英國性傾向歧視立法之辯論和請願 [Archive]

if_chf24

01-12-2007, 12:17 PM

if_chf24

01-12-2007, 01:08 PM

在教堂舉行婚禮和在市政廳舉行婚禮之不同在於，前者是religious marriage，後者是civil marriage。前者是宗教儀式加上執行政府法規（簽婚書＝向政府註冊），後者是世俗儀式，只是在執行政府法規。因此，把教堂視為just another location to hold a ceremony，教會為service provider，純粹是一個公證人而已，忘記此乃宗教儀式，是莫視宗教信仰之存在及宗教社群之信仰實踐。

再而，將宗教儀式視為一種服務，而再將世俗自由主義之觀點強加其上，實是更大之誤導也。宗教儀式應該是一個宗教社群自身就其宗教信仰及道德價值所進行之內部活動，世俗政府無權以世俗理由無理禁止之，反過來，也無權以法律強行要求某宗教社群或個人，替不符合該宗教信仰及道德價值者施以宗教儀式。

因此，英國社會接受同志結合，並通過立法賦予其以civil partnership之身份及權益是一回事；現在以反歧視之名，立法強制，要求宗教社群為不符合其宗教條件者，舉行宗教儀式之不合理之舉是另一回事。

我並非完全反對立法保障同志之權益，但社會上持不同意見之公民之權益亦應受到保障。我認為，現時之草案之豁免條款(exemption clauses)不足以保障對同志結合持不同意見者之良心自由。

所以本人認為，在宗教社群及個人之良心自由沒有受到充分保障之前，急於就性傾向歧視立法，實有損我英國之宗教自由之實踐，危哉，危哉！

Daniel_Cheung

01-12-2007, 01:37 PM

這個的確很過份。

wonggk

01-12-2007, 04:28 PM

在英國，有關就性傾向歧視之立法已迫在眉睫。據說北愛的法律已於２００７年一月一日實施。至今英格蘭威爾斯和蘇格蘭之立法，據說會非常快，因為工黨政府打算在四月一日前通過，並刊憲。

大家可看看Christian Concern for our nation之相關網頁：

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sor/index.php

而本會內，少數作為英國公民之會員，可以考慮參加是次向英女皇上書請願之舉：

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sorpetition.php

其他會友，也可參考之，也許這些資料他日在香港會有用。

現時之草案，對宗教團體明顯保障不足，有些同志堅持要在教堂舉行civil partnership ceremony，奈何之有！小弟雖然對該請願文之內容有少許保留，但由於迫在眉睫，也參與之。因為若不向政府製造更大壓力，以工黨在國會之多數席位，加上自由民主黨之票數，此法案不通過才奇怪。本人不一定反對法案，但必須清楚保障宗教團體及個人之良心自由。正如，在英國可以合法墮胎，但一個pro-life的醫生，可以不提供墮胎手術服務。今天，英國同志之civil partnership已經合法，為什麼要通過立法，強迫不認同同志結合之神職人員和宗教團體為之舉行宗教儀式呢？

我也絕對反對任何人侵犯宗教自由。但是從你 link 去的網頁，我卻看不到有強逼神職人員為同性戀者舉行宗教儀式﹕

Consider a Christian couple who own a bed and breakfast. They provide a 'service' according to the law. Therefore if the SOR become law, it would be illegal for that Christian couple to refuse a homosexual and his partner (who had a registered civil partnership) a room with a double bed for the night, even if they also refused an unmarried heterosexual such a room: according to the new Regulations a registered gay civil partnership is equal to a marriage, and to discriminate against gay civil partners would constitute discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

這我是支持的。B&B 是個純商業服務，為什麼可以歧視某些顧客？如果可以不服務 homosexual couple， inter-racial couple 又如何？

Consider a Christian Community Centre which receives public funding. If that Centre hired out its premises to local groups but refused to hire the hall out to a homosexual group who wanted to promote homosexual practices, that would be illegal discrimination under the new Regulations.

這是指收政府錢的社區中心租地方給人用的限制，似乎並沒有要求神職人員提供服務。

這裏的問題是 receive public funding，這是個不容易處理的問題。是否用宗教原因就可以一方面收錢，一方面卻要求特權？我個人的意見是，如果不同的機構都有權申請政府支助，而市場又很多樣性（例如香港的學校或者 NGO），這些機構「歧視」某一些人是可以接受的。但是如果市場是一面倒的，因為 Power Asymmetry，允許機構不向某一些人提供服務就不合理了。

美國這方面是相當「合理」的。一個機構如果有一些 program 接受 public funding，這些 program 就不能歧視。但是其他沒有 public funding 的 program 卻可以繼續拒絕為一些人服務。

Consider a Church of England school. They offer education, and were the SOR to become law, it would be illegal for the C of E school to have a 'bias' on their curriculum in favour of heterosexual relationships - this would discriminate against any possible homosexual pupils or homosexual parents who wanted their child to be taught about the acceptability of homosexuality.

這和上面的討論相似。

if_chf24

01-14-2007, 11:21 AM

我也絕對反對任何人侵犯宗教自由。但是從你 link 去的網頁，我卻看不到有強逼神職人員為同性戀者舉行宗教儀式﹕

這一點，的確不見於我所提高的link，那是我從一些律師朋友口中聽回來的。由於草案最後版本至今天來說，還未出台，現在我們是希望政府在國會下議院一讀前，盡可能加入保障宗教自由之條文。

Consider a Christian couple who own a bed and breakfast. They provide a 'service' according to the law. Therefore if the SOR become law, it would be illegal for that Christian couple to refuse a homosexual and his partner (who had a registered civil partnership) a room with a double bed for the night, even if they also refused an unmarried heterosexual such a room: according to the new Regulations a registered gay civil partnership is equal to a marriage, and to discriminate against gay civil partners would constitute discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

這我是支持的。B&B 是個純商業服務，為什麼可以歧視某些顧客？如果可以不服務 homosexual couple， inter-racial couple 又如何？

這一點，我的意見與你的接近。但仍有差異：１）首先，現在英國法，定義同志結合為civil partnership, not marriage.　（這點很重要！）
2) MARRIED inter-racial couple是結了婚的；因此，如果因為膚色不同而不給雙人房，那是種族歧視；
3）如果今天，若果真的有英國的B&B的老板拒絕沒有結婚的couple，住double bed的房，以我所知，不構成任何歧視。
４）按現在的英國法律，由於civil partnership 不等於marriage，因此若果真的有英國的B&B的老板拒絕同志couple入住double bed之房間，到現時為止，是合法的。
５）至於應否支持現時的草案，把這個做法，視為非法呢？wonggk支持；我就50/50. 關鍵是：我們是否真的要把civil partnership定義為marriage（的一種）呢？

Consider a Christian Community Centre which receives public funding. If that Centre hired out its premises to local groups but refused to hire the hall out to a homosexual group who wanted to promote homosexual practices, that would be illegal discrimination under the new Regulations.

這是指收政府錢的社區中心租地方給人用的限制，似乎並沒有要求神職人員提供服務。

這裏的問題是 receive public funding，這是個不容易處理的問題。是否用宗教原因就可以一方面收錢，一方面卻要求特權？我個人的意見是，如果不同的機構都有權申請政府支助，而市場又很多樣性（例如香港的學校或者 NGO），這些機構「歧視」某一些人是可以接受的。但是如果市場是一面倒的，因為 Power Asymmetry，允許機構不向某一些人提供服務就不合理了。

美國這方面是相當「合理」的。一個機構如果有一些 program 接受 public funding，這些 program 就不能歧視。但是其他沒有 public funding 的 program 卻可以繼續拒絕為一些人服務。

這一點上，我和wonggk的觀點差異較大，這主要是國情不同。在美國，private/public之界線是相當分明的。因為，這涉及美國對政教分離的獨特理解，有其歷史政治因素，我明白。我們英國，名義上，仍是有國教的，對政教分離的理解有不同。Church of England（英格蘭聖公會） and Church of Scotland（蘇格蘭長老會）嚴格來說，仍是「國家」機構，雖然它們財政獨立，不拿政府的錢。英國許多教堂或有關建築，由於是歷史古蹟，維修費用很高，所以政府會出錢資助maintainence。（也許，更重要的是很多情況下，根本不能分某program是受政府資助，甚麼不是。）所以，按wonggk的思路（也就是現時草案的思路）這些地方（包括教堂）也應該可以用來進行civil partnership ceremony，也就是說，教會不能拒絕之，因為他們拿了public funding。(這種情況，美國人可能比較難理解。）

Consider a Church of England school. They offer education, and were the SOR to become law, it would be illegal for the C of E school to have a 'bias' on their curriculum in favour of heterosexual relationships - this would discriminate against any possible homosexual pupils or homosexual parents who wanted their child to be taught about the acceptability of homosexuality.

