這件事發生後，我一直有追看有關消息，包括各方的反應，聽到某位政界兼基督教要人的言論後，我禁不住破口大罵：「去死吧！」此人乃曾任牧師、做過阿肯色州州長、參與 2008 年美國總統競選共和黨提名、現在當電視節目主持人的 Mike Huckabee。
“We ask why there is
violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our
schools. Should we be so surprised that schools have become a place of
carnage?”
（意譯：「我們一方面追問為何學校會有這麼多暴力事件，另一方面卻把學校和神分隔開。其實，學校成為了屠殺的場所，我們應該感到那麼出奇嗎？」）
言下之意，槍擊事件是自作孽，罪魁禍首是那些主張「把學校和神分隔開」的人。這分明是抽水，無良的抽水；想到那些無辜慘死的小孩子，Huckabee 這番說話實在令人氣憤！
也許 Huckabee
真的認為如果學校沒有「和神分隔開」，類似的槍擊事件便不會發生或大大減少？假如他真的有這個看法，他一是天真，相信只要學校裏多些信神的人，便不會有那麼多或那麼嚴重的暴力事件；一是要否定神愛世人 --- 你不信神，神便不會眷顧保護你，由得「你死你賤」了（包括慘死槍下）。還有，死者中大概有些是信神的，依 Huckabee 的論調，這又該當如何解釋？
不過，我還是相信 Huckabee 這個政客和電視節目主持人是在抽水。去死吧，Huckabee！
Huckabee seems to forget that just in this past April a gunman killed seven people in an Oakland Christian medical school.
回覆刪除Gab, right on man! That guy is a jackass.
刪除The thing is, he made that comment on FOX, the den of crack conservatism.
-49er
我想 Huckabee 说的可能是学校缺了神所以会有心灵残缺的枪手？ 不过哪怕这样解释 Huckabee 也是错的。有 empirical study 显示越信神的社会越暴力。
回覆刪除Huckabee, go _uck a bee, go _uck yourself! The sad thing is that he is not the only one who has that kind of thinking. I'm afraid that there are plenty of such people.
回覆刪除把學校(public)和神分隔開 doesn't mean that the parents and/or the kids don't believe in God. Most people in the US do. It's over 80% according to some poll. If there is something to complain about, it should be by those who don't believe in God.
What about the Pledge of Allegiance in public (grade) schools? It has the word God in it.
When I have or spend greenbacks on which In God We Trust is printed, I feel my freedom of religion is violated. --zpdrmn
//把學校(public)和神分隔開 doesn't mean that the parents and/or the kids don't believe in God. //
刪除- Good point.
王教授:
回覆刪除呢D吓吓以「有神」、「冇神」嚟扮虔誠、唬住D冇自信心既信衆嘅「懶屬靈」領袖,任何宗教都有(黄子華:揾食啫,犯法呀?);當年耶穌都鬧佢哋係粉飾嘅墳墓、係瞎眼領路的。跟著佢肯定大鑊。
BTW,鎗械管制喺美國係禁忌,二手槍械買賣听聞係冇得管添;怎麼辦怎麼辦?
如果法律、道德、文化、信仰及個人的良知都不能阻止一個人做出瘋狂的殺人犯行，除了顯示當今社會人際關係的疏離(心理情緒無處發洩);更可怕的是作為無法約束個人行為的失序社會結構中潛伏的自我毀滅因子，如找不出拆除炸彈引信的可靠方法(無對未來人生終極的盼望~信仰，可能是其中的一條導火線)，將隨處隨時都會再發生如此悲劇…哲學家可有良策？
回覆刪除為何美國特別多槍擊屠殺事件？
刪除最憎D 淨係識抽水的耶教徒
回覆刪除神心？只覺全無愛人的心。鳴的鑼，響的鈸一樣。最怕是這些人有權力慣，受人敬仰慣，慢慢蛻變了，失了起初單純的宗教心。
回覆刪除Garlic
那番話，在信仰而言也站不住腳的。約伯神心都家破人亡，使徒怎忠誠都被迫死，大量例子。牧長？太丟架！
回覆刪除Garlic
利用兇殘的冷血屠殺來做宣傳本身已是有違道德。
回覆刪除另外，宗教很多時不但沒有減少騷亂與屠殺，反而會增加衝突和殺戮。恐怖分子和美國的War on Terror就是與宗教衝突有牽連的殺戮。
對，信教的人不見得比不信的善良。
刪除Emil Cioran(1911-1995)羅馬尼亞旅法哲人，對存在之虛無、人世間的磨難與苦痛有極為敏銳深刻的觀察體認。他曾如此說:哲學(獨立思考)的職責就在於保護我們，但卻只在命運的坎坷還沒讓我們走投無路時能還負點責(人性尚未崩毀)，而一旦人被迫陷入茫然，它又立刻把我們拋棄了。試舉出一位活在痛苦中而能不隨世界思想潮流蓄意趨炎附勢的特立獨思者，他的名著有:《解體概要》(中文本譯者:宋剛)。針對狂熱之徒他如此說:他可以殺人，那他同樣也可以為了…觀念(指世人異樣或排斥的言行刺傷)而被殺。被殺的學童是無辜的！？Cioran如此說:每個人身上都沈睡著一個惡天使，他醒來時，世界上就又多了一分邪惡。難怪教化的力量如此微弱，一嘆！
回覆刪除人蠢起上嚟信咩教都弊!!
