香港一些市民抵制明光社今天的賣旗籌款

[Daniel_Cheung]

http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/viewthread.php?tid=32916&fpage=1

早前明光社說，他們不夠義工賣旗，需要千五，但僅有四百，不知最終有多少義工？

[維記wei_kei]

http://www.hkitalk.net/HKiTalk2/viewthread.php?tid=32916&fpage=1

早前明光社說，他們不夠義工賣旗，需要千五，但僅有四百，不知最終有多少義工？
hyperlink中的新聞，是2005年的舊聞，即兩年前的事了。:confused:

[Daniel_Cheung]

對不起！

我昨天聽人說，收到一些電郵，呼籲罷買明光社的旗，於是上網找，錯手找了件舊事。

不知各位有沒有一些資料提供？

[Daniel_Cheung]

這一條才對，http://www3.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=4787583

[維記wei_kei]

試下看這個：

一 蚊 支 票 捐 明 光 社 (http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20070725&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=15333&art_id=7363004&cat_id=45&coln_id=20)：
中 大 學 生 報 、 「 彩 虹 行 動 」 等 團 體 關 注 ， 噚 日 直 踩 明 光 社 會 址 贈 興 。......踩 場 人 士 好 搞 鬼 ， 特 別 整 左 張 巨 型 支 票 ， 進 行 左 個 簡 單 而 隆 重 0既 移 交 善 款 儀 式 。 佢 地 唔 妥 明 光 社 ， 點 解 要 捐 錢 呢 ？ 原 來 張 支 票 得 一 蚊 ， 諷 刺 明 光 社 鼓 吹 「 一 元 思 想 」 ， 唔 容 許 社 會 有 多 元 思 想 喎 。

[Tim]

明光社發出的聲明
有關明光社賣旗及財政狀況之嚴正聲明

對於近日網上及電郵流傳一些對明光社財政狀況之謠言，本社深表遺憾，為免有關謠言繼續散播，本社有以下聲明：

１　本社為一註冊之非牟利免稅團體，每年皆有清楚之核數報告，確保一切捐款用於指定之用途。由於本社為一服務性團體，故支出主要用於１４位同工之薪酬，所有董事皆屬義務性質，沒有收取分毫。

２　有關４月２９日之登報聯署，在呼籲個人及團體參與聯署之表格上已清楚列明，餘款將用作未來關注性傾向歧視條例立法之工作。有關聯署之發起團體是維護家庭聯盟，明光社只是代收款項，一切餘款之使用由維護家庭聯盟內各個具公信力之團體負責監察。

３　對於有人冒充本社發出一些不盡不實之電郵，以及一些與本社持不同意見人士之惡意誹謗，本社深表遺憾，並保留一切追究之權利。有關人士應懸崖勒馬，立即停止傳送有關電郵。

４　在本社於7月16日在新界區賣旗籌款前出現這些謠言，其用意十分明顯，希望各位關注明光社工作的弟兄姊妹為我們代禱。

５　任何人士若收到一些批評本社之電郵，希望了解其真偽，歡迎瀏覽我們的網頁 http://www.truth-light.org.hk 或致電本社查詢 27684204。

有關慈善機構的內容：
截止2007 年6 月30 日 根據《稅務條例》第 88 條 獲豁免繳稅的慈善機構及慈善信託的名單 List of charitable institutions and trusts of a public character, which are exempt from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue ordinance as at 30 June 2007

SOCIETY FOR TRUTH AND LIGHT , THE 明光社 (w.e.f. 21.01.1998)
http://www.ird.gov.hk/eng/pdf/e_s88list_emb.pdf

有關《維護家庭聯盟》的內容：
《維護家庭聯盟》是由一些關心家庭價值的社會服務機構及教會領袖所組成。本聯盟認為有關同性戀這涉及社會道德倫理的議題，應交由公民社會作進一步討論、協商，以達至可平衡社會各方價值的共識。．．．
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/chinese/panels/itb/papers/itb0312cb1-1094-2-c.pdf Google cache (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:eJZK2SFJLmAJ:www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/chinese/panels/itb/papers/itb0312cb1-1094-2-c.pdf+%E7%B6%AD%E8%AD%B7%E5%AE%B6%E5%BA%AD%E8%81%AF%E7%9B%9F&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=hk)
聯絡地址：九龍長沙灣道833號長沙灣廣場第二期503室
電話：2768 4204 　傳真：2743 9780　 電郵：info@truth-light.org.hk

另香港有間叫FAMILY VALUE FOUNDATION OF HONG KONG LIMITED維護家庭基金有限公司 (w.e.f. 05.03.2007)，不知是甚麼來歷！

[維記wei_kei]

有關明光社賣旗及財政狀況之嚴正聲明

對於近日網上及電郵流傳一些對明光社財政狀況之謠言，本社深表遺憾，為免有關謠言繼續散播，本社有以下聲明：

１　本社為一註冊之非牟利免稅團體，每年皆有清楚之核數報告，確保一切捐款用於指定之用途。由於本社為一服務性團體，故支出主要用於１４位同工之薪酬，所有董事皆屬義務性質，沒有收取分毫。

２　有關４月２９日之登報聯署，在呼籲個人及團體參與聯署之表格上已清楚列明，餘款將用作未來關注性傾向歧視條例立法之工作。有關聯署之發起團體是維護家庭聯盟，明光社只是代收款項，一切餘款之使用由維護家庭聯盟內各個具公信力之團體負責監察。

３　對於有人冒充本社發出一些不盡不實之電郵，以及一些與本社持不同意見人士之惡意誹謗，本社深表遺憾，並保留一切追究之權利。有關人士應懸崖勒馬，立即停止傳送有關電郵。

４　在本社於7月16日在新界區賣旗籌款前出現這些謠言，其用意十分明顯，希望各位關注明光社工作的弟兄姊妹為我們代禱。

５　任何人士若收到一些批評本社之電郵，希望了解其真偽，歡迎瀏覽我們的網頁 http://www.truth-light.org.hk 或致電本社查詢 27684204。
呢個聲明都係2005年的吧?