這和上面的討論相似。

這就更不同，要知道，與美國非常不同，我們英國（和香港相類似）的所謂state schools，大部分是grant-in-aid schools，津校是也，其中聖公會和天主教會是最大的兩個辦學團體。按這草案的思路，絕大多數教會學校，以後都要教學生，同志父／母家庭和異性父母家庭是of equal moral worth，這是我所不能接受的。

說到底，他們想做的，是要徹底改變整個英國（以致西方、全世界人）的家庭的定義和觀念，做法是從下一代的教育開始。因此，第三例子涉及更多的問題，比第二例子更複雜。

if_chf24

01-14-2007, 11:30 AM

我也絕對反對任何人侵犯宗教自由。但是從你 link 去的網頁，我卻看不到有強逼神職人員為同性戀者舉行宗教儀式。

「強逼神職人員為同性戀者舉行宗教儀式」的argument follows the second example.　因為，只要教會宗教儀式被定義作服務(service)，那麼神職人員是service provider，只要教堂受政府資助maintainence (of which there are many cases)，那麼，神職人員就要提供服務－－為同志couple「證婚」。

所以，我才為什麼在post 2說，不能把宗教儀式視為一種（收費／不收費）的服務。

我想，現在大家應該明白我們英國的辯論背景和美國的異同吧。

wonggk

01-14-2007, 12:02 PM

「強逼神職人員為同性戀者舉行宗教儀式」的argument follows the second example.　因為，只要教會宗教儀式被定義作服務(service)，那麼神職人員是service provider，只要教堂受政府資助maintainence (of which there are many cases)，那麼，神職人員就要提供服務－－為同志couple「證婚」。

所以，我才為什麼在post 2說，不能把宗教儀式視為一種（收費／不收費）的服務。

我想，現在大家應該明白我們英國的辯論背景和美國的異同吧。

或者這就是政教不分家的後遺症吧。

但是，這卻引出另一個原則問題﹕既然政教不分，那麼 Power Asymmetry 就肯定存在。這樣，對本來被歧視和壓迫的少數群體提供一些特別優待，反而從倫理的角度來看，是有一定跟據的。這就是美國平權法案（affirmative action）的根基。 -- 特別聲明﹕美國的華裔，包括我自己，在申請學校上，都是平權法案的受害人，所以這只是原則性的討論。

if_chf24

01-24-2007, 01:47 PM

我全文轉載一封朋友轉寄的電郵，希望原作者不會介意。

Here I post an email forwarded by a friend. Hope that the author of this email would not mind.

UNITY OF CHRISTIAN OPPOSITION TO SORs AS MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT OPPOSITION ARE REBUTTED

19th January 2007

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.?" (Luther's Works. Weimar Edition. Briefwechsel [Correspondence], vol. 3, pp. 81f.).

Summary

We wish to take this opportunity to thank all the many thousands of Christians who have prayed and taken action to defend the freedom to live by the Bible?s teaching in relation to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

Not only did over 10,000 Christians sign a petition (in 2 weeks) to the Queen and over 3,000 travel from across the country to the freedom rally outside Parliament, many hundreds of churches and small groups held prayer meetings to earnestly seek God?s Will in this matter.

We ask that people would pray for the Cabinet as it is expected that they may make a decision on the final content of the England , Wales and Scotland SORs over the next weeks.

The recent high profile of the Christian opposition to elements of the SORs (see the press coverage at http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=PP+Media+Coverage) has led to many misrepresentations, some deliberate and others simply misinformed, about the approach to and the substance of concerns held by groups such as the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship. Please read the 'Further Information' section below to see an explanation and response to some of the misinformation that has been circulated in the media and other outlets.

NOTE IN PARTICULAR THE UNIFIED NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION TO THE SORs BY MANY CHRISTIANS ORGANISATIONS AND GROUPS LISTED IN THE LINKS (BELOW).

Links

1. Church of England-
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/papers/sorresponse.rtf and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id =419280&in_page_id=1770

2. Catholic Bishops' Conference-
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Catholic+submission+to+SOR+consultation
3. Anglican Mainstream-
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1007

4. Evangelical Alliance -
www.eauk.org/sexual-orientation-regulations.cfm and
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Evangelical+Alliance+article+on+SORs

5. The Christian Institute-
http://www.christian.org.uk/html-publications/pub_homosexualrights.htm

6. CARE-
http://www.care.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?id=30233

7. Affinity- http://www.affinity.org.uk/teams/article/responding_to_proposed_sexual_ orientation_regulations/

8. Lawyers' Christian Fellowship-
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=LCF+Response+to+SOR+consultation
for an up to date briefing, see http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=Northern+Ireland+SOR+Legal+Briefing

9. Also, see the article by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, one of the foremost legal minds in the country, about the dangers of the Regulations, at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/09/do0901.xml

if_chf24

01-24-2007, 01:47 PM

(con't)

Further Information

The position of the Lawyers? Christian Fellowship (LCF) in highlighting concerns about the SORs has been clear from our first publication on the matter in May 2006 (see link 8 above): as Christians we are called to love all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, but we are also called to live with integrity according to the Bible?s teaching that extra-marital sexual practices are wrong.

In recent days there has been a substantial amount of misinformation given about the opposition of LCF and some other Christian groups to the SORs. We welcome anyone who is unclear about the truth of our position to look back at the documents we have produced on this issue (available at http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=PP+Resources).

During the extensive media coverage of the SORs over the past weeks (generated as a result of the freedom rally and the petition coordinated by the LCF and Christian Concern for our Nation, in conjunction with churches) many of those who support the full impact of the unamended SORs misrepresented the position of Christians on the SORs. For example, Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive Officer of Stonewall stated on media outlets that Christians wished to deny basic services to gay people, for example, admission to hospices, hospital waiting lists, etc while Peter Tatchell (from the gay lobby group ?Outrage?) repeatedly described all opponents to the Regulations as a minority group of ?fundamentalist religious bigots?.

Many Christians have also questioned the approach taken by those opposing the full content of the SORs. It is hoped that all critics have listened carefully to what has actually being said. We paraphrase a quote from an LCF spokesperson (speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live on the day of the rally) to paint a representative picture of LCF?s approach to these issues:

Interviewer: "So why are you opposing this law?

LCF Response: "Let me first make it clear that as Christians we oppose all forms of unjustified discrimination in society, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. Thousands of years before anyone had thought of human rights legislation or non-discrimination legislation, the Bible gave a far more powerful pronouncement against discrimination by commanding us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Following the Bible will achieve more than any Regulation could at eliminating unfair discrimination?

"However, what these Regulation do is they go beyond outlawing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation by requiring Christians, in certain circumstances, to go against the Bible?s fundamental teaching about sexual morality?

"Let me tell you why it is a problem that these Regulations deny this fundamental freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Firstly, we do not think that the Government should legislate to force Christians to act against their fundamental beliefs. Secondly, this law subverts the message of Christianity, which is of God?s love for all people and his desire for all people to turn from their sins and know the joy of being reconciled with Him. This message to repent and believe makes no sense if Christians are forced to condone sinful behaviour?"