回覆刪除邪教藉世界末日吸信眾
http://hkm.appledaily.com/detail.php?guid=18104484&category_guid=4104
如果唔殺人放火或影響大眾，弊都係佢地自己蝕底。
刪除王教授:
回覆刪除禁不住破口大罵：「去死吧！」
You have the right to not believe in God. But it's a fact that Christian values (e.g. Ten Commandments) help build a moral standard. Huckabee's point is simply that when God is not welcome in schools, Christian values evaporate. And it's his opinion that it directly leads to a decline in moral standard. Why is such a view so wrong?
回覆刪除//But it's a fact that Christian values (e.g. Ten Commandments) help build a moral standard. //
刪除- I have to say this is an unbelievably simplistic view.
道德教育可以全然不需宗教.
刪除quoting the comment I left somewhere else. --zpdrmn
宗教的最大壞處是使人盲從，使人失去分析和判斷的能力，一切聽從「神」的指示。
刪除而這個所謂「神」，其實是人造出來的，聽從「神」的指示其實就是要盲目服從另一些人。
要人去盲目和無條件服從另外一些人到底有什麼好處？
//// But it's a fact that Christian values (e.g. Ten Commandments) help build a moral standard. //
回覆刪除//W. Wong: I have to say this is an unbelievably simplistic view.
I have to say this is an unbelievably simplistic reply that's missing the point.
// 道德教育可以全然不需宗教. //
The Ten Commandments tells us 'thou shalt not kill', and throughout history it has helped human beings in many cultures to stick to it (or evolve to respect this rule), that killing another person is not right. You know something is not right and where did it come from? Have you ever examine whether it's not related to Christianity that helped shape our societies to be more loving and civilized? Or did you steal the values from the source and then claim you never needed the source?
What I get from Huckabee's opinion is that the killing monster didn't come out of nowhere. The more we get rid of God and His teaching from our society and education, the more we'll see people who deviate from the values we once treasure, for example 'thou shalt not kill'.
Stupid Christian. People in non-Christian societies do not kill one another simply because they don't have the Ten Commandments.
刪除匿名12/19/2012 2:08 下午,
刪除Did you say that ancient Chinese people (or other people) had worse or didn't have moral values before they knew about Christianity??
Thou shalt not kill! What kind of morality is that? That only means thou shalt not kill people. Buddhism says thou shalt not kill animals. So, it is better than Christianity??
People cannot kill people. But God can. What kind of morality is that?
Having this religion stuffs embedded in morality can lead to problems.
(Another problem is when some people claim that they had revelation from God and do things contrary to some moral values, Christian ones. These people may well be Christian leaders.)
Even though religions (not just Christianity, let's have a boarder view) shaped morality in some regions in the past, still we can do 全然不需宗教的道德教育 today. You want to just stick with the past, go ahead.
BTW, even if there was no Christianity in the past, people back them could still find a way to do 全然不需宗教的道德教育. They might have done even better. How could you know Christianity made things better but not worse? You can answer that? Mind you, you aren't God. And please don't give me the "the Bible says that" answer. It may be convincing to you, but not to me.
--zpdrmn
Thank you, I appreciate you take the time to reply and didn't just call me stupid.
回覆刪除I respect you choose a different worldview, but let me explain what I see. Let's not talk about Christianity for now, since it means nothing to you.
If you think "you should not kill people" is obvious, and that it would remain true in our moral values even without a God to teach us, maybe we should look at the reality, not only the past, but the current trend.
The Chinese has long history of having capital punishment, sometimes the method is even very cruel. China has long been one of the countries without proper human rights. "Everyone has a right to live and be protected" is not so a-matter-of-fact.
People get killed at wars, not just soldiers, but even innocent civilians.
Nowadays many countries also allow killing unborn babies, and some countries allow euthanasing (killing) the sick and disabled.
I don't think we always stay true to the virtue "you should not kill people", people are just deciding "under what condition" one can kill.
Now, under what condition? How does humanity decide?
First we can kill the criminals, and then the unwanted unborns, then the terminal ill.