[蒲先生]

試下看這個：

一 蚊 支 票 捐 明 光 社 (http://appledaily.atnext.com/template/apple/art_main.cfm?iss_id=20070725&sec_id=4104&subsec_id=15333&art_id=7363004&cat_id=45&coln_id=20)：
中 大 學 生 報 、 「 彩 虹 行 動 」 等 團 體 關 注 ， 噚 日 直 踩 明 光 社 會 址 贈 興 。......踩 場 人 士 好 搞 鬼 ， 特 別 整 左 張 巨 型 支 票 ， 進 行 左 個 簡 單 而 隆 重 0既 移 交 善 款 儀 式 。 佢 地 唔 妥 明 光 社 ， 點 解 要 捐 錢 呢 ？ 原 來 張 支 票 得 一 蚊 ， 諷 刺 明 光 社 鼓 吹 「 一 元 思 想 」 ， 唔 容 許 社 會 有 多 元 思 想 喎 。

幾有趣.....我住新界將軍澳.....今朝有兩位中年斯文女子賣旗.....我一睇係明光社就表明唔認同......但佢都笑逐顏開地說多謝......真係訓練有素.....態度很良好....令人滿意.....好過上年d中學生.....完全唔知發生物事.....上年是星期六......收入應好d......

[sbchan]

在這次的問題上，如果我還在香港的話，應該會站在明光社那一邊的。

有時同情地了解明光社內一眾人的心態，面對一班這樣不能容許多元思想的人 ，長期鬥爭下來，難怪明光社內的人會草木皆兵，自己也一樣成了不容許多元思想的人。

衝擊教堂、踩場、散播假消息，對方一步步的升級，差在未出現暴力行為，明光社內一眾人要面對的，不 (只)是一班和他們思想不同但可以理性溝通的對手。秀才遇著兵，你還要不要和他們講道理呢？唉.

[if_chf24]

在這次的問題上，如果我還在香港的話，應該會站在明光社那一邊的。

有時同情地了解明光社內一眾人的心態，面對一班這樣不能容許多元思想的人 ，長期鬥爭下來，難怪明光社內的人會草木皆兵，自己也一樣成了不容許多元思想的人。

衝擊教堂、踩場、散播假消息，對方一步步的升級，差在未出現暴力行為，明光社內一眾人要面對的，不 (只)是一班和他們思想不同但可以理性溝通的對手。秀才遇著兵，你還要不要和他們講道理呢？唉.

I agree with sbchan. I am very disappointed with the so-called 'liberals' in Hong Kong (be they Christian liberals or anti-religious liberals). If they are real liberals, why would they decide to use such kind of tactics? If we criticise the conservatives for being illiberal, having lost of the Love and tolerance as expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ, then I would implore my liberal friends to reflect upon their own behaviours, to see whether or not according to their 'liberal' ideals, such kind of illiberal tactics can be used at all.

If anyone responds by saying that because the opposite side is using such-and-such tactics, or because the other side is so illiberal or corrupt or whatever name-calling one may use, then I shall again question the sincerity of those who claim to be rational and sincere in their fight for justice.

By just claiming that one is defending 'justice' or 'equality' or 'family value' or 'morality' does not make one nobler than his or her opponents. By what means do you achieve your aims is also very important.

And if anyone thinks that in order to achieve certain aims, any means can be used (hopefully, there is no violence yet), then I shall again implore his or her conscience and let him or her re-examine their whole ideology to see whether or not any inconsistency can be found therein.

My major criticism against The Society for Truth and Light is that they have fashioned themselves after the so-called 'liberal' or 'left-wing' activists and used tactics that may not be noble at all, and by highlighting one particular aspect of Christian or traditional values (e.g. family value), they may have neglect other important values (e.g. civil liberty).

And such criticism can also be applied against some of the so-called 'liberals'. By highlighting certain values (e.g. equality or social justice), they may have ignore other important values (e.g. family values). In order to achieve societal changes in the way they desire, they can employ tactics that are intolerant and illiberal in essence. Maybe that are 'rational' enough to achieve their political aims, and yet their means have defeated their purposes of achieving justice.

I feel really sad. Given the fact that I have personal friends in both camps, and found that some of them (in both camps) are so illiberal that they are unwilling to listen to opposite opinions and always find faults with the opposite sides without any self-reflection, I am very disappointed with these so-called social activitists, be they of the 'liberal' camp or the 'conservative' camp. Of course, this is only my personal feeling and I have no intention to make a blanket statement that anyone who belongs to any of these camps are like these. And hopefully, many of our members in SHC are rational individuals who have noble ideals and would try to achieve their goals via civilised means.

[Garlic]

請支持明光社
7月25日(三)新界區賣旗籌款

誠邀您支持關注生命倫理，正視社會歪風的工作! 您可以透過以下方式支持我們：

- 個人能組織2人或以上的賣旗隊！
- 家長以親子形式協助賣旗，為子女上一堂社關課!
- 每間教會/學校能組織 20-40人或以上的賣旗隊！



- 教會/機構/學校/公司在賣旗日或之前安排傳遞旗袋，收集捐款！
- 捐款$100認購1枚金旗，或直接將捐款存入本社匯豐銀行戶口：
178-8-057477


參加表格及詳情 (%C3%A5%C2%8F%C2%83%C3%A5%C2%8A%C2%A0%C3%A8%C2%A1%C2%A8%C3%A6%C2%A0%C2%BC%C3%A5%C2%8F%C2%8A%C3%A8%C2%A9%C2%B3%C3%A6%C2%83%C2%85)

[維記wei_kei]

I agree with sbchan. I am very disappointed with the so-called 'liberals' in Hong Kong (be they Christian liberals or anti-religious liberals). If they are real liberals, why would they decide to use such kind of tactics? If we criticise the conservatives for being illiberal, having lost of the Love and tolerance as expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ, then I would implore my liberal friends to reflect upon their own behaviours, to see whether or not according to their 'liberal' ideals, such kind of illiberal tactics can be used at all.

If anyone responds by saying that because the opposite side is using such-and-such tactics, or because the other side is so illiberal or corrupt or whatever name-calling one may use, then I shall again question the sincerity of those who claim to be rational and sincere in their fight for justice.

