed, he formed a Facebook group to gather like minded people and drafted its mission statement, which is:

"We call ourselves 'The Civic Movement Network.' We come from many walks of life including students, professionals, teachers and parents. Some of us believe in religion, others do not, but despite our differences we share a common belief. Together, we treasure the core values of our civic society - equality, human rights, democracy, rule of law, mutual dialog, rational debate, tolerance, free and independent thinking, pluralism, transparent governance, care and concern for minorities and under-privileged groups, respect for an individual's rights and freedom to choose their lifestyles in pursuit of their happiness as long as others are not harmed."

Since 2005, when the Hong Kong Government first started half-heartedly to consult the public over a bill to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the Christian right has been making itself felt in Hong Kong. Over the last year, Hong Kong has seen a gradual increase in the activities of the Christian fundamentalist right. Advertisements placed at huge cost in Chinese newspapers abusing LGBT people; even more costly billboard posters on prominent street corners or tunnel entrances calling for conservative family values; letters to the press opposing extensions to human rights legislation and advocating an end to abortion; a deluge of letters sent to Government departments; vitriolic, intolerant and derogatory discussion of LGBT people at the Legislative Council (Legco) Committee considering changes to the Domestic Violence Ordinance (DVO), all these public activities were bad enough. But it has become very plain that the Christian right's activities have become more insidious in their threat to civic values. They have metamorphosed the small number of their publicly recognized organizations into a plethora of groups with the same aims and policies, all of which demand equal time and equal weight in public deliberations. This resulted in the hijacking of the Legco DVO committee sessions in January this year. They have leveraged their small numbers using the influential positions they hold in Hong Kong's education and social services.

Historically, Hong Kong's Government has delegated many of its education and social functions to Christian missionary organizations, and these now play a very vital part in Hong Kong's life. It is not possible for many parents to avoid sending their children to Christian schools, and many social services offered to the poorer members of society are channeled through Christian hands.

Whilst these are not all fundamentalist hands, many are, and at least some of these fundamentalists use their positions to proselytize and to further their conservative social views. Two recent examples of this tendency which have made Chun and his supporters anxious were, firstly, the campaign by fundamentalist teachers to instigate the sending of identical letters to Government departments and the Legco DVO Committee and, secondly, attempts to foist creationism onto the Hong Kong Secondary School Syllabus.

For some time fundamentalists inside the education system have taken advantage of the 'moral education' element in the curriculum to advocate conservative social views and in particular to abuse lesbians and gays. Their campaign against extending the DVO called forth a blizzard of letters against extending rights to same sex couples, letters issued by teachers to pupils for they themselves or for their parents to send. These letters were so suspiciously like official school letters that parents were led to believe that they had been asked to do this by their children's schools. In some schools, it is already clear that some teachers are teaching creationism and 'intelligent design' as acceptable alternative theories to evolution. Hong Kong’s Secondary School Syllabus is now being re-drafted for publication in September 2009, and this has become a target for fundamentalists, who are seeking to include a provision in the biology syllabus to ensure that students are 'encouraged to explore' explanations other than Darwinian evolution.

The public activities of the fundamentalist right have become unavoidable in Hong Kong, to the extent that Legco Members were recently caused to complain to the media of their behavior. So it was not surprising that Alva's call struck an immediate response. What was surprising was the speed at which the CMN took off. Within days, an organizing body of some 25 men and women formed itself on Facebook. Within two weeks, Alva committed the CMN to a public protest by more than 500 people inside another two weeks. On Feb 15, his project was dramatically fulfilled. After only a few coordinating meetings, the organisers held a press conference at the offices of the Association for the Advancement of Feminism and announced that a march would take place on the 15th.

Which it triumphantly did. The marchers came from all walks of life; men and women, old but mostly young, a few gay but the large majority straight, students, teachers, liberal Christians, atheists, accountants and social workers; this was a very disparate group united only in their belief in the need for civil rights in Hong Kong. All the placards, banners, loudspeakers, arm bands and ribbons were paid for by subscription by the marchers themselves; this was very much self-help in action. The march wended its way right down the central traffic lane of one of the major north-south thoroughfares in Kowloon, and towards its end in on Boundary Street in Prince Edward it attracted a large number of onlookers, many of whom, with the mass of traffic forming at closed cross junctions, could only stand and watch the demonstrators pass by. Outside the unmarked Prince Edward offices of one of the fundamentalist groups, the Society for Truth and Light, the demonstrators shouted slogans and ridiculed (in rather expressive Cantonese terms) the Society for hiding its light under a bushel. Noisy and lively but restrained and decently bahaved, the march was a model of principled civic action.

The march was both preceded and ended by a series of songs (one from the Cantopop group Beyond) and speeches from the organisers as well as a few visiting speakers, including a senior lecturer in Theology at Hong Kong’s Baptist University, Mr Chan Sze-chi, who led a prayer to start it off.

Several groups of well wishers marched behind their own banners, including Hong Kong University's Social Work and Social Administration Society and a group named TruthBible.net, an organization of those recently involved in fighting the censorship imposed on items discussing incest at Hong Kong's Chinese University. These had made their own Youtube film against the fundamentalists and to notify the public about the march.

Virginia Yue, one of the organisers, said that the march was just a beginning for the CMN. 'We intend to organise workshops and talks for people to hear what we have to say,' she told me. 'As a result of the success of today’s march, we'll now need a period of consultation amongst ourselves to plan what to do next,' she added.