Since a few years ago, Netherlands decide to allow killing handicapped babies, even after they are born and alive.
Now, where does the moral value "you should not kill people" come from?
When I look at the way humanity is going, I think we're pretty lost.
Look at the latest headline:
瑞士 倡亂倫合法化
http://www.metrohk.com.hk/index.php?cmd=detail&id=150422
Where is 全然不需宗教的道德教育 going?
I think "if there is no God, everything is permitted" has a point, because base on what merit we listen to one another regarding whether something should not be permitted?
// Buddhism says thou shalt not kill animals
I don't agree, because I don't think human beings should be seen on the same level as animals. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't behave the same when I saw a car roll on a squirrel vs. a pedestrian.
(cont'd) You "don't think human beings should be seen on the same level as animals." That's fine, but that's your moral value. Some people don't see it that way. Who's there to say that yours is better? You? God? The Bible?
刪除BTW, I'm not a Buddhist or a vegetarian, but it doesn't stop me from using them for comparisons. It seems to me Buddhists are more compassionate than Christians in this respect.
The current trend. Who's there to say it's bad or worse than whatever?
In some sense, the current trend is better than what it was in the ancient Christian countries. Who's there to say that it isn't true? You? The Bible? God?
Who's there to say that homosexuality is bad. You Christians?
Who's there to say Christian morality is the only way or the best way to go? You? Some Christian? Any one? A special one? A leader? God? The Bible? --zpdrmn
Something is out of order. The one below should go first. Check the time stamps. -zpdrmn
刪除Clarification:
刪除//Who's there to say that homosexuality is bad. You Christians?
// I am questioning why Christians, in general, hate or intolerant of homosexuality. If we leave morality to such haters or intolerant people, is it a good thing, even though they hold on to their moral high ground? High ground isn't really high after all.
--zpdrmn
I don't think "you should not kill people" is obvious. (Whatever obvious mean.) I don't even think much about "thou shalt not kill." It's you who said/quoted it and I used it. If your position is "thou shalt not kill" no matter what, that's your thing, then you have to build your morality around it. You can stand on this moral high ground if you want. Other people don't have to. Who's there to say that "thou shalt not kill" is the yardstick to measure moral standards?
回覆刪除I wasn't talking about what it is like in China today. So, don't use it to argue against whatever I said. Whatever it is now in China, you can't just say that it is because it bans Christianity. That's too simplistic.
Capital punishment occurred in Christian countries in the past too. I think it happened quite frequently. So much for "thou shalt not kill." Some punishments in those countries were very cruel too.
Also, even though capital punishment happened in ancient China (and other countries), do you assume that Chinese people back then killed each other cold blood in the street like killing pigs for food? And do you think that when they did it, they didn't follow some laws or some moral standard, even though it wasn't "thou shalt not kill" no matter what, and/or even though you don't like those laws or standards. For sure you can find some laws or standards that were really bad, to today's standard. But did they just, in general, killed people cold blood?
全然不需宗教的道德教育 isn't necessarily followed by 亂倫合法化 or whatever you regard as immoral. Please don't use slippery slope.
Whatever killings in whatever country you are talking about, you can't just simplistically say it's because the country doesn't follow Christian ways. And you can't just simplistically say that they have a low standard in morality.
Whatever moral values a people regards as good don't have to be Christian moral values. Whatever you think as high moral standard, they may think otherwise.
Euthanasia may not be a bad thing. Abortion may not be a bad thing. Killing certain criminals like serial killers may not be a bad thing. Outlawing such practices may not be a good thing in all cases. (What may not be good: Don't allow abortion in rape cases or health threatening cases. Don't allow very old people who suffer and in great pain due to sickness to die in a humane way. Keep people who is brain dead alive with machines.) All these aren't that black and white, they all depend. Why do we have to follow Christian morality? It is a narrow view of ethics.
"Under what condition one can kill? And how do we decide?" Or should we kill at all? Not necessarily by Christian values. Why would going by Christian rules is better? For all peoples?
Many wars were fought under the name of God. Who decided to go to those wars? Under what conditions one could kill in those wars? And how did people back then decide? God's revelation? From the Bible?
It doesn't matter how "high" a people set its moral standard, "immoral" things still happen. So, should I use a tactic similar to slippery slope and say that 'high' moral standard or Christian moral standard leads to plenty of "immoral" deeds?
Well, a people who thinks that they are right, they have high moral values, they are the authority in morality, and/or they have God backing them, could do even more harm than a people who doesn't think it that way. Should I use the slippery slope tactic again?
Countries that have outlawed capital punishment do not necessarily do it because of the Commandment "thou shalt not kill." You'd better check their reasoning. Some of those countries may not be Christian countries.
The US, with mostly Christians or people believing in God as citizens, still has capital punishment in some states. (To be cont'd)