By just claiming that one is defending 'justice' or 'equality' or 'family value' or 'morality' does not make one nobler than his or her opponents. By what means do you achieve your aims is also very important.

And if anyone thinks that in order to achieve certain aims, any means can be used (hopefully, there is no violence yet), then I shall again implore his or her conscience and let him or her re-examine their whole ideology to see whether or not any inconsistency can be found therein.

My major criticism against The Society for Truth and Light is that they have fashioned themselves after the so-called 'liberal' or 'left-wing' activists and used tactics that may not be noble at all, and by highlighting one particular aspect of Christian or traditional values (e.g. family value), they may have neglect other important values (e.g. civil liberty).

And such criticism can also be applied against some of the so-called 'liberals'. By highlighting certain values (e.g. equality or social justice), they may have ignore other important values (e.g. family values). In order to achieve societal changes in the way they desire, they can employ tactics that are intolerant and illiberal in essence. Maybe that are 'rational' enough to achieve their political aims, and yet their means have defeated their purposes of achieving justice.

I feel really sad. Given the fact that I have personal friends in both camps, and found that some of them (in both camps) are so illiberal that they are unwilling to listen to opposite opinions and always find faults with the opposite sides without any self-reflection, I am very disappointed with these so-called social activitists, be they of the 'liberal' camp or the 'conservative' camp. Of course, this is only my personal feeling and I have no intention to make a blanket statement that anyone who belongs to any of these camps are like these. And hopefully, many of our members in SHC are rational individuals who have noble ideals and would try to achieve their goals via civilised means.
其實正如你說，只是在兩邊陣形中的部份較極端的人才是illberal，不願聆聽異見者的聲音，也主要是由於這些人曝光度最高，好像代表了其所屬陣形而已，無論是所謂看似二元的保守或開放立場中，其實有相當不少是真誠地願意與不同意見或立場的人對話的人，有時只是為了形勢上被迫要要璧壘分明（如中大學生報事件）而已。如學會這類對話平台，需要建立更多一些，才可突破那些好像代表了各自陣形的illberal伫不斷在主導著引發對抗的局面。

[蒲先生]

And hopefully, many of our members in SHC are rational individuals who have noble ideals and would try to achieve their goals via civilised means.

一般而言....我都反對隨便用暴力/直接行動.....但對於所謂理性/文明人等於用口不用手.....不作肢體性鬥爭.....不做違法的事.......我有保留....應該話......我唔認同.....因為status quo往往已經用法律和合法暴力托住及罩住......要對付就有可能用武力兼犯法....用全國做例子.......難道進行武裝動亂.....暴力革命的中國共產黨.......是一群冇理性冇理論唔文明的匪徒嗎......或者作為合法政府的國民黨會想國人這樣認為吧.....所以.....實際issue及處境很重要......如被削奪居港權/家庭團聚的人作出激烈行為我就很支持......我唔會從原則上先天地否定暴力/直接行動.......

[Daniel_Cheung]

I agree with sbchan. I am very disappointed with the so-called 'liberals' in Hong Kong (be they Christian liberals or anti-religious liberals).

你心目中是想著某些人的嗎？還是泛指所有反對者？其實不是逢明光社必反的 "liberals" ，大有人在。

他們現在雙方不斷把對方的壞蘋果拿出來，然後普遍化之，並不會有好結果。:(

[if_chf24]

你心目中是想著某些人的嗎？還是泛指所有反對者？其實不是逢明光社必反的 "liberals" ，大有人在。

他們現在雙方不斷把對方的壞蘋果拿出來，然後普遍化之，並不會有好結果。:(

謝謝維記、蒲先生和國棟兄的回應。如我之前所寫的：
I have no intention to make a blanket statement that anyone who belongs to any of these camps are like these.

因此，我指的只是部份人士，在這一點上維記的回應呼應了我的個人看法。

[if_chf24]

一般而言....我都反對隨便用暴力/直接行動.....但對於所謂理性/文明人等於用口不用手.....不作肢體性鬥爭.....不做違法的事.......我有保留....應該話......我唔認同.....因為status quo往往已經用法律和合法暴力托住及罩住......要對付就有可能用武力兼犯法....用全國做例子.......難道進行武裝動亂.....暴力革命的中國共產黨.......是一群冇理性冇理論唔文明的匪徒嗎......或者作為合法政府的國民黨會想國人這樣認為吧.....所以.....實際issue及處境很重要......如被削奪居港權/家庭團聚的人作出激烈行為我就很支持......我唔會從原則上先天地否定暴力/直接行動.......

這一點上，我與蒲先生的意見差異在於暴力或直接行動的正當性依據問題。

我不是絕對意義上的和平主義者－－如果今天我們受法西斯主義者出兵攻撃，我會自衛。

但我對於用暴力或直接行動去overthrow the status quo有極大的保留，原因在於以暴易暴－－如共產黨革命－－並不一定帶來公義的社會，它可能帶來更大的不公義。

這解釋了為什麼我個人喜歡甘地和尼赫魯，卻不喜歡毛澤東。當然，甘地的不合作運動，不交鹽稅（私自採鹽）等，也可算是直接行動，但起碼甘地要的是非暴力革命。

[wonggk]

I am a frequent critic of True Light Society et al., and I don't mind being labeled as anything :D .

One issue I often see supporters of True Light et. al. mentioned is that the other side also use such and such tactic, so it is at least "understandable" or "acceptable" for True Light et. al. to behave like this.

I must strongly disagree with this position. This "they too" argument has no place to play if an organization is claiming to be fighting for a moral high ground.

I want to compare this to the recent U.S. anti-terrorism tactics. The Bush government, in the name of anti-terrorism, has adopted many identicial tactics that the terrorists used, including suspection of civil rights, torture, disregard of international laws etc. Their agruement is the same as True Light et. al.: the terrorist are doing the same thing. But, when the U.S. plays according to the rule of the terrorists, she herself becomes one of them! Similarily, when True Light et. al. adopts the same tactic as the "unethical" groups they are fighting with, True Light et. al. now becomes one of them.