As Christians we are compelled to speak Gospel Truth into a society crying out for help. We are all sinners redeemed by the blood of Jesus. When the Government is about to introduce laws that will compel some Christians to be complicit in sinful behaviour then as Christians the most loving thing to do is to speak out. However, many in society are intolerant of a message that whilst God loves every individual, it is contrary to His will to indulge in sex outside marriage, including gay sex. Those who are prepared to speak this message will be labelled homophobic, bigoted and extreme.

As well as the general issue of whether or not Christians should be standing up against the impact of the SORs, there have been specific challenges from politicians and others suggesting that claims made by LCF and others about the Regulations are exaggerated and inaccurate. At every stage of our analysis of the law, a team of lawyers within LCF has analysed the Regulations and Government statements and have sought reassurances that our concerns would be met. At no stage have we ever received such assurances. We will shortly be producing a legal briefing which will address all these specific criticisms and substantiate why an accurate legal analysis of the Regulations highlights the reality of the concerns we (and other Christian organisations) have been expressing.

The most recent LCF briefing (sent to all Peers before the 9th January debate) is attached to this e-mail. You will see these Briefings are intended to set out the position clearly and in no way exaggerate or mislead anyone. We also attach a basic Q&A sheet dealing with some of the points that have been put to LCF.

The Rally

Finally, it has been noted that some quotations in the Christian Press have made unjustified criticisms of the freedom rally that was held outside Parliament on the 9th January.

In the Church Times the leader of Faithworks, the Revd Malcolm Duncan, described the demonstrators? approach as ?virulent and aggressive? and said: ?Vociferous opposition, a lack of constructive dialogue, and threats of civil disobedience mean that the Church is in danger of sounding homophobic?. His view was supported by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement who said ?A small group of fundamentalist Christians have led a wicked campaign of disinformation about these regulations, making claims that anyone who bothered to read them could see were false.?

We would disagree strongly with these comments. The feedback from hundreds of Christians who attended the rally was a positive view of the time spent peacefully praying, singing hymns and praising God. The Bishop of Southwell, Bishop of Rochester and Bishop of Winchester were present for a time at the rally, as well as many vicars, ministers and pastors. 99% of the banners declared simple messages of ?freedom to believe? and ?freedom of conscience?. See the photos at:
http://www.lawcf.org/CMS/uploads/438/documents/Rally%20photos%202%20%20%209th%20Jan%202007.pdf.

There were many children at the rally, hundreds of torches were waved symbolically as light in the darkness, and there were Christians from all denominations, including people from most of the organisations listed in the 'links' section (above).

If you do not want to receive anymore emails from Andrea Minichiello Williams please click on reply and put UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field

If you need to contact Andrea please contact her on andrea@williamsa.force9.co.uk

Websites: http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk and http://www.lawcf.org

筆是大遲

01-30-2007, 09:01 AM

今天有人電郵給我，說英國首相已決定不讓教會的延伸機構有exemption。
嘩，利害。看來香港會步其後塵。

if_chf24

01-30-2007, 10:46 AM

今天有人電郵給我，說英國首相已決定不讓教會的延伸機構有exemption。
嘩，利害。看來香港會步其後塵。

對，你的消息真靈通！

讓我總結一下昨天和今天有關這項新聞的報導：

１）昨天首相發表聲明：指新法案(Sexual Orientation Regulations)的草案中，教會辨的adoption agencies沒有exemption;

２）昨天保守黨黨魁金馬倫表示反對給教會辨的adoption agencies有exemption，不然「很多人都會要求exemption」，但他會讓黨員自由投票，因為這是良心問題；

3) 工黨黨員在投票中，要依黨紀按黨的立場投票，不像保守黨那兒是free vote;

４）新法規將會在２００８年底生效，在之前，有寬限期，期間，教會辨的adoption agencies有"statutory duty"把同志couple refer to other agencies.

這次不只教會敗了（聖公會與天主教會站在同一陣線，要求exemption）；貝理雅和Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly（她是熱心的天主教徒）也敗了，（他們一直在黨內爭取讓宗教團體主辦的機構有exemption），竟然連工黨內自由投良心票也不行。:teardrop:

我不知道將來教會可以怎麼辦？:dunno:

clement

01-30-2007, 10:51 AM

我不知道將來教會可以怎麼辦？:dunno:

甚麼怎麼辦？照樣生活吧。在古代希臘，男風也不是沒有（在某些階層）流行過。也不見得不會再有家庭存在。

if_chf24

01-30-2007, 11:03 AM

甚麼怎麼辦？照樣生活吧。在古代希臘，男風也不是沒有（在某些階層）流行過。也不見得不會再有家庭存在。

但我的問題是：當教會主辦的機構，要被迫違心做其良心不許的事，我們可以怎麼辦？

我不擔憂會沒有家庭，只不過家庭的定義如今被改變了；我也不太擔心會愈來愈多人同性戀，畢竟，我相信絕大多數人會繼續是異性戀。

我個人認同的妥協方案，是保守黨金馬倫提出的，讓宗教團體把同志couples轉介去其他機構。這就好像，在英國（香港一樣），pro-life的醫生轉介想墮胎的女子去看其他醫生一般，這是尊重每個人的良心自由，同時，不會影響對某些人士提供服務。

sbchan

01-30-2007, 11:41 AM

好像有些教會說過，如果一定要迫他們做同性婚姻的服務，他們寧願所有婚姻的服務都不做了。??:confused:

clement

01-30-2007, 07:08 PM

好像有些教會說過，如果一定要迫他們做同性婚姻的服務，他們寧願所有婚姻的服務都不做了。??:confused:

也不會不做，只是go informal or underground 而已。

筆是大遲

01-30-2007, 08:10 PM

甚麼怎麼辦？照樣生活吧。在古代希臘，男風也不是沒有（在某些階層）流行過。也不見得不會再有家庭存在。

其實我愈讀早期教會的歷史，愈體會當時教會作為少數的艱難。的確，中國歷史內基督教從未是主流甚至接近主流，所以我們香港人也不是甚麼一回事。但我擔心教會會再進一步收縮自己的圈子，自劃界線，或愈走近基要主義之路。

蒲先生

01-30-2007, 08:42 PM

筆是大遲

01-30-2007, 10:41 PM

exemption永遠都有特權的味道.......惹人口實......教會應該骨頭比人更硬......話唔要特權就唔要特權.......咁可能反而得人尊重......好似當日羅馬信徒咁......當然又不致冇命咁大鑊.....我係打個比喻而已.....畢竟家陣係將特權放棄......唔係將人權放棄......

實際上......教會唔用公帑咪得囉....唔要政府資助......好似辦私立醫院和學校咁.....當然慣左有錢一時間很難適應.....大屋換細屋永遠是難受的......不過教會刮了千幾年民脂應該頂得住既......如果佢又深信自己既服務係一流既話.......

香港基督徒應該深切反省教會向來在殖民地與政府的特殊關係.......唔好下下先諗自己利益和特權維護既問題......其實我認為整體教會 (及其個別信徒) 既靈性問題都係根源自教會未深切反省以上特殊關係......再加上中產階段化的惡劣影響......如果整體歷史出身和經歷有問題.......如何在個人屬靈上修修補補也是枉然.......