Her fellow organiser Ken Lam saw that there was much to fight for: 'There is a series of issues currently under discussion in Hong Kong,' he pointed out, 'all of which are attracting campaigns from the fundamentalists, the two principal ones being at the moment the DVO and the proposed changes to the Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance. The fundamentalists want to censor the net and we must fight to prevent it. The CMN will join forces with other liberal activists in Hong Kong. The fight is just beginning.'

(轉載自:http://aloneinthefart.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_597.html)
(基督右派宗教霸權的實例!)

早前有傳聞指蘇穎智牧師涉嫌在主日崇拜為梁美芬助選，作為基督徒，這件事我已留意了好久。由於教會中人常常有語言障礙，總是說些正常人聽不明白的說話，所以當中有誤會也說不準。今日看見《心湖淬筆》的 Julian 兄談及此事，覺得他的文章可以轉介一下。我不認識 Julian 兄，不過平日看他的網誌，發覺他搜集資料一向詳盡，此事也不例外。詳細的情形，請看他的文章，此處我只附上蘇牧師有關演講（對不起，實在無法認同那是「講道」）的部份 transcript。由於演講的錄音（這是串流版，也可從此處下載）聲量太小，希望這部份的 transcript 會有幫助。（原演講有大量口語，下面我以最少改動把內容變得盡量接近書面語。）

(00:41:13) 我很感恩，今日的香港，原來你和我所有人（也是）有權參與的，去選出你們的那些立法局（會）議員，選出那些區議會的議員，甚至有權參與甚麼呢？有一些行政長官（的選舉），你同我都可以表達意見。我告訴大家，將來你同我可以選出整個社會的領袖出來，問題是你同我有無識得去運用這些特權，讓我們的社會變得更加好。

我感恩的（就是）最近這幾個月，有機會去瞭解和認識一些準備參選立法局（會）的弟兄姊妹，就在我們教會裏面都有三位準備參選。我個別地和他們傾談過，我感恩，和他們傾談的過程當中，瞭解到他們的心願，他們的使命感，和認識他們的家庭的各方面。有很多（？）我其實已經認識了他們廿二年，我為了他們而感恩，我支持他們，是（因為他們）用了基督徒裏面的原則，去影響這個社會。

但另一方面來講，我們並非參選，我們可以做甚麼呢？是我們有一張「咁勁」的王牌，是我們可以選或者不選，這個是我們的皇牌。親愛的弟兄姊妹，從聖經的角度來說，我們有兩段經文是可以讓我們參考，到底我們選舉的時候，是可以如何選。

《出埃及記》十八章廿一節：在這段聖經當中，講到摩西被神所特別地啟迪 —— 是透過外父給他的啟迪 —— 來選甚麼呢？是要從百姓中選出有才能的人，就是敬畏神、誠實無偽、恨不義之財（的人），然後派他們作千夫長、百夫長、五十夫長、十夫長，去管理百姓。親愛的弟兄姊妹，我很感恩，這段聖經讓我們看見原來（選舉）是有一些原則的。

另一方面，《使徒行傳》的第六章一到六節，同樣讓我們看見，教會內的選舉，也是有一些原則（要遵守）的。這個原則是甚麼呢？是選出那些被聖靈充滿、智慧充足（的人），另外（就是）要選出那些有好名聲的人出來。原來這些選舉原則，不是只是教會用的，以色列給國家用的、全國的、政治性的這些選舉是要讓這樣的人可以給選出來。今日，你和我在選舉時，我們便必須認定神自己的心意，以至我們選出來的人是真正可以代表我們的。那怎麼選呢？譬如在你的選區裏面，如果有幾個（候選人）都是基督徒，那怎辦呢？那你便選 "(the) better of two goods" 吧。基督徒不是掛名說是基督徒就是基督徒的 —— 我告訴你。有些說是基督徒，結果去了燒香，還要是頭炷香。我告訴你，這樣的（候選）人要不要也罷，是嗎？我們要的是真的，是內心是基督徒，是真正有 "guts" 的，是有門徒的品質的。

就像一個姊妹，當她升官升到要負責 … 即是其中一個任務是要 … 甚至要為同性戀那些人爭取他們的權益。她感覺到，到了這樣的一個位置，她要做一些違背自己信仰的事，（所以）很不安。我和她談電話時，我鼓勵她，她可以把自己這一個心願，與這一種 conflict，去和她的上司說。寧願不升職，甚至無得做就算，你要有這樣的心理準備。我好感恩，姊妹都願意去做。而帶來的結果呢，我最近聽到的，就是已經不需她去做這件事。這就是 "guts"，這個是我們的立場，這個是我們的 conviction、立場，我為她感恩。

所以（如果）幾個（候選人）都是基督徒就最好，但是我告訴大家，很少 —— 沒多少選區是幾個（候選人都是）基督徒。如果能夠有一個已是不錯了，我說。所以如果有的話，你就（揀） "(the) better of two goods" 。假若全部都不信（基督）又如何呢？這個，很多區都是這樣的。若全部都不是信徒你就（選） "(the) lesser of two evils"。（普通話）兩個爛蘋果，你就選一個沒那麼爛的。（眾笑，轉回粵語）唯有這樣吧，不過我也不是在此告訴大家，信（基督）那些一定是全部好過不信的，不信的全都差過那些信的，這不一定。你要找的就是，如果兩個都不好，你就找一個沒那麼劣的。(00:46:29)

相關網頁：

1. 恩福堂牧師被指推介3建制派; 明報 (via 新浪網)，8月28日
2. 蔡聖龍：蘇穎智牧師親回應崇拜「助選」質疑；時代論壇，8月30日
3. Julian: 基督教保皇黨的誕生;《心湖淬筆》，9月2日
4. 關祥文：引狼入室，得不償失──基督徒與立法會選舉二○○八; 時代論壇，9月3日