As a U.S. citizen, it is my duty to criticize the Bush government. I will take up arms to fight the terrorists if needed, but I don't have to get into a word of wars with them. Similarily, as a Christian, it is my duty to criticize True Light et. al. If the church is attacked, I too will pick up arm and fight the other groups, but don't say that because I haven't strongly criticize the homosexuals etc., I can't say anything about True Light et. al.

In addition, I am especially offended by True Light et. al. that they keep using "Factual and Logical" invalid statements to support their claims. I have not seen the same extend of misrepresentation among the homosexuals and liberals. But the conservatives have total disregard for factual and logical correctness. They will use any statement to their advantage. As a scientist by training, I find this totally unacceptable.

[wonggk]

這解釋了為什麼我個人喜歡甘地和尼赫魯，卻不喜歡毛澤東。當然，甘地的不合作運動，不交鹽稅（私自採鹽）等，也可算是直接行動，但起碼甘地要的是非暴力革命。

Gandhi could use his non-violent approach because he was dealing with the UK. If he was in China or the former USSR, he would be killed in no time.

The whole issue is "how much power asymmetry exists?" If I have a right to at least express my opinion and to make changes peacefully, then it may not be justified to use force. For example, I would argue that in the U.S. today, using force to protest against the Iraq war is not justified. Just vote the conservatives out of office!

But in places that the majority has no right to make changes, use of force may be morally justified.

[sbchan]

I am a frequent critic of True Light Society et al., and I don't mind being labeled as anything :D .

One issue I often see supporters of True Light et. al. mentioned is that the other side also use such and such tactic, so it is at least "understandable" or "acceptable" for True Light et. al. to behave like this.

I must strongly disagree with this position. This "they too" argument has no place to play if an organization is claiming to be fighting for a moral high ground.

I want to compare this to the recent U.S. anti-terrorism tactics. The Bush government, in the name of anti-terrorism, has adopted many identicial tactics that the terrorists used, including suspection of civil rights, torture, disregard of international laws etc. Their agruement is the same as True Light et. al.: the terrorist are doing the same thing. But, when the U.S. plays according to the rule of the terrorists, she herself becomes one of them! Similarily, when True Light et. al. adopts the same tactic as the "unethical" groups they are fighting with, True Light et. al. now becomes one of them.

As a U.S. citizen, it is my duty to criticize the Bush government. I will take up arms to fight the terrorists if needed, but I don't have to get into a word of wars with them. Similarily, as a Christian, it is my duty to criticize True Light et. al. If the church is attacked, I too will pick up arm and fight the other groups, but don't say that because I haven't strongly criticize the homosexuals etc., I can't say anything about True Light et. al.

In addition, I am especially offended by True Light et. al. that they keep using "Factual and Logical" invalid statements to support their claims. I have not seen the same extend of misrepresentation among the homosexuals and liberals. But the conservatives have total disregard for factual and logical correctness. They will use any statement to their advantage. As a scientist by training, I find this totally unacceptable.

不太明白。你輕輕帶過了"understandable" 和"acceptable"，但在我看來這兩者有很大的區別 (又或者，你用understable不是我說同情地了解的意思？)
我可以對一個因為自己深愛的妻子有外遇而憤怒下錯手殺了妻子的丈夫有同情的了解 (understanable？)，明白他為甚麼這麼做；但這個跟我同不同意這是可接受的行為 (acceptable?)是兩回事。我可以同情地了解他，但不代表我接受他的行為。

[wonggk]

不太明白。你輕輕帶過了"understandable" 和"acceptable"，但在我看來這兩者有很大的區別 (又或者，你用understable不是我說同情地了解的意思？)
我可以對一個因為自己深愛的妻子有外遇而憤怒下錯手殺了妻子的丈夫有同情的了解 (understanable？)，明白他為甚麼這麼做；但這個跟我同不同意這是可接受的行為 (acceptable?)是兩回事。我可以同情地了解他，但不代表我接受他的行為。

Notice that I am NOT the one saying that what True Light et. al. did was "understandable" or "acceptable". It is its supporters would often used these terms.

I don't have direct reference with me now, but if you review many articles at CT, you will see this "defense" being repeated again and again.

I DO NOT find True Light et. al.'s action "acceptable" or even "understandable". This is because when they claim to have all the scholars on board, I expect better logics than what had been offered.

[horace]

I agree with sbchan. I am very disappointed with the so-called 'liberals' in Hong Kong (be they Christian liberals or anti-religious liberals). If they are real liberals, why would they decide to use such kind of tactics? If we criticise the conservatives for being illiberal, having lost of the Love and tolerance as expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ, then I would implore my liberal friends to reflect upon their own behaviours, to see whether or not according to their 'liberal' ideals, such kind of illiberal tactics can be used at all.

If anyone responds by saying that because the opposite side is using such-and-such tactics, or because the other side is so illiberal or corrupt or whatever name-calling one may use, then I shall again question the sincerity of those who claim to be rational and sincere in their fight for justice.

By just claiming that one is defending 'justice' or 'equality' or 'family value' or 'morality' does not make one nobler than his or her opponents. By what means do you achieve your aims is also very important.

And if anyone thinks that in order to achieve certain aims, any means can be used (hopefully, there is no violence yet), then I shall again implore his or her conscience and let him or her re-examine their whole ideology to see whether or not any inconsistency can be found therein.

My major criticism against The Society for Truth and Light is that they have fashioned themselves after the so-called 'liberal' or 'left-wing' activists and used tactics that may not be noble at all, and by highlighting one particular aspect of Christian or traditional values (e.g. family value), they may have neglect other important values (e.g. civil liberty).

And such criticism can also be applied against some of the so-called 'liberals'. By highlighting certain values (e.g. equality or social justice), they may have ignore other important values (e.g. family values). In order to achieve societal changes in the way they desire, they can employ tactics that are intolerant and illiberal in essence. Maybe that are 'rational' enough to achieve their political aims, and yet their means have defeated their purposes of achieving justice.

I feel really sad. Given the fact that I have personal friends in both camps, and found that some of them (in both camps) are so illiberal that they are unwilling to listen to opposite opinions and always find faults with the opposite sides without any self-reflection, I am very disappointed with these so-called social activitists, be they of the 'liberal' camp or the 'conservative' camp. Of course, this is only my personal feeling and I have no intention to make a blanket statement that anyone who belongs to any of these camps are like these. And hopefully, many of our members in SHC are rational individuals who have noble ideals and would try to achieve their goals via civilised means.