:sleepy:

對，只要不受資助就可以了。
不過，英國與香港不同。英國的教會與社會的根很深。特權乎？歷史乎？民族乎？不容易區分。

講翻香港，我認為大政府最終都無好結果。當政府缺乏對手，一府獨大，所有用公家錢的都必須遵守政府指示，最後就是政府無孔不入。政府要做乜就乜了。其實，我覺得而家仲講教會戀棧與政府有甚麼殖民地時代的特殊關係，是過時了。固然，會公開反對同性戀的群體，教會可能是最鮮明的一個。但對同性戀在性價值觀上持反對意見的，就不單是教會了，按人數而言，教會更不是決定性的(何況教會也有很多不同立場)。

而家唔係話特權唔特權，而係話尊重社會不同信念的人士可以在某限度下實踐他的信念，這是基本的權利。SOR按所披露的內容，就做不到這種對不同權利的平衡了。

nkcwong

01-31-2007, 12:05 AM

我個人認同的妥協方案，是保守黨金馬倫提出的，讓宗教團體把同志couples轉介去其他機構。這就好像，在英國（香港一樣），pro-life的醫生轉介想墮胎的女子去看其他醫生一般，這是尊重每個人的良心自由，同時，不會影響對某些人士提供服務。

只有「第三條路線」才是真正的出路，就是所有與性傾向及家庭價值相關的領域都要hands off，對於這些deep value conflicts，根本不能用法律強制任何一方。夾硬來只會帶來Hobbes的state of nature，就是perpetual conflict，公民社會只會分化。為了SODO，現在香港教會的兩極化便是一個有目共睹的反面教材了。

蒲先生

01-31-2007, 12:19 AM

我覺得而家仲講教會戀棧與政府有甚麼殖民地時代的特殊關係，是過時了。

非也....從來未深切反省過.....又何來過時呢.......如我國人常話東洋人軍國主義陰魂不散一樣......你估港府將聖誕節復活節更名為冬至孔誕之類的話.....基督教華人永遠聯會會點反應........

nkckwong君都講得岩.....大家對立的價值觀都是很deep很執著很深刻的.......

:sleepy:

if_chf24

01-31-2007, 03:40 AM

非也....從來未深切反省過.....又何來過時呢.......如我國人常話東洋人軍國主義陰魂不散一樣......你估港府將聖誕節復活節更名為冬至孔誕之類的話.....基督教華人永遠聯會會點反應........

nkckwong君都講得岩.....大家對立的價值觀都是很deep很執著很深刻的.......

:sleepy:

其實我愈讀早期教會的歷史，愈體會當時教會作為少數的艱難。的確，中國歷史內基督教從未是主流甚至接近主流，所以我們香港人也不是甚麼一回事。但我擔心教會會再進一步收縮自己的圈子，自劃界線，或愈走近基要主義之路。

不過，英國與香港不同。英國的教會與社會的根很深。特權乎？歷史乎？民族乎？不容易區分。

蒲君謂香港教會與殖民主義的關係有如東瀛人軍國主義「陰魂不散」，未免誇張了一點。不過，正如筆君謂，英國教會與社會的關係很深，關乎民族歷史，蒲君心目中香港教會與殖民者的「特權」關係，其實只是英國民族國家社會歷史文化的有機延伸。但畢竟，香港從沒有國教，自開埠以來，一直奉行宗教自由政策，教會不見得有許多「特權」。

聖誕節復活節對我們華人而言，當然是基督宗教的節日，但對許多英國人來說，那是家庭重聚日，有如吾人之春節，宗教只是背景也，去教堂與否，猶如年初三去車公廟，閣下適隨尊便。香港之所以會在聖誕節復活節放假，當然是因為這是英國人的「民族傳統」節日，猶如華人節日如中秋節（反觀在大陸，中秋節不放假）。今天回歸後繼續放假，那就當然是因為商業因素為主，其次是政府亦無謂向基督徒、天主教徒開刀。

在分析香港昔日與今日的政教關係時，我們要搞清楚有多少是真正的「特權」。當然，昔日教會（特別是聖公會）與政府關係良好（甚或是密切），倒是真的。

話說回來，我認為有關同志的課題，影響不限於基督宗教，回教、猶太教和佛教都會受到影響，再者亦涉及整個社會對家庭的定義的理解，單從香港教會的政教關係著眼，視野未免窄了一點。我的關注點，是整個社會對不同意見者的關係的處理，涉及的是整個社會的法理安排，如何讓人有足夠空間行使其宗教自由只是其中一方面。

至於受不受政府的資助問題，我有另類意見。我認為宗教信徒與世俗主義同樣是納稅人，為什麼按世俗主義辦事的機構可以獲得政府資助去按世俗主義辦事，而宗教團體的機構卻不可以獲得政府資助去按其宗教道德原則辦事？或曰，此乃政教分離之原則是也。然則，世俗人文主義豈非一世俗宗教乎？豈非一faith position(Archbishop Rowans Williams語）乎？在英國，諸宗教聯合發表之聲明，亦有British Humanist Association的簽字；英國中學的宗教課，〔世俗〕人文主義亦與英國六大宗教（基督宗教、伊斯蘭教、猶太教、印度教、錫克教和佛教）並列。世俗人文主義豈非一世俗宗教乎？

蒲先生

01-31-2007, 04:31 AM

很同意......教會真有d似皇家......係英狤猁史一部分.....亦係坐擁很多特權......在英教書的閣下(我有冇搞錯?)相信可以見證........故亦向來有英人呼籲女皇交稅甚至下台.......而綜觀英吉利史.......有冇一個皇帝係不在生命威脅下主動還權還富於民.......教會亦一樣.....人性在這方面是很具普遍性的........

很同意世俗人文主義是宗教一點.......我老早就覺得世俗人文主義者(香港個d)成日話宗教唔好.......而教會保守人士一直話你又咪係宗教......唔係真係中立既.......世俗人文主義者應該一早就來個順水推舟.......直認不諱......同性戀運動人士亦應大膽聲稱其立場和感情具宗教性......咁反對者就可能有侵犯別人宗教感情和自由之虞了......

:sleepy:

筆是大遲

01-31-2007, 04:35 AM

至於受不受政府的資助問題，我有另類意見。我認為宗教信徒與世俗主義同樣是納稅人，為什麼按世俗主義辦事的機構可以獲得政府資助去按世俗主義辦事，而宗教團體的機構卻不可以獲得政府資助去按其宗教道德原則辦事？或曰，此乃政教分離之原則是也。然則，世俗人文主義豈非一世俗宗教乎？豈非一faith position(Archbishop Rowans Williams語）乎？在英國，諸宗教聯合發表之聲明，亦有British Humanist Association的簽字；英國中學的宗教課，〔世俗〕人文主義亦與英國六大宗教（基督宗教、伊斯蘭教、猶太教、印度教、錫克教和佛教）並列。世俗人文主義豈非一世俗宗教乎？

這個我是認同的，我也認為用政府錢不一定就要放棄自己的主張。我只是說，若教會在新法律下，只能夠以不用政府錢才能按自己的主張辦事。政府是一府獨大的，是statism。

wonggk

01-31-2007, 10:24 AM

這個我是認同的，我也認為用政府錢不一定就要放棄自己的主張。我只是說，若教會在新法律下，只能夠以不用政府錢才能按自己的主張辦事。政府是一府獨大的，是statism。

You are treating the government as a separate entity. But if we uphold democratic principle, government is no more than just a tool to implement the people's desire. So, if the people (collectively) do not want their money to go to organizations that discriminate against certain group, their will should be respected.

筆是大遲

01-31-2007, 12:13 PM

You are treating the government as a separate entity. But if we uphold democratic principle, government is no more than just a tool to implement the people's desire. So, if the people (collectively) do not want their money to go to organizations that discriminate against certain group, their will should be respected.

