Malignant unrestrained power | Lee Yee

The Hong Kong police issued a statement the night before yesterday quoting the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department’s response to the arrest of the 12 Hongkongers. The short communication was full of loopholes. If these 12 people are still under investigation, how can the authorities be sure that they will be approved by the procuratorate for arrest later? One of the 12 people was the skipper, is he a member of the smuggling organization? If he is indeed part of a smuggling group, why was he escaping to Taiwan? Why was there no mention of the arrest of the skipper? What happened to the speedboat? Did the 12 people buy the boat hence it was confiscated?

It has been more than a month and they still could not spin a better story. The power has become so domineering to the point where they say what they want without regard for whether it is believable or not anymore.

Chinese state media reported that, at the recent Third Central Symposium on Xinjiang Work held in Beijing, Xi Jinping emphasized the need to “uphold efforts to sinicize religion, sinicize Islam and forge the collective consciousness of a common Chinese identity.” Following Xi’s “sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism,” this is another one of his latest sinicization campaigns with requirements explicitly put forward.

Both Tibetan Buddhism and Xinjiang Islam are religions based on beliefs in God or divine inspirations, while in other parts of China, most religious believers just pray to gods and buddhas for blessings. Very few people truly believe in gods, reincarnation, or life after death. If “One China” means China under the dictatorship of the atheist Communist Party, then the “sinicization of religion” denotes a false and bogus religion. A leader who can come up with the idea of sinicization of religion under atheism is enough to show that there is nothing believable about this regime, including the woven tale for the 12 arrested Hongkongers.

In the era of ancient China’s absolute monarchy, although there was no real religious belief, ancient Chinese emperors at least paid respect to ancestors and held ceremonies to worship heaven. Dictatorship began from as early as the Qin dynasty to the Han Dynasty during which Dong Zhongshu proposed the rule to respect the emperor. However, he also proposed to restrict the emperor and respect heaven; the emperor would be called the son of heaven, meaning the heavenly father was watching over. The occurrence of a catastrophic natural disaster would be the wrath of heaven; the emperor would often issue a rescript for penitence, and reflect and review to improve governance.

The atheistic CCP not only does not believe in gods but also disbelieves in heaven. Mao Zedong claimed to be a “monk holding an umbrella,” meaning that he was above the law and above heaven. He also said, “Battling with heaven is endless joy.” Therefore, under the guidance of the idea of “Humans will triumph over the sky,” the Great Leap Forward brought about a situation of “endless suffering” for the Chinese people.

However, the CCP regime before Mao the second at least would not, on the one hand, claim to believe in Marxism-Leninism, and on the other hand, bludgeon itself with such absurd theories as the “sinicization of religion.” Perhaps Mao 2.0 now possesses absolute power such that no one dares to tell the truth, resulting in comments of all illogical nonsense.

Recently, the Chinese education department was so preposterous that it blatantly falsified the Bible. The story of Jesus and the Adulteress from the New Testament was cited in textbooks but the ending of the story was distorted. In the original passage of the Bible, Jesus said to the adulteress, “I, too, do not condemn you; Go and sin no more!” The Chinese textbook, however, presents the story as: “When the crowd disappeared, Jesus stoned the sinner to death saying, ‘I too am a sinner. But if the law could only be executed by men without blemish, the law would be dead.’” Forcing words to justify the Chinese leaders into the mouth of Jesus.

Of course, anyone who enforces the law in any society will not be a flawless person, but in a normal society, at least the law enforcers know that they are either guilty, or that regardless of religion or even non-religion, they believe that “there is a deity watching over them.” In addition to believing that “a deity is watching,” law enforcers are also restrictive in their power by the separation of powers with mutual checks and balances, as well as the supervision of the Fourth Estate. Nearly 300 years ago, the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu said, “Every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go. Power is naturally expansive and has a tendency to turn malignant. As long as there are insufficient restraint and supervision, any power will give rise to corruption. To prevent this abuse, it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power.”

The power we face and its extension in Hong Kong may be the most extreme power in human history. It has no restraints nor any checks and balances, and without the constraints of “heaven” from the dark ages of ancient China and the Western Middle Ages. Its “expansion and malignancy” can exceed all human imagination. Therefore, normal people can only completely and absolutely distrust this absolute power.

代表台灣挑戰明年奧斯卡獎最佳動畫短片的《基石》線上看。

基督徒慎入。

A satire animation about Fundamentalism. (English statement below)

去年三月完成的作品《基石》終於決定在今天發布
謝謝指導教授鐘世凱老師的建議與包容，和一起創作配樂的夥伴 林孝親 Szu-yu Lin，讓聲音和影像配合的天衣無縫， WinSound Studio 紋聲音樂 絕對是品質一流的代名詞，還有一路上幫助本片產出的所有朋友們，謝謝你們！

《基石》的用意並不是要批判特定的宗教，而是特別針對冥頑不靈的基本教義派的信徒，幾乎在每個宗教都有這一群人的存在，他們用盡用手段強迫別人接受其價值觀，特別是在孩童和青少年的心靈身上有著非常大的負面影響，尤其是越聽話的小孩傷害越大，因為父母們教什麼他們就會做什麼。小的時候，我還真因為長輩的話，就相信神奇寶貝是邪靈、哈利波特是魔鬼的化身、流行音樂聽久了會墮落、看了部A片就害怕自己會下地獄，長輩們的善意，扭曲成強迫接受他們的信仰，常常遇到無法解釋的教義或價值觀，就會用情緒勒索的方式，讓你就算接受了也充滿著罪惡感，多少也影響童年的社交生活，越投入在宗教社群之中，越覺得外面的人事物充滿邪惡。在本片的製作過程中，我常常是帶著憤怒的情緒工作著，氣以前愚蠢的自己，也氣現在還是有許多人自認為是正義的化身，手握「真理」的權杖，到處迫害別人。

自己也曾陰錯陽差造訪一些其他的宗教團體，撇開教義和儀式不談，其實會發現有許多的相似之處，他們大多用「親身體驗」的見證去說服別人入教，卻永遠無法有個完美的說詞去解釋一些違背基本邏輯和科學的事情(如果感覺有效，誰管你的故事有什麼漏洞），再藉由社群的力量，慢慢地滲透你的生活和社交圈，直到無法脫身，待在這個群體久了，漸漸接受了該團體的價值觀，本來覺得疑惑的地方也無所謂了，習慣了他們特殊的儀式，甚至連講話的辭彙都開始變異了，生活上偶爾發生一些好事，就會覺得是信仰的緣故而更加投入，最後就會自傲的覺得自己的信仰比起其他的宗教有多偉大，常常看到不同宗教甚至是教派互相敵視對方為邪靈或異端就覺得好笑，其實你們真的，都差不多。

跑過各大的影展後，許多正面和負面的回饋都有，但我不怕批評，因為本片所有橋段和元素全部都是真實改寫自本人和朋友親身經歷過的事情，也有不少基督徒朋友看過後跟我說他們非常能感同身受，一個宗教團體之中雖有固執不通的人卻也有許多開明包容的人士，我無意辯駁其教義，也尊重每個人對信仰的理解，只想問大家
你是真的完全相信你的信仰嗎？有多少教義的漏洞你是故意漠視不去思考的？還是因為家人、朋友的人情壓力才選擇繼續待在其中？又或者是害怕離教之後，會在現世、來世或死後會有所懲罰？

請誠實面對自己的信仰，如果是真的相信，那麼請尊重其他和你不同信仰的人的權利！不是所有人都應該照著你的教條走，這是一個自由平等的社會，任何的種族、性別、宗教、性傾向的基本人權都必須公平對待。
但如果你發現你已經做個假信徒很久了，那麼勇敢地離開吧！真實的東西是經得起考驗，離開了象牙塔後，試著用不同角度和更寬廣的眼光去觀察這個世界，相信你會找到尋屬於你自己的人生定義。

---
[English] Translated by Shannon Yeung

“On first glance, “Fundamental” might look like a blanket criticism of Christianity, making it incredibly easy to dismiss as offensive or even as atheistic propaganda. Yet if you look beyond the provocation, I
hope you will realize that it only intends to criticize a very specific component of religion: dogmatic scripture.

Religious upbringing plays a significant role in shaping the values of a child, values that can easily be upheld for life. This is especially detrimental for obedient children who have yet developed the rational capacity and courage to question their parents.

When I was young, I genuinely believed that Pokemon were evil spirits, that Harry Potter was a devil in disguise, that listening to pop music would lead to degradation, that watching pornography would lead to eternal pain in Hell. Whenever I struggled to endorse contradictory teachings, I would be coerced into fearful acceptance rather than reasoned into genuine belief. Not only is such threat-based enforcement of religion unreasonable, but the resultant guilt also became an enormous burden that inevitably affected how I perceived others and how I handled my social interactions. The more I engaged with my religious community, the more I doubted the kindness I received. Teachings of faith, love, and compassion simply could not counteract the bleak, evil picture painted by original sin.

During the production stages of the animation, I could not help but feel furious. I was furious at my young, foolish self and I am still angry at self-claimed justice warriors spreading falsehood in the name of religion.

Over the years, I have engaged with followers of other religions as an effort to understand. Aside from obvious differences in teachings and rituals, I have found that most religious followers use personal experiences to justify their beliefs, but can never offer a compelling argument to explain contradictions in basic logic and science. Surely, if hearsay was all it took to convert someone, no one would care about the contradictions. Perhaps this applies to some, but the way I see it is that peer pressure and investment into faith tends to mellow out any initial suspicions. Once one conforms to the rituals and adopts the religious semantics by habit, even mere luck points to God. When everything becomes a positive reinforcement of God, one might fall into the trap of believing that their religion is exclusively better than the rest, sneer at other religions, and fail to see just how similarly foolish all Fundamentalism is.

This film has screened at many major film festivals and the reception has been both positive and negative as you might imagine. I am not afraid of criticism because the plot was inspired by my own experiences and a sentiment shared among my friends. Since the film aired, a significant number of people from the Christian community have told me that my film resonated very closely with their experience too. Indeed, some religious people are stubborn, obnoxious and unreasonable, but there are also many who are incredibly tolerant, understanding and empathetic. I do respect everyone’s interpretation of religion, but for those who feel offended by this film, ask yourself: Do you wholeheartedly believe in your religion? How many contradictions have you deliberately shied away from? If you do identify as religious, are you choosing by your own will or are you pressured by friends and family? Or are you subscribing to religion solely for salvation?

Please scrutinize your belief with utter honesty. If you are convinced by your religion, please respect other people’s right to believe in other religions too. There is a fine line between respectful proselytization and an aggressive imposition of religion. This should be a free and equal society where all races, sexes, genders, religions, sexual orientations are treated with basic respect.

Or, if you realize that you have been an atheist at heart the entire time, feel free to cut off your ties with religion! Once you leave the ivory tower, try to examine the world from different perspectives, and I can assure you will find your own meaning of life. The truth will stand the test of time.”

想觀看高畫質影片請按這裡～
https://vimeo.com/300120279
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f68vO5jX5_E&t=3s

------
Credit
導演 Director：
邱士杰 （ShihChieh Chiu）
動畫 Animator：
邱士杰 Shih-Chieh Chiu、張明潔 Ming-Chieh Chang
配音 Voice Actor：
林冠宇 Guan-Yu Lin、邱士杰 Shih-Chieh Chiu、廖容萱 Jung-Shan Liao、莊采融 Cai-Rong Zhuang、林鼎傑 Dan Lin、陳變法 Bian-Fa Chen
指導教授 Supervisor：
鐘世凱 Shih-Kai Chung
音樂與音效製作Music & Sound Design Production：
@紋聲音樂 WinSound Studio
音樂與音效Music & Sound Design：
林孝親 Hsiao-Chin Lin、林思妤 Szu-Yu Lin
混音Scoring Mixer & Re-recording Mixer：
林孝親 Hsiao-Chin Lin

#Fundamental基石
#11/24日 公投14、15請投同意，落實真平
#若想知道更多關於宗教迷信與離教的相關資訊，請持續關注本粉絲團
#若你正迷茫著找尋新的心靈寄托，唯一推薦—台灣合法立案宗教團體 台灣人文煮意麵團 Humanistic Pastafarianism in Taiwan

I still don’t understand why they are in dialogue with China

A response to “Why we are in dialogue with China”, the interview that His Eminence Cardinal Parolin gave to Gianni Valente (that is, an interview cooked up between the two).

I read the interview several times, now I read it again (even if the reading repels me) in order to honestly make my comments.

I am grateful to His Eminence for recognizing that “it is legitimate to have different opinions”.

(1)
First of all, we note the insistence with which His Eminence affirms that his point of view and the purpose of his activities are of a pastoral, spiritual, evangelical and faith-based nature, while our thinking and acting is only in a political key.

What we see instead is that he venerates the Ostpolitik diplomacy of his master Casaroli and despises the genuine faith of those who firmly defend the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles from any interference by secular power.

I will never forget my amazement at reading a report in the Osservatore Romano a few years ago on a speech that he had given where he describes the heroes of the faith in the central European countries under the communist regime (Card. Wyszynsky, Card. Mindszenty and Card. Beran, without mentioning them) as “gladiators”, “people systematically opposed to the government and eager to appear on the political stage”.

(2)
We also note the repeated mention of his compassion for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in China. Crocodile tears! What suffering is he talking about? He knows very well that they are not afraid of poverty, nor the limitation or deprivation of liberty, nor even the loss of life. But he has absolutely no respect for all of this at all (they are “gladiators”!)

He also speaks of wounds that are still open and his intention to treat them by applying “the balm of mercy”. But what wounds is he talking about?

Towards the end of the interview, at one point he says: “To be frank, I will tell you: I am also convinced that part of the suffering experienced by the Church in China is not so much due to the will of individuals as to the objective complexity of the situation”.

So he knows very well that in the Church in China it is not (if not infrequently) a case of personal offenses or resentments, but persecution by an atheistic totalitarian power. Use the balm of mercy? It is not a question of personal offenses to be forgiven. It is a slavery from which to free oneself.

Mercy for the persecutors? For their accomplices? Rewarding traitors? Castigating the faithful? Forcing a legitimate bishop to give way to an excommunicated one? It this not more like rubbing salt on these still open wounds?

Let us return to the “objective situation”. The painful state was not created by us, but by the regime. The communists want to enslave the Church. There are those who refuse this enslavement, there are those who suffer, unfortunately there are those who embrace it.

Faced with this reality is it possible not to speak of “power, resistance, conflict, compromise, giving in, surrender, betrayal”?

Parolin wants us to talk about communion and collaboration. But are the conditions right? Where is this unity? How can we collaborate? Thus, we must analyse the two fundamental points that need clarification.

(3)
What is the unity you want to achieve?

a