Other than the "conservative" on the right and the "liberal" on the left, there is also a camp called "libertarian" in the center. Maybe it will cheer you up a bit to know that there is someone opposing to both the idea of the "conservative" and the "liberal".

Actually in this incident, the "liberals" advice the public boycott the fund raising event of the True Light Society is very civilized. If the TLS can ask people for money, why can't their opponent ask people not to donate money to TLS?

[alexyu]

Someone posted the following in wikipedia, the open source online encyclopedia. On that page, Turth of Light is called a "hate group" and their fund raisng is also under serious criticisms. The war of mouth has gone out of hand. (I don't imply that anyone from SHC posted this).

------------------------------
The Society For Truth And Light (Chinese: 明光社) is a Christian conservative hate group "concerning social ethics, media behaviours and sex culture" in Hong Kong. It was established in May 1997 and is being led by Choi Chi-sum, an outspoken far right evangelicalist.

In fact the group induces moral panic and advocate homophobia in the Hong Kong society and being taunted by its liberal opponents as "moral terrorists" and "moral Taliban" because of its self-perception of being on the moral highground and labelling those who held opposite views as immoral, and abusing its close link with the authorities to crush the opposition.

....


Fund Raising Campaigns
Although being registered as a charity, the society has actually done very little good to the well-being of society overall.

According to the official papers submitted by the society for the permission of public fund raising campaigns, it plans to raise a total HKD13 million (approximately USD1.6 million) in year 2007, where 70% of the fund raised will be spent on capital investments such as "establishing new offices" for the group while the remaining will finance the payroll of its staffs and executives

----------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_For_Truth_And_Light

[pathos]

Although being registered as a charity, the society has actually done very little good to the well-being of society overall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_For_Truth_And_Light

華人基督教會的土壤究竟出了什麼問題呢﹖在一端﹐有的不發芽﹐沒伸展去四週影響大地﹐安樂于自己的小小天地﹐自我安慰已經做鹽做光。在另一端﹐有的茁壯成長﹐但似乎將周遭的土壤養分水分貪婪地汲取一空﹐霸氣十足... 咸死大地(做鹽)﹐也晒干週圍的花花草草(做光)... 至少對大地與花花草草而言﹐這是一顆沒有樹葉﹐不結果的怪樹。

從前希望基督徒多參與社會... 但看來還是得盼望有賢人醫治土壤才行。:(

[sbchan]

Other than the "conservative" on the right and the "liberal" on the left, there is also a camp called "libertarian" in the center. Maybe it will cheer you up a bit to know that there is someone opposing to both the idea of the "conservative" and the "liberal".

Actually in this incident, the "liberals" advice the public boycott the fund raising event of the True Light Society is very civilized. If the TLS can ask people for money, why can't their opponent ask people not to donate money to TLS?

Can you explain more about what libertarian (or libertarianism) is? I wonder you may use this term quite different from Economics, politics and philosophy.

Libertarianism, according to my knowledge, is usually a name referring to the "right-wing" of liberalism.

[維記wei_kei]

剛收到友人轉來的電郵：

明光社對滋擾本社賣旗義工之行為深表遺憾！

　　７月２５日是明光社於新界區賣旗的日子，之前有不敢表露真正身份的人士在網上發動聯署，呼籲市民杯葛明光社的賣旗活動，內容不乏粗言穢語；此外，更有人以一個與本社幾乎一樣的網址，未得本社同意，抄襲本社之網頁設計，製作了一個與本社非常類似，容易令人誤解本社之偽冒網站，意圖魚目混珠，在網頁內散播一些攻擊本社之謠言，本社對此深表遺憾，並保留一切有關侵犯版權及誹謗之追究權利。

　　在賣旗前夕，有８名人士前往本社辦公室抗議，本社同工以禮相待，並由助理總幹事親自接收他們的一元捐款。在賣旗當日，有幾名人士在沙田火車站附近拉橫額抗議，並呼籲市民不要買明光社的旗，香港是自由社會，本社的立場是尊重不同的意見，任何人決定是否捐助本社完全是其個人自由，只要不涉及捏造及誹謗，他們亦有自由呼籲其他人不要捐助本社，大家既然對一些社會問題有不同看法，應留待公眾參考正反意見之後自行決定支持那一方。

　　令人遺憾的是有關人士竟然滋擾一些協助本社賣旗的義工，當中包括一些長者、婦女及兒童，除了跟著這些義工，每當有人買旗時便上前騷擾外，更不斷在義工身邊呼喊一些涉及「性」的口號，本社其後收到一些義工的投訴，說有關行為令他們感到不安，甚至受驚！（參附件：一些受滋擾的賣旗義工之心聲）

　　所有協助本社賣旗之義工，沒有義務回答任何與本社有關之質詢。本社對有關人士滋擾本社義工之行為深表遺憾！我們希望有關人士以後不要再以滋擾小朋友和義工的方式來表達他們的意見，任何人士若不同意本社之立場，請直接與本社聯絡，絕對不應騷擾本社之義工。

[if_chf24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_For_Truth_And_Light

I consider the Wikipedia English entry strongly biased against The Society for Truth and Light. The Chinese entry:

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%98%8E%E5%85%89%E7%A4%BE

is more balanced, at least written in a tone of a relatively neutral reporter.

I suggest that someone from SHC who has joined wikipedia could edit the English entry page and make a balanced report.

May I reassure you my position: I am not a fan of the Society for Truth and Light.

However, name-calling a particular group as a hate group, at least in the West, is a very strong negative label. Without a balanced account of what STL stands for, what it does and what its supporters think of it (though I am not one of them), this Wikipedia English entry is a highly biased account.

A possible way to do so, is to add a new paragraph explaining STL from an alternative point of view (not necessary supportive, but not decrying it).

If nobody from SHC can do it, I shall probably alert my friends in STL to edit it themselves. But I shall imagine that this Wikipedia English entry will soon a new battleground for these conservatives and liberals. So sad.

