關於 us constitution marriage ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

I wrote this piece to protest. Recently some English and German media has reduced East Asia's success in curbing Covid-19 to Confucianism, saying that East Asians love to be controlled by their governments. This is an obnoxious myth that infantilizes Asians, while also conveniently exonerates Euro-American governments from all responsibilities for their failure.

Listen, world. Taiwanese civil society and the public endlessly debate the cost and benefit of EACH AND EVERY STEP that the government has taken so far. Literally every single day, sometimes even every single hour. We take Covid-19 seriously from day one. We work so hard to supervise the government to make sure it does not erode people’s rights in the name of epidemic control. We scrutinize every new measure vis-à-vis our Constitution and related laws to check if things are unfairly treating any group, be it medical professionals, immigrants, foreign students, and Chinese citizens. We have argued so much with one another about the policies to the best of all the scientific knowledge in the world. And yet, some ignorant Western intellectuals can just say that our success so far is just because of Confucianism?

Stop this crazy Orientalist nonsense. Each country in East Asia has completely different strategies in this battle. I don't even need to point out the great cultural differences and political heterogeneity from within.

Ignorance and arrogance often go together. Please know that we love freedom just as much as you do. It's just that we educate ourselves to survive every single day. Because, guess what, even well before the outbreak of this virus, we Taiwanese live in a lasting crisis of life or death, with weapons aiming at us by the Chinese government.

Many Taiwanese do all these things to combat the disease because we cherish freedom and democracy, not because we like to be watched and controlled. Absolutely not. We hate it and are super allergic to it.

Ps. In case you don't know, Taiwan is the first and only country in Asia that has legalized same-sex marriage. There is nothing Confucian about it.

by En-Chieh Chao

【大使館發言人批評意大利國會邀請我作聽證 外交部長反駁斥捍衛言論自由】

感謝意大利國會議員邀請，日前我藉視像通話方式，參與意大利國會外交及人權委員會的聽證會，呼籲意大利支持香港實現民主普選，停止出口衝鋒車予香港警察，亦鼓勵他們參考《香港人權民主法案》醞釀制裁機制。

聽證結束以後，本來當地關注尚算有限，但中國駐意大利使館發言人高調發表聲明批評意大利國會議員「執意與黃之鋒搞視頻通話，為港獨分子撐腰」，就令到香港議題再度進佔輿論版面。

根據「中國外交Bingo紙」，聲明內文中了至少9個關鍵詞，包括斥我「竭力 #顛倒黑白，#美化暴力，詆毁一國兩制……是個徹頭徹尾的港獨 #跳樑小丑」，還有「#極其錯誤、#不負責任」，表示 #強烈不滿、#堅決反對，呼籲有關人士 #尊重主權（？？？），多做有利中意友好與合作事宜，這只反映中國外交系統何等「玻璃心」。

據意大利記者告知，中國駐意大利大使館發言人的取態，導致意大利外交部長及國會議員先後回應，表明捍衛言論自由，反對中國政府阻礙交流；同時，政界與傳媒亦深深體會到中共威權擴張的可怕，相信此舉只會有助香港令國際社會明白，為何與香港同行就是捍衛自由。

作用曾遭中共駐多國使館均曾批評人士，我已對一切批評見怪不怪，也由衷感謝中國外交系統的批評，往往本來聽證會也沒有甚麼關注，但只要大使館發言批評，就令到香港議題再度進佔輿論版面。我會繼續努力，讓世界看見香港，與香港同行。

最後，附上自己的國會發言全文給各位細閱：

Thursday, 28 November 2019
Italy Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Testimony by Joshua Wong

Good afternoon,

May I first express our heartfelt gratitude to the Senate’s generous invitation to give testimony before the honourable Senators and Congressmen, even though I’m not allowed to fly to Italy. The very moment I was rejected by the court to travel, I felt that it was even worse than deciding my sentences in jail as I would not be able to meet with friends in Europe to explain our cause for democracy and freedom.

Implications of Local Election result

As you may aware of Hong Kong’s local election record-high turnout, almost 3 million Hong Kong people, in a community and policy-based election, had cast ballot to express our discontent to the government and huge distrust to the Beijing authorities. Democrats went up to 385 seats, but the largest pro-Beijing party DAB, who owned 119 seats in the last term, had reduced to 21 seats.

The significance of this election to the world is that HK's current political crisis must be resolved by political solution, instead of policing force. The implications of this election are more than the number of seats in the council, but a sharp political message to the world that Hong Kong people stand with fellow protestors, and our resolve to free elections and a thoroughly independent investigation on police brutality. These humble demands are denied by China since 1997.

Civil Liberties Denied

Unfortunately, I have the most frequent encounters of civil liberties deprivation recently. At first, I went protesting against the controversial extradition bill, exercising my freedom to assembly. The government arrested me and charged me of inciting people taking part in an unlawful assembly. Then I went contesting in this local election, yet the government banned me from running for office because of my political stance. I turned to international advocacy, planning to fly to Italy explain to friends in Europe our democratic and peaceful cause. Regrettably, the court thought this Senate hearing is not important and rejected my travel application. Following the court decision, it's clear now I'm deprived of the right to election, freedom of movement, freedom of assembly (not allowed to appear on designated area), and freedom of speech. The civil liberties guaranteed in the constitution are however no longer applicable to me.