問題是 "collectively", "people's desire". 人民是否認為要零容忍社會裡的性傾向差別對待？人民是否認為實踐宗教信仰的自由要受到該等法例所監控的程度？當說collectively時，是否真的collectively？還是由the state decides which is collective and which is not. 在多元的社會裡其實愈來愈難有甚麼collective，最終由state or media決定甚麼是collective。

算我悲觀一點，連全球溫室效應都可以任由傳媒左右大局，由政府左右市民的意見，連壓倒性的證據都可以讓state and media玩弄，你叫我怎樣還輕易相信有collectively, people's desire這回事？ ... 我相信民主比不民主好，但我不會信任民主。民主背後有很多宣傳，有很多意識形態控制，有focault所講的權力結構。我看到台灣。

if_chf24

01-31-2007, 12:31 PM

這又是民主與自由的矛盾問題。如果許多年前的法律視同性肛交為非法，是當時的民主共識，那麼，今人會認為是當時的人以民主為藉口，打壓性傾向少數群體。那麼，時移勢易，今天英國的社會輿論傾向了另一邊，又是不是應該用民主為理由，去「打壓」在性傾向問題上立場持保守立場的人呢？那又回到人權問題，究竟有哪些人權被「所有人」都接納，又若果有不同人群的權利，相互衝突，又如何平衡之？
在英教書的閣下(我有冇搞錯?)
Btw, 蒲先生，剛看了你的自我介紹，原來你高我一輩，失敬失敬。小弟只不過是個博士生罷，未有資格教書，等將來吧。:)

wonggk

01-31-2007, 12:37 PM

問題是 "collectively", "people's desire". 人民是否認為要零容忍社會裡的性傾向差別對待？人民是否認為實踐宗教信仰的自由要受到該等法例所監控的程度？當說collectively時，是否真的collectively？還是由the state decides which is collective and which is not. 在多元的社會裡其實愈來愈難有甚麼collective，最終由state or media決定甚麼是collective。

算我悲觀一點，連全球溫室效應都可以任由傳媒左右大局，由政府左右市民的意見，連壓倒性的證據都可以讓state and media玩弄，你叫我怎樣還輕易相信有collectively, people's desire這回事？ ... 我相信民主比不民主好，但我不會信任民主。民主背後有很多宣傳，有很多意識形態控制，有focault所講的權力結構。我看到台灣。

I do not disagree with you. But what's the alternative?

I didn't make myself very clear in my previous post. When talking about "collective decision making", this is more than just majority vote. This should include a system of checks and blances, plus strong protection for certain fundamental rights that the majority cannot take away.

Another thing to keep in mind: the democratic process is designed to be slo.............w. If a government does something wrong, it will take a while for the system to correct itself. So it is not fair to cite recent failure in the US to say that democracy doesn't work. In fact, I am still guardedly optimistic in the US democratic process. Bush is terrible (and I continue to point finger at the US Christian Rights as the evil behind this!), but the democratic process limits the damage he can do. Without the opposition, chances are he would already nuked Iran and N. Korea.

Taiwan is bad too. But again, is it better than China? At least no one has been arrested for "revealing national serete".

蒲先生

01-31-2007, 07:54 PM

我覺得有些教徒......特別係保守派的領袖和理論家........其實唔能夠真心接受多元化社會生活的事實.......佢地幾乎講到出口話最理想係基督教國度christian nation.....人人皆教徒.......所謂xx國基督化或福音化也出於呢種心態.......所以成日話"現世"唔掂......包括近來時興的話民主制都唔掂.......要等耶穌番黎先掂......而且一切都掂.......好消極......(但係享用世物和現代人權法治保障上又好積極).......其實唔只所謂基要派人士係咁.......福音派都係........因為其社會觀未能真正擁抱多元社會.......在基督教國度以外未有真正覺得也出於神的alternative......結果只能諸多不滿.......鄙視政治和政治生活......

所以.......我雖然唔同意明光社等道德保守組織的基本道德觀.......但佢地正係做緊現代公民做緊既事.......影響輿論和政府......手法上絕對係現代的......

不過點都好過伊斯蘭教........佢地對多元化社會生活更頂唔順.......畢竟多元化社會生活是基督教國家從宗教緊要過人命過渡到人命緊要過宗教後的進步產物........

:sleepy:

if_chf24

02-08-2007, 03:56 PM

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SexOrientation/

The petition reads,
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to to Delay the passing into Legislation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations for England and Wales. This would go against the fundamental rights of Christians to disagree with the practise of homosexuality. Whilst this petition does not condone the persecution of these citizens, it does stress the need to allow those whose faith objects to these practises to maintain their objection."

The deadline of this petition is Friday 9 February 2006. People who sign must be British citizens or residents.

People are eligible to sign include those who are expatriates, in an overseas territory, in a Crown dependency or in the Armed Forces without a postcode.

(Would those Hong Kong Chineses who are British citizens considered to be expatriates? Perhaps legally they are, but I am not sure.)

Daniel_Cheung

02-08-2007, 04:52 PM

所以.......我雖然唔同意明光社等道德保守組織的基本道德觀

突然察覺到你這句話有點問題，希望你不介意。按你上文下理，你應該是對該類組織的道德觀沉默，而對它們如何看它們的道德觀與社會文化和政策的關係，你則有表示反對。

當然，你的「道德觀」可能已包括了社會倫理和政治哲學，但人們未必能這樣解讀。

蒲先生

02-08-2007, 08:00 PM

我勢難沉默.......我有意見......但我縱然不同意.......卻認為佢地不斷在社會做野是現代公民頂天立地的光榮行為......我鍾意社會多d異議.....各類千奇百怪的價值觀都應該在社會流通.......

或者我思想上暫時未能分到你講個兩樣野.....

Daniel_Cheung

02-08-2007, 10:23 PM

突然察覺到你這句話有點問題，希望你不介意。按你上文下理，你應該是對該類組織的道德觀沉默，而對它們如何看它們的道德觀與社會文化和政策的關係，你則有表示反對。

當然，你的「道德觀」可能已包括了社會倫理和政治哲學，但人們未必能這樣解讀。

我勢難沉默.......我有意見......但我縱然不同意.......卻認為佢地不斷在社會做野是現代公民頂天立地的光榮行為......我鍾意社會多d異議.....各類千奇百怪的價值觀都應該在社會流通.......

或者我思想上暫時未能分到你講個兩樣野.....

我那番話是不是那麼難明白呢？我們這裡是強調討論的，不是給人一味的發泄。

蒲先生

02-08-2007, 11:07 PM

我的確不明白....我確是有意見要"發泄"......但不也是正在討論的語境中嗎.......我認為提出一己的意見也是討論的一部分.....正如互笠高帽也是......討論的大語境中可以有許多種說話......如讚嘆......如推理.......如推介........如詩詞歌賦......如意識流文字囈語........如心靈讀白.......不一而足........其實.......我想了解閣下其實點睇.....以免干犯"討論"守則.......被逐出貴會.......

:sleepy:

Daniel_Cheung

02-08-2007, 11:31 PM

蒲先生[/FONT];25695]我覺得有些教徒......特別係保守派的領袖和理論家........其實唔能夠真心接受多元化社會生活的事實.......佢地幾乎講到出口話最理想係基督教國度christian nation.....人人皆教徒.......所謂xx國基督化或福音化也出於呢種心態.......所以成日話"現世"唔掂......包括近來時興的話民主制都唔掂.......要等耶穌番黎先掂......而且一切都掂.......好消極......(但係享用世物和現代人權法治保障上又好積極).......其實唔只所謂基要派人士係咁.......福音派都係........因為其社會觀未能真正擁抱多元社會.......在基督教國度以外未有真正覺得也出於神的alternative......結果只能諸多不滿.......鄙視政治和政治生活......

所以.......我雖然唔同意明光社等道德保守組織的基本道德觀.......但佢地正係做緊現代公民做緊既事.......影響輿論和政府......手法上絕對係現代的......

不過點都好過伊斯蘭教........佢地對多元化社會生活更頂唔順.......畢竟多元化社會生活是基督教國家從宗教緊要過人命過渡到人命緊要過宗教後的進步產物........

:sleepy:

在這帖裡，你的意思包括了，多元化社會的基本意思就是容許有不同聲音，但是你認為某些保守派人士在聲稱ｘｘ國基督化的時候，內裡其實就是不容許有不同聲音。然而，你第二段那句好像與你上下文意思不太一致。因為你第二段是說你不贊成保守派人士的道德觀。須知道「你認為他們要在懂得容許有不同聲音」，與「你不認同他們的價值觀」是獨立的，堅持前者可以不堅持後者的。所以我便發帖回應。

張國棟[/FONT];26316]突然察覺到你這句話有點問題，希望你不介意。按你上文下理，你應該是對該類組織的道德觀沉默，而對它們如何看它們的道德觀與社會文化和政策的關係，你則有表示反對。

當然，你的「道德觀」可能已包括了社會倫理和政治哲學，但人們未必能這樣解讀。

但你接著的這一帖卻好像沒似懂非懂的回應我。最令我奇怪的，當然是最後那一句：「或者我思想上暫時未能分到你講個兩樣野.....」。

蒲先生[/FONT];26322]我勢難沉默.......我有意見......但我縱然不同意.......卻認為佢地不斷在社會做野是現代公民頂天立地的光榮行為......我鍾意社會多d異議.....各類千奇百怪的價值觀都應該在社會流通.......

或者我思想上暫時未能分到你講個兩樣野.....

「『你認為他們要在懂得容許有不同聲音』，與『你不認同他們的價值觀』是獨立的，堅持前者可以不堅持後者的」真的那麼難明白麼？蒲先生你不是一位編輯，並且對自由主義等觀念有一定認識的嗎？如此，我只能理解你是偏執一詞，只因為你對那些保守派人士不滿，就總要批評下去，所以我稱那是「發泄」。

以上是我怎樣看，是按你要求說的。另外，我這裡不是以版主身份說你的言論犯規，所以不存在逐會的考慮。

不如你也說說你怎樣看，為甚麼那麼難明白。

張國棟[/FONT];26341]我那番話是不是那麼難明白呢？我們這裡是強調討論的，不是給人一味的發泄。

蒲先生[/FONT];26350]我的確不明白....我確是有意見要"發泄"......但不也是正在討論的語境中嗎.......我認為提出一己的意見也是討論的一部分.....正如互笠高帽也是......討論的大語境中可以有許多種說話......如讚嘆......如推理.......如推介........如詩詞歌賦......如意識流文字囈語........如心靈讀白.......不一而足........其實.......我想了解閣下其實點睇.....以免干犯"討論"守則.......被逐出貴會.......

:sleepy:

蒲先生

02-09-2007, 01:00 AM

我明白了.....的確我是前言不對後語.....多謝你指出了.....諗深一層.......我現修改我既想法為: 除非世界化為基督教世界.....從而有一套沒有爭議的道德......否則這世界仍是不理想的......而我反對這個看法......我反而認為這種單一世界不理想.......希望有單一世界議程的無論是基督徒還是回教徒......我情願他們是世界的少數.....

今朝報紙說有人因收藏色情兒童照而被判犯法入獄......作為自由派人士......收藏一些相片都犯法.......你話係甚麼世界.......但社會出於政策考慮.......呢樣都管埋......似乎又有理.......所以自由主義作為寵大思想體系.......好似基督教咁.......有好多內部矛盾......故亦有好多詮釋空間.......需要在每個現況中找出路.....和成形.......

:sleepy:

蒲先生

02-09-2007, 03:14 AM

都係講得唔夠......我認為......基督教本身都有好多流派......無論是理論層面或是組織層面......有些就已經成日衝突.....而我反對個種基督教.....是追求比較高單一和排他性社會綱領的那種.......(天主教會雖也有所謂comprehensive doctrine.......而且往往比保守新教comprehensive得多.......但卻有比較好的末世論和自然神學傳統backup)......因為他們認為.......愈少歧異就愈少頭痛......冇歧異就冇頭痛......

自由主義同基督教也不是互相排斥......前者根本就是由後者懷胎十月孕育而生.......多得慈禧祖母天主教會旲頑不靈.......宗教得以改革......啟蒙運動理性主義及時順產.......自由主義成功投胎於歐洲大陸.......沒有基督宗教的自由化......一系列的自由主義都唔會或唔能咁早出現........

要有多元社會.......世俗化社會是唯一出路.......宗教的私人化或盡量私人化是無可避免.......而且是最佳的現實選擇.......不是讓步......而是值得追求.......雖然聖經說有一日世界萬物在基督內統一......但我會詮釋一個足夠多元化的未來世界可能就是了.......

我未諗完架......有點子再寫......

筆是大遲

02-09-2007, 10:01 AM

我反對個種基督教.....是追求比較高單一和排他性社會綱領的那種

要有多元社會.......世俗化社會是唯一出路.......宗教的私人化或盡量私人化是無可避免.......而且是最佳的現實選擇.......不是讓步......而是值得追求.......雖然聖經說有一日世界萬物在基督內統一......但我會詮釋一個足夠多元化的未來世界可能就是了.......
......

我估你的建議並不stable。
1. 世俗化社會不一定能保持多元，亦很可能形成了世俗主義霸權。其實霸權可以是宗教的，反宗教的，非宗教的。
2. 其實很難有甚麼私人化。宗教本身就很難私人化。換了世俗主義，抱這主義的人能否把這信仰私人化？人的信念會行使出來，externalize。這被externalized的reality又會轉過來去internalize人。人類社會本身就是依賴這個循環來維持。說宗教私人化的人，只是要求把另一類東西externalize，而那被externalized的東西，能夠去塑造其他人(尤其是下一代)。真正的多元，應該是容許不同的東西被externalize，而容許彼此競爭。
3. 聖經的遠象，不但是統一，更是淨化。一個沒有淨化的多元，若被視為終極的遠象，則可能出現以下這個情況。那個多元的未來世界有強姦亦有恩愛的兩性關係，有濫殺亦有慈悲，有貧窮亦有施，...有善亦有惡。若有人認為那些惡是應該除去的，則那人就會被人說是不是真正的擁抱多元了。(最後的那句話好像是你講過的 :D :D )

蒲先生

02-11-2007, 09:01 PM

第三點真係唔錯.......亦係我認為宗教人士可以貢獻的地方......社會的終極遠象和今日的社會經國治世方案如何銜接......兩者如何互相影響.......這正我對建設社會有興趣外.......對神學末世論也抱很大熱情的原因......或因為我對後者抱熱情.......所以對社會發展有興趣也吧.......

惡的最後解決方案的確很難想像從純粹世俗手段解決......沒有神或超自然超越界介入......或許人一方面可以懷抱宗教盼望等待神幫手.......但理智上仍懷不可能之思.......我就暫時是這樣分裂的.......惡可能永遠不得解決.......但仍存盼望唯是......"沒有信.......我早已喪膽"......"我們都因信得了稱許......但還不能得著所應許的......因為你們以後的人也要這樣盼望.......若不同有盼望.......就不能完全".......昨日今日直到永遠的基督徒們.......盼望下去吧.....

蒲先生

02-11-2007, 09:21 PM

clement

02-11-2007, 10:39 PM

諗深一層......惡也是個不簡單的哲學問題.......徹底鏟除惡聽落當然好......但哪些是惡就難決定了.....豺狼和綿羊一齊係咪咁好.....沒有地震海瀟沙漠細菌的地球生態會點......應不是the earth as we know it.......沒有人越軌......亦不能有進步.......絕對純而淨的確就如蒸餾水......寡而冇味.......亦對健康冇益.......所以.......可能惡是永遠常存......."你們當中常有窮人.....但不常有我".......繼續扶貧吧.....基督徒......但不要忘記施行聖禮......作為永遠的祭......

雖然佛教認為染淨不二，煩惱同涅槃並非截然而分，但這並不是要將原來的凡俗層面的煩惱毫無保留地保留，照樣屠殺、姦淫、墮落，一邊修行成佛一邊拿著屠刀。

同樣，認為現存的惡會毫無保留地存留到永恆，就不會有終極完滿了。我想，比較好的想法是，現存的善和惡都會被否定、保存、提升。犯過惡的人仍然犯過惡（事件永存），污點永存，但罪人願意徹底悔改，上帝選擇赦免、遺忘。

以利達

02-12-2007, 12:34 AM

要有多元社會.......世俗化社會是唯一出路.......宗教的私人化或盡量私人化是無可避免.......而且是最佳的現實選擇.......不是讓步......而是值得追求.......雖然聖經說有一日世界萬物在基督內統一......但我會詮釋一個足夠多元化的未來世界可能就是了.......

我未諗完架......有點子再寫......

如果不只"多元化的未來世界"呢？

各自地盤...各自西天...各自天堂...各自七重天...各自三十三重天...各自虛無呢?

wonggk

02-12-2007, 08:49 AM

香港可能很多人不知道，美國副總統 Cheney 的女兒 Mary 是個著名的女同性戀者。她現在通過人工受懷孕有小孩。

昨天美國的報紙有一評論，是關同性家庭的，作者 Pitts 是個左傾的評論員，但是他卻反對同性戀者通過人工受孕生下一代。

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/leonardpitts/story/79BCAF5643F6D5998625727E0002F682?OpenDocument

Daniel_Cheung

03-04-2007, 08:29 PM

國度復興報今期都有報導這個反性傾向歧視條例，http://www.krt.com.hk/
（要免費登記後才可以看全文的）。

if_chf24

03-06-2007, 11:06 AM

From: Andrea Minichiello Williams [mailto:AndreaWilliams@ccfon.org.uk]
Sent: 02 March 2007 08:06
Subject: Must Read: Parliamentary Report into SORs raises huge concerns for Christian Freedom

MUST READ: PARLIAMENTARY REPORT INTO SORs REPRESENTS HUGE CONCERNS FOR CHRISTIAN FREEDOMS

2nd March 2007

Summary

On Wednesday 28 February the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) reported their findings on the Northern Ireland SORs and the proposed England , Wales and Scotland SORs (see link below for their full report). The highly concerning content of the Committee's report is all the more significant because it will be used by the Government and politicians when finalising the content of (and voting on) the England, Wales and Scotland SORs in the next few weeks.

WE URGE EVERY CHRISTIAN TO READ AND FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO OTHERS SO THAT THE FULL POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD (further details on action that can be taken are given below). The importance of what this report reveals and the thrust of the secularist agenda cannot be underestimated. We need to understand this and communicate our concerns as widely as possible. We need to pray for a miracle that the Sexual Orientation Regulations would not become law.

The JCHR report says the following:

1. "In our view, the prohibitions on discrimination in the Regulations limit the manifestations of religious beliefs and limitation is justifiable in a democratic society for the protection of the right of gay people not to be discriminated against"(paragraph 44).

The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practising homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.

The JCHR not only say that this is the position taken by the SORs, and that it is right that the SORs do so, but also that in their view, it would be unlawful to reverse the position and to allow the right of Christians to manifest their faith to override the right of homosexuals to practise their lifestyle.

2. "Where the manifestation of a belief conflicts with the right of gay people not to be discriminated against in their access to services as important as adoption services, it is in our view necessary and justifiable to limit the right to manifest the belief" (paragraph 52).

3. "In our view the Regulations should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong", and "We welcome the Government's acceptance that [the Regulations] should apply to all schools [...] without any exemption for particular types of school such as faith schools" (paragraphs 65 and 67).

The Committee are explicit in their view that no Christian schools should have the right to promote marriage over homosexual relationships or hold to a Christian ethos that sex is only right in a heterosexual monogamous marriage. Rather, the JCHR want the Government to go further than their current proposals (the Government have argued the SORs do not apply to the curriculum) so that it would be illegal for a school to suggest in their teaching that extra-marital sexual relationships are morally wrong.

4. "In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination" (paragraph 67).

This is an astounding statement which, without giving any justification, assumes Christianity cannot be 'objectively true' and that it should be illegal, even in a faith school, to teach that Christianity and its principles are 'objectively true'.

The JCHR instead say that it will be sufficient for a school to be able to 'describe' that one religion believes X about sexual morality, while another religion believes Y - allowing this sort of description while denying the right to promote a Christian view does not allow a school to have a religious 'ethos' (as the law currently allows) in any true sense of the word.

The JCHR suggest that it will be illegal for faith schools to teach that the Bible is right in what it says about sexual morality.

5. "During the passage of the Equality Act, the House of Lords removed harassment on the grounds of religion or belief from the Bill [...] In our view, however, different considerations apply in relation to sexual orientation, race and sex, because these are inherent characteristics. We therefore welcome the inclusion of harassment [...] within the Northern Ireland Regulations and we recommend that it also be included in the forthcoming Regulations for the rest of Great Britain " (paragraph 56).

Firstly, the JCHR claim that a person's sexual orientation is the same as their race or sex as an 'inherent characteristic'. This is of course a completely unfounded claim with no basis in science: whilst there is indisputable proof that race and sex are genetic, it is obvious that sexual orientation is not comparable in this regard, not least because no-one can change their race or sex whereas many people have felt oriented/tempted to same-sex relationships, as well as having felt oriented to heterosexual relationships.

Secondly, the JCHR encourage the Government to go beyond their current proposals by creating a law making harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation illegal, whilst they recommend that there should be no such law making harassment on the grounds of religion or belief illegal.

It is perhaps not surprising that the JCHR report promotes homosexual rights to such a degree whilst relegating the right to live out the Christian faith: one of the 11 members of the committee was MP Evan Harris, honorary President of the Lib Dem Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights as well as vice-president of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association.

The fact is that the report of this Committee will be reported to the Government and other politicians unchallenged in its assertions, unless Christians take the time and effort to stand up and explain the truth that while unjustified discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation must rightly be opposed, for the benefit of society Christians must be free under British law to lovingly and compassionately hold to the clear teaching of the Gospel that God created sexual relationships to be enjoyed only within a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Please contact your local MPs and Peers to make this point, as well as contacting Ruth Kelly and the Department for Women and Equality (see contact details below) to stand up for truth. Use the link below to find lobbying information (such as finding the contact details of your local MP).

Link

The Joint Committee on Human Rights report into the SORs can be found at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200607/jtselect/jtrights/58/58.pdf

A central page with documents on how to lobby MPs and Peers, including advice on finding contact details for MPs and Peers, can be found at http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/HowTo/howto.php

Contact details

The contact details for Ruth Kelly are:

Post:

Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP,

House of Commons,

London,

SW1A 0AA.

Telephone:

0207 944 3013 (Her department number) 0207 2193000 (this is the Parliament switchboard: simply ask for Ruth Kelly MP's office) 0207944 4400 (this is the Communities and Local Government Department switchboard: ask for Ruth Kelly).

E-mail:

PSRuthkelly@communities.gsi.gov.uk

kellyr@parliament.uk

The contact details for the Women and Equality Unit are:

2nd Floor

Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street

London

SW1E 6DE

United Kingdom

Helpline: 0207 944 4400 (08:30-17:30 Mon-Fri)

if_chf24

03-21-2007, 02:25 PM

昨天，有同事生日，下午茶時間吃birthday cakes。大家聊天，有英國同事提起她在比利時旅行時，在一間酒吧裡碰到一些人的不知恥的racist言論。

之後，有同事提起，她在一個朋友的派對上，又碰到一個人大談同志couple為何不應該have children。她說，她立即覺得那是錯（wrong)的，但又一時想不起那人的言論在哪裡是logically wrong。之後，之前那位同事就說，聽起來，好像是某些機構的官方發言人．．．另一位同事接著說：天主教adoption agencies...那位同事說：對，是他們不接受gap adoption。身旁一位天主教同事立即把問題轉回racism：如果我是一個racist,　我也不會告訴人我是racist......

我當然一句聲也不出啦。

以上的實例，只是想說，當英國的年青人都接受同性戀無所謂，可以結合，可以領養的時候，已經到一個地步，猶如universal truth，是不用提理由（或想不起理由）：你不接受，就是homophobic，與racist同類。令我想起Kuhn的paradigm shift。今天，在英國奉行傳統價值觀（不管是基督教，回教，猶太教，儒家等等），已愈來愈難。

if_chf24

04-13-2007, 03:44 AM

The Prime Minister Office has emailed those who have signed the electronic petition.... "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Delay the passing into Legislation of the Sexual Orientation Regulations for England and Wales." Details of petition:"This would go against the fundamental rights of Christians to disagree with the practise of homosexuality. Whilst this petition does not condone the persecution of these citizens, it does stress the need to allow those whose faith objects to these practises to maintain their objection."

with the following reply:

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11465.asp

12 April 2007

On 7 March the Government published its response to the consultation "Getting Equal" and laid before Parliament Regulations to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, premises and in the exercise of public functions.

Almost 3,000 responses were received to the Government's consultation, with the overwhelming majority accepting the principle of legislating in this area to prohibit unfair discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The Government has listened carefully to the many points raised on this issue, which have been informed by wide-ranging debates in the media and Parliament. We believe that the balance we have reached between the competing rights of individuals to hold and manifest a religious belief and the right to live free from discrimination is the right one.

The Government's approach will ensure that nobody will be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs. Where religious organisations enter into an agreement to provide services to the wider community, on behalf of and under contract to a public authority, lesbian, gay and bisexual people should have equal access to those services. This is in line with the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its recent Legislative Scrutiny report on the Regulations.

During the consultation, specific concerns were expressed about the application of the Regulations to the adoption and fostering sector. The Prime Minister addressed these issues in his statement of 29 January 2007, when he announced that in the interests of vulnerable children, the regulations will provide for a transition period for faith-based adoption agencies until the end of 2008. There will also be a regular independent assessment from adoption and child welfare experts on the impacts of the regulations on adoption in order to ensure that we maintain the existing body of expertise. You can read his statement on the PM's website at the following address: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10869.asp.

In the interim, any agency wishing to take advantage of the transitional arrangements will have to refer gay, lesbian and bi-sexual people to agencies who are able to assist. This approach will enable vital services for children to be maintained, whilst preserving the principle of non-discrimination.

The Government is determined that everybody should have fair and equal access to goods, facilities and services regardless of who provides them and that a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Daniel_Cheung

05-07-2007, 08:50 PM

關啟文博士在基督新報寫了三篇文章談論這事。

http://www.gospelherald.com.hk/news/edi_223.htm

（看來基督新報不介意人們投稿過萬字，大不了便分幾期刊出。這比時代論壇慷慨得多。）

Daniel_Cheung

12-28-2008, 09:25 PM

http://s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=9952

這個案又如何？若報道沒有失實的話，我認為那個 Brighton Council 太霸道了。

if_chf24

12-29-2008, 12:36 PM

其實近幾個月來, 也陸續有英國基督徒或回教徒控告政府/顧主, 宗教歧視的案件.

看來, 這些事情將會無日無之.

老實說, 反性傾向歧視法, 為好些帶有反宗教傾向的地方政府或顧主, 提供了法律上的理由, 取消對有宗教背景的(不只是基督教的)服務機構提供資助.

按: 英國與美國不同. 英國與香港一樣, 慈善組織不管有沒有宗教背景, 都可以申請政府資助. 但現在他們都會受到或多或少來自同志界或地方政府的壓力.

這樣的做法, 是會引起社會人士的不安, 何苦呢? 又如果英國也有間佛教安老院, 裡面的公公婆婆每三個月都要回答一次他們是異性戀還是同性戀.... 你話佛教徒會怎樣想.

簡直是離譜!

nkcwong

01-02-2009, 11:06 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3999004/Care-home-for-elderly-Christians-in-gay-row.html

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20081229/christian-care-home-loses-funding-over-gay-rights/

http://s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=9952

這個案又如何？若報道沒有失實的話，我認為那個 Brighton Council 太霸道了。

其實近幾個月來, 也陸續有英國基督徒或回教徒控告政府/顧主, 宗教歧視的案件.

看來, 這些事情將會無日無之.

老實說, 反性傾向歧視法, 為好些帶有反宗教傾向的地方政府或顧主, 提供了法律上的理由, 取消對有宗教背景的(不只是基督教的)服務機構提供資助.

按: 英國與美國不同. 英國與香港一樣, 慈善組織不管有沒有宗教背景, 都可以申請政府資助. 但現在他們都會受到或多或少來自同志界或地方政府的壓力.

這樣的做法, 是會引起社會人士的不安, 何苦呢? 又如果英國也有間佛教安老院, 裡面的公公婆婆每三個月都要回答一次他們是異性戀還是同性戀.... 你話佛教徒會怎樣想.

簡直是離譜!

按我有限的法律知識，以下是我的分析﹕

（1）Brighton & Hove Council criticised the home's response and said because it was based on Christianity, gay people might be deterred from applying for a place.
這個完全是speculative，因為（a）基督教內部對同性戀有不同立場；而且更重要是（b）除非有同性戀者嘗試過申請被拒絕，否則同性戀者不願意申請是同性戀者的事情，不能以此理由指控人家有問題。

（2）就算從安老院收回來的問卷的答案全部都是heterosexual，為何這本身就一定代表"institutional homophobia"？這可以是因為同性戀者自己不積極申請進安老院而已。

（3）The council also wanted the home to use images of homosexuals in its promotional literature and show a Stonewall presentation on ?gay rights? to staff.
因為有反種族歧及性別視法例，現時在公營（甚至私營）機構有所謂diversity training，主要教人跟異性及不同種族相處時的一些「須知」，這是合理的要求，但你是有權不出席的。同理，若有反性傾向歧視法例，人家要求show關於同性戀者的literature及presentation--只要不是sexually explicit--是合理的，但安老院的公公婆婆是有權不出席的。

（4）Andrew Jessop, the charity's chief executive, said: "The council has taken overzealousness to the extreme. People in their 90s are very vulnerable and shouldn't be treated in this way."

Brighton Council ? renowned for its political correctness ? wanted the home to ask its elderly Christian residents about their sexual orientation every three months.
這個牽涉老人家是否應該有不同的對待，是否應該有exemption，是否因為已經上了年紀，所以法例可以容許人有性別，種族或性傾向歧視？我不知道。

但要人家每三個月就要回答關於性傾向的問題似乎離譜了，這可能違反了privacy。

（5）A spokesman for the council said: 'We have never expected any residents to answer questions about their sexuality if they preferred not to do so.

但這是disingenuous，是將安老院陷入catch-22的處境。若沒有或很少人回答問卷，那麼就withdraw funding。但若要有很多人回答，那麼可能對公公婆婆不公平。

if_chf24

01-05-2009, 06:08 AM

Why is 'sexual identity' any of the Government's business?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/3998908/Why-is-sexual-identity-any-of-the-Governments-business.html

Daily Telegraph
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 5:01PM GMT 28 Dec 2008
....

Since the home has never asked impertinent and intrusive questions about sexuality how is it possible to know how many homosexuals have actually stayed there in order to show discrimination; and why should anyone care? As Phil Wainwright of Pilgrim Homes said: "We have every reason to believe that we have given places to gay Christians, and no questions were ever asked."

So who is being discriminatory here: the home against homosexuals or the council against Christians? Would a Muslim charity have been treated in the same way? Can you imagine one being required to ask the same questions? Well, if it is providing services, like care for the elderly, it might well be because that is what the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 say should happen. Although the questions do not have to be answered, an unwillingness to do so could be construed, as it was in Brighton, as a sign of hostility to homosexuals, rather than simply of indifference.

....

This issue goes far beyond the over-zealous application of the law by a single council which has the highest proportion of homosexual residents in the country. From next Monday, the Office for National Statistics will routinely ask people about their "sexual identity" in every household survey it conducts. There had been a plan to include a question about sexuality in the 2011 census, but this was dropped because officials recognised what a fearful row there would be. Instead, ONS surveys will include the question "to allow for more accurate baseline estimates, of the size and characteristics of the lesbian, gay and bisexual population in the UK".

....

When the ONS survey question is introduced next week, people will be asked to choose from the categories "Heterosexual/straight", "Gay/Lesbian", "Bisexual" and "Other", although they will also be allowed to decline to answer. The ONS said: "The category 'other' has been included (because) a very small group of people find that the answer categories provided do not describe themselves and that they would prefer to use another term." Well, there is a much larger group of people who would like the opportunity to give one further answer. It is this: Mind your own business.