My point is: if someone writes in a Wikipedia entry of a radical liberal group as a hate group, because they 'hate' conservative, so to speak, would this be fair? How do you establish that they really 'hate' so and so?

Instead of 'hate group', they can write of STL as 'a radical conservative group'. This, I would approve.

[clement]

其實正如你說，只是在兩邊陣形中的部份較極端的人才是illberal，不願聆聽異見者的聲音，也主要是由於這些人曝光度最高，好像代表了其所屬陣［營］而已，無論是所謂看似二元的保守或開放立場中，其實有相當不少是真誠地願意與不同意見或立場的人對話的人，有時只是為了形勢上被迫要要璧壘分明（如中大學生報事件）而已。如學會這類對話平台，需要建立更多一些，才可突破那些好像代表了各自陣形的illberal伫不斷在主導著引發對抗的局面。

先不講處於極端的人往往壟斷「自由」、「開明」、「進步」這些字眼（將radical跟liberal, progressive混淆起來，簡單地非黑即白化）........ 就講這個現象本身，小弟有時也感到無可奈何。

面對著這些人這些事，人們又可以怎樣？跟自以為理智但實際上不理智的人說理，往往對牛彈琴。不出聲又「曝光度最高」、「好像代表了其所屬陣營」；出聲指正又浪費時間，因為有些過份低級的錯誤是好難去簡單證明的，有些簡單化的錯誤斷言也很費時去否定。－－例如講到解經，極端保守及其反面的人，都往往堅持一些字面化表面化解讀，然後堅持這是合理（前者所主張）、不合理的（後者所主張）；但兩邊都往往不熟悉詮釋學、敘事學等等東西，看事情總是非黑即白，我對你錯，更看不到理解上原來可以有多種詮釋，看不到多種詮釋之間也有優劣之別。自己提出主張的時候就很絕對化（「眾所周知」、「不用證明」、「我吃鹽多過你吃米」），被批評的時候就用相對主義（例如「你不是上帝，你怎麼知道」、「一切都是假設」）來回應。如果要跟任何一邊講清楚一些ＡＢＣ的基本東西，對方往往又聽不進耳，下次由「回帶」重新提出相同問題，則次次都要重新覆述一次。

例如有人天真地堅持認為佛教徒一定不能結婚，一定不能吃肉，以為這些是佛教的core teachings，因此作出批評（自己首先膚淺地不合理地表面地理解，然後批評這種理解為膚淺的、不合理的）；你告訴他，佛教的根本要理根本不是這樣，而且佛教有不同的流派。但要講清楚這些，又要假定對方起碼有理解的誠意，有理解的能力（在此不能假定所有知識所有學問乃至任何事情都必定能夠不動太多腦筋就能明解），有棄絕一己膚淺想法的決心（也就是說，需要真正開明、真正自我批判的態度），否則又是對牛彈琴。

此外，對方如果對己以寬，對人以嚴，你每說一句，對方都有樣學樣地反問：「你憑甚麼這樣說呢？」，這就麻煩了。他可以隨便開口說些甚麼都沒有代價，說得出就說，但要指出其荒謬則要非常吃力，非常需要耐性，非常費時。

幸好的話，網上世界有些現成的資訊，可以請對方閱讀，對方就算不想讀、不會讀，也可能會客氣地說聲謝謝。但有些比較極端的例子，對方根本不想看書看文（據聞時下的人連解決性需要的時間也沒有），不想思考思想性、概念性的事情（但有喜歡說著 big terms 或者「大道理」），不想從事比較抽象的思考（喜歡批評眼見現象，不喜歡探究背後義理），則會很不領情、不耐煩，甚至反過來批評這種為「理性霸權」。到了這裏，說理的討論，已經變成意識形態角力的戰場了。



雖然說，人們上網，未必是帶著認真求學問的心態，因為要學的話，大可可以下線用心看書；網上的資訊雖然免費方便，但質量往往成疑。人們上網，有時希望發洩對現實的不滿或無奈，有時希望換個身份換個性格以解決現實生活的枯燥，有時做做貼文機器希望宣揚某個立場，有時為了享受為反而反的樂趣，他們也許，只期望一個簡單的肯定 :em2: ，一個簡單的認同，就足夠了，並非為反智而反智。只不過，對於反智言行在在表示認可，則又間接地鼓勵了反智，實在過不到良心。
　
沉默不言，則這些志在「揩油」（廣東人叫做「抽水」，意指以不合理的手段謀取利益或佔人便宜）的人便會繼續肆無忌彈甚至變本加厲；況且三人成虎，講得多便好像很有道理。
　

　

[銀狐]

先不講處於極端的人往往壟斷「自由」、「開明」、「進步」這些字眼（將radical跟liberal, progressive混淆起來，簡單地非黑即白化）........ 就講這個現象本身，小弟有時也感到無可奈何。

面對著這些人這些事，人們又可以怎樣？跟自以為理智但實際上不理智的人說理，往往對牛彈琴。不出聲又「曝光度最高」、「好像代表了其所屬陣營」；出聲指正又浪費時間，因為有些過份低級的錯誤是好難去簡單證明的，有些簡單化的錯誤斷言也很費時去否定。－－例如講到解經，極端保守及其反面的人，都往往堅持一些字面化表面化解讀，然後堅持這是合理（前者所主張）、不合理的（後者所主張）；但兩邊都往往不熟悉詮釋學、敘事學等等東西，看事情總是非黑即白，我對你錯，更看不到理解上原來可以有多種詮釋，看不到多種詮釋之間也有優劣之別。自己提出主張的時候就很絕對化（「眾所周知」、「不用證明」、「我吃鹽多過你吃米」），被批評的時候就用相對主義（例如「你不是上帝，你怎麼知道」、「一切都是假設」）來回應。如果要跟任何一邊講清楚一些ＡＢＣ的基本東西，對方往往又聽不進耳，下次由「回帶」重新提出相同問題，則次次都要重新覆述一次。

例如有人天真地堅持認為佛教徒一定不能結婚，一定不能吃肉，以為這些是佛教的core teachings，因此作出批評（自己首先膚淺地不合理地表面地理解，然後批評這種理解為膚淺的、不合理的）；你告訴他，佛教的根本要理根本不是這樣，而且佛教有不同的流派。但要講清楚這些，又要假定對方起碼有理解的誠意，有理解的能力（在此不能假定所有知識所有學問乃至任何事情都必定能夠不動太多腦筋就能明解），有棄絕一己膚淺想法的決心（也就是說，需要真正開明、真正自我批判的態度），否則又是對牛彈琴。

此外，對方如果對己以寬，對人以嚴，你每說一句，對方都有樣學樣地反問：「你憑甚麼這樣說呢？」，這就麻煩了。他可以隨便開口說些甚麼都沒有代價，說得出就說，但要指出其荒謬則要非常吃力，非常需要耐性，非常費時。

幸好的話，網上世界有些現成的資訊，可以請對方閱讀，對方就算不想讀、不會讀，也可能會客氣地說聲謝謝。但有些比較極端的例子，對方根本不想看書看文（據聞時下的人連解決性需要的時間也沒有），不想思考思想性、概念性的事情（但有喜歡說著 big terms 或者「大道理」），不想從事比較抽象的思考（喜歡批評眼見現象，不喜歡探究背後義理），則會很不領情、不耐煩，甚至反過來批評這種為「理性霸權」。到了這裏，說理的討論，已經變成意識形態角力的戰場了。



雖然說，人們上網，未必是帶著認真求學問的心態，因為要學的話，大可可以下線用心看書；網上的資訊雖然免費方便，但質量往往成疑。人們上網，有時希望發洩對現實的不滿或無奈，有時希望換個身份換個性格以解決現實生活的枯燥，有時做做貼文機器希望宣揚某個立場，有時為了享受為反而反的樂趣，他們也許，只期望一個簡單的肯定 :em2: ，一個簡單的認同，就足夠了，並非為反智而反智。只不過，對於反智言行在在表示認可，則又間接地鼓勵了反智，實在過不到良心。
　
沉默不言，則這些志在「揩油」（廣東人叫做「抽水」，意指以不合理的手段謀取利益或佔人便宜）的人便會繼續肆無忌彈甚至變本加厲；況且三人成虎，講得多便好像很有道理。
　

　

十分語重心祥:o

[Daniel_Cheung]

剛收到友人轉來的電郵：

明光社對滋擾本社賣旗義工之行為深表遺憾！

　　７月２５日是明光社於新界區賣旗的日子，之前有不敢表露真正身份的人士在網上發動聯署，呼籲市民杯葛明光社的賣旗活動，內容不乏粗言穢語；此外，更有人以一個與本社幾乎一樣的網址，未得本社同意，抄襲本社之網頁設計，製作了一個與本社非常類似，容易令人誤解本社之偽冒網站，意圖魚目混珠，在網頁內散播一些攻擊本社之謠言，本社對此深表遺憾，並保留一切有關侵犯版權及誹謗之追究權利。

　　在賣旗前夕，有８名人士前往本社辦公室抗議，本社同工以禮相待，並由助理總幹事親自接收他們的一元捐款。在賣旗當日，有幾名人士在沙田火車站附近拉橫額抗議，並呼籲市民不要買明光社的旗，香港是自由社會，本社的立場是尊重不同的意見，任何人決定是否捐助本社完全是其個人自由，只要不涉及捏造及誹謗，他們亦有自由呼籲其他人不要捐助本社，大家既然對一些社會問題有不同看法，應留待公眾參考正反意見之後自行決定支持那一方。

　　令人遺憾的是有關人士竟然滋擾一些協助本社賣旗的義工，當中包括一些長者、婦女及兒童，除了跟著這些義工，每當有人買旗時便上前騷擾外，更不斷在義工身邊呼喊一些涉及「性」的口號，本社其後收到一些義工的投訴，說有關行為令他們感到不安，甚至受驚！（參附件：一些受滋擾的賣旗義工之心聲）

　　所有協助本社賣旗之義工，沒有義務回答任何與本社有關之質詢。本社對有關人士滋擾本社義工之行為深表遺憾！我們希望有關人士以後不要再以滋擾小朋友和義工的方式來表達他們的意見，任何人士若不同意本社之立場，請直接與本社聯絡，絕對不應騷擾本社之義工。

我有點擔心，明光社的「網上澄清欄」越來越政治化，有意無意已成為另一個 self-victimize 的地方，只會令讀者憤慨，誤把所有反對明光社的人士當為如此無知和野蠻。

有關聲明可在明光社網頁看到，但不知為何有兩個連結總是開不到，可能太多人去看吧。

http://www.truth-light.org.hk/index.jsp

對有些人滋擾本社賣旗義工之遺憾聲明 (http://www.truth-light.org.hk/email_v1/print/flag_statement.doc)
一些受滋擾的賣旗義工之心聲 (http://www.truth-light.org.hk/email_v1/print/volunteer_comment.doc)

由於下載十分慢，我不如把上述第二篇文章（「心聲」）內容貼出來：

致明光社仝體同工：

我們只是一群微小的蟻民！沒有高深的學識，也不懂什麼高深的政治，我們只有一顆單純的善心，就是支持一些建設香港，為社會貢獻，塑造我們下一代靈魂的機構。我們沒有財勢，所以我樂意走在街頭，去盡點綿力支持那些默默耕耘，服務社會的機構。

我們支持明光社賣旗！

很遺憾！我們一行人，年長的、年青的賣旗的時候，遇上另一群人，手持一幅七彩顏色的橫額，寫著「你有你賣旗的權利，我有我反對的責任」、「賣旗前，停一停，諗一諗」，還大聲呼喊著「打飛機，又反對！」、「睇咸書，又反對！」，還有，許許多多，數知不盡的反對。總之，他們眼中的明光社就什麼也反對的惡魔。

我們只是一群微小的蟻民！我們不是什麼大人物。可是無論我們去到那裏，他們都跟著我們，如影隨形。更可怕就他們拿着攝影機，追著我們不放。他們沒有取得我們的同意便拍照。我們害怕得左閃右避，但他們還是置諸不理。

我們雖然年輕，但我們不是沒有思想，我們有權選擇支持的聲音。整個過程裏，他們不斷提醒我們，「年青人要有批判思想??」、「不要借保護兒童為藉口??」、「賣旗前諗一諗??」，難道我們年輕，便等如盲從嗎？

明光社在別人不敢站起來的時候，他便高呼堅持傳媒操守；別人不敢站出來的時候，他就捍衛體育與睹搏分家；別人不敢開口，他們就捍衛「一夫一妻的家庭，一男一女的愛情。」難道我們站出來，支持明光社，就等如老土，就等如沒有他們所講的「獨立思考」嗎？難道獨立思考就等如反對明光社？難道反對明光社就等如新一代有獨立思考的年青人嗎？

我們支持明光社，因為他們敢於在這個價值混亂的世代裏，高呼那些「他們」認為老土的真理。我們需要一個互相尊重的社會，我們更需要在爸爸媽媽的愛護下成長。沉默不是冇立場。
請尊重我們賣旗的自由！

一部出色的法國文學作品裏，寫著「All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal.」如果我們就他們眼中的「all animals」，究竟是all animals打壓some animals，還是some animals 比all animals　更有權勢呢？

一群蟻民上

［接著是一頁簽名］

[wonggk]

一部出色的法國文學作品裏，寫著「All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal.」如果我們就他們眼中的「all animals」，究竟是all animals打壓some animals，還是some animals 比all animals　更有權勢呢？

一群蟻民上

［接著是一頁簽名］

This is from Animal Farm (George Orwell). He is English!

[Daniel_Cheung]

這篇「心聲」文章有點問題。動輒說自己是蟻民，但卻寫得十分流利，並且引用外國文學（雖然引錯國家）。既說一行人有老有嫩，卻又說「我們雖然年輕」，有獨立思考。表面像是可憐的人在訴苦，實質上是另類控訴，並且控訴背後的心態卻有點幼稚。例如，即使對方說「你有你賣旗的權利，我有我反對的責任」，這不等於把明光社當成惡魔。若為獨立思考，豈不也當想一想，別人為甚麼如此不滿？為何二話不說就把別人說成大壞蛋？

[if_chf24]

這篇「心聲」文章有點問題。動輒說自己是蟻民，但卻寫得十分流利，並且引用外國文學（雖然引錯國家）。既說一行人有老有嫩，卻又說「我們雖然年輕」，有獨立思考。表面像是可憐的人在訴苦，實質上是另類控訴，並且控訴背後的心態卻有點幼稚。例如，即使對方說「你有你賣旗的權利，我有我反對的責任」，這不等於把明光社當成惡魔。若為獨立思考，豈不也當想一想，別人為甚麼如此不滿？為何二話不說就把別人說成大壞蛋？

Self-victimisation has become a common mentality among pressure groups, be they conservative or liberal, religious or anti-religious....

In recent years, Muslims in Britain have suffered similar symptoms. 'Islamophobia' is the term Muslims use describing anti-Islam opinions and their proponents. To a certain extent, they are right, some people in our society indeed are AFRAID of Islam. But as Daniel said, they should ask themselves why some people are afraid of them?

Of course, the terminology of 'phobia' has been employed by many, from homosexuals to Muslims. Perhaps one day we can create the term 'Christophobia' to describe certain anti-Christian opinions that are prevalent in certain corners of our society?

Self-victimisation is rooted in the discourse of power struggle. Has the neo-Left wing theories given some sort of foundation to these mentality as people may perceive that as they are 'victims', they are the 'underdogs', they have the right to react against the 'powers' which suppress them.

Pressure groups recognise certain things, issues or people as a 'perceived threat' and then consider themselves the 'victims' of such, which then provide them the justification for a 'pursuit for justice' to defeat that 'perceived threat' or at least to defend themselves.

Under suck kind of discourses, everything turns into a power struggle, although it is vested in a struggle for 'justice'. Rational exchanges of thoughts have become difficult.

Maybe I am a bit confused.... but I hope that we Christians would not follow the path of Muslims who have been 'self-victimised' for so long that they have become so radical in recent years.

[nkcwong]

Self-victimisation has become a common mentality among pressure groups, be they conservative or liberal, religious or anti-religious....

Self-victimisation is rooted in the discourse of power struggle. Has the neo-Left wing theories given some sort of foundation to these mentality as people may perceive that as they are 'victims', they are the 'underdogs', they have the right to react against the 'powers' which suppress them.

Pressure groups recognise certain things, issues or people as a 'perceived threat' and then consider themselves the 'victims' of such, which then provide them the justification for a 'pursuit for justice' to defeat that 'perceived threat' or at least to defend themselves.



Victimization and self-victimization are difficult and complicated issues. Am I a victim of discrimination in the US? Yes, to a certain degree, but the victimization I suffer is not as bad as it would otherwise be were I to live in the 1960s? The United States, for one, has made tremendous progress in terms of addressing racial and ethnic injustice over the past forty years, but there is still a way to go. On the other hand, it's certainly true that minorities frequently have this self-persecution complex, externalizing their own problems, blaming others instead of taking a hard look at how they themselves might have contributed to the problem. Even if the chains are already broken, even if most of the social barriers have been removed, minorities may continue to think that they are still in chains. To be able to distinguish genuine victimization from self-inflicted victimization often requires immersive experience with the society that we live in.

I can't say much about other societies. For all its problems and foibles, the beauty of the United States is this "can-do attitude": much depends on the individual's initiative to change the status quo.

[nkcwong]

講開又講。前幾天教書有一個女學生（是白人）在課堂上接紙仔，我便當面說："I am not here to deal with discipline problems. I am here to teach. If you have discipline problems, keep them at home."

這個學生已經不只一次給麻煩，上次她跟另外一個男學生（也是白人）傳紙仔, 打眼色，我便眼瞪著他們，說："One more time. I'm going to ask the two of you to leave this room."

前幾天發生的一次，我沒有趕她出課堂，因為是學期最後一課，趕她出課堂沒有什麼實際作用。

如果是若干年前發生這類事情，我會以一個維護自己作為minority teacher的尊嚴的態度去confront白人學生，看自己為victim，去抗衡那些白人，現在就不會什麼都老想著是racial politics了。