The principle of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ is a fragile ruling philosophy defining China-Hong Kong relations, guaranteeing the global financial city its autonomy. But in the past 22 years, Beijing intervened on many fronts already. Since 2014, Hong Kong’s civil society, particularly student leaders, had become the target of revenge in the past 5 years. I was arrested for 3 times, prosecuted and later imprisoned for my leading role in the Umbrella Movement. My colleague, Nathan Law, the youngest Councillor in HK’s history, was unseated and later imprisoned for the same reason. So this time people learnt from the experience and not to rely on particular ‘leading activists’ in order to prevent them from exposing to political prosecution. Besides, In the past three years, altogether Six elected legislators are disqualified for ridiculous reasons and led to an uninvited constitutional re-interpretation by Beijing.

Most recently in last week, Chinese troops, not only ready to be deployed, they have actually deployed soldiers near university area with an excuse to 'clear the barricades' of the streets. It is important to voice out to the global community, which is an attempt to coerce China's aggressive behavior using international pressure.

Trusted and Self-correcting protestors VS Abusive Police Power

In the past five months, I took a lot of interviews from journalists all over the world who are interested in reporting Hong Kong. They often find it difficult to understand why a social movement can be led without a leader, why protestors’ use of force is tolerated by fellow Hong Kong people and whether there is foreign forces behind this movement. Behind all these questions, I would like to appeal to you two messages:
firstly, the police brutality is far more serious than what is reported. Pregnant women also got beaten by police; young female (who is not a protestor) was gang raped inside the police station and many others

Secondly, there is strong and mutual trust among protestors. Certainly, protestors always have different tactical viewpoints. But there are apparently some principles guiding protestors’ decision-making, to name a few: to achieve the five demands, to prevent casualty, to avoid being arrested and to achieve mass support. These principles are essential, although we have suffered a lot of notorious police brutality in the past five months, making us more determined to fight for the five demands in solidarity.

As I mentioned the above, I realise these features are the important elements when practising democracy - mutual trust, transparency, people’s mandate, checks-and-balance. It is just ironic that Hong Kong is far from practising full democracy and free election under the authoritarian rule of Xi Jinping.

Another Frontier: International Advocacy

International advocacy is another frontier that Hong Kong people are keen on taking part in. It is the reason why I find compelled to travel and explain our cause and demands to the world. Before testifying in this committee, I attended an assembly an hour ago to yield for international support and to express our acknowledgement to advocacy efforts on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. The bill is signed by the US President today to coerce and prevent further human rights violation in Hong Kong. I also wrote to several Italian papers to share the viewpoints of the protestors during this period. To enhance the understanding of Hong Kong and deteriorating human right situation in China is essential for world leaders to make an informed choice in their collaboration with the Chinese authorities too.

Why Italy should care about Hong Kong?

However, I have to say I'm quite disappointed reading the Italy Foreign Minister’s Luigi Di Maio indifferent remarks on the dire human rights situation in Hong Kong. Prolonged police brutality since June this year, what protestors facing are live round bullets. Not to mention the fact that some Italian car factories like IVECO did play a part in the brutality of Hong Kong police by supplying police vehicles. I believe a responsible state like Italy should take the conscience of human dignity into consideration.

In fact, Hong Kong can serve as a story to learn from. We were unaware of the Chinese regime's intention to gain influence and control over our economy in the early years. And our economy now is to some extent too reliant on China, which makes our battle for freedom and democracy harder. Italy should stay alert to the reliance on Chinese economic interests. There's no free lunch in the world.

Many would say I am over worrying or being too skeptical about China. But the truth is China is known for not playing by the rules and has a notorious track record for its human rights violations. The failure of 'One Country Two Systems' in Hong Kong represents the notorious track record of China not honouring the international treaty signed in 1984. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Uighurs have been detained in camps without trial now. Victims have come forth and said they are forced to take medicines that lead to infertility, young female Uighurs are forced into marriage with Chinese officials to exchange for the safety of their families. 30 years ago, the Chinese Government sent tanks against its own people on the 4th June despite the public and global attention. It almost happened last week in two universities lockdown and it is my view that the international pressure had prevented this massacre from happening.

Possible Actions by Italy

Finally, I understand that Business leaders and politicians worry that if they directly confront China on its human rights abuses, it could jeopardize future deals. Yet it is my humble wish Italy will also be truth-ful to the promises the European Union has made. EU have pledged themselves to defend and advocate for human rights in neighboring countries and the world and promised to never directly or indirectly encourage human rights violations. Italy and the rest of the free world should refrain from turning a blind eye to this.

Our position is clear: HK people are defending not only the civil liberties, democratic values and economic freedom of this international city. Standing up against the largest authoritarian regime after the Cold War, we shall continue our fight for democracy lest HK becomes a police state nor an authoritarian state. I appeal to you to stand with the people of Hong Kong.

Thank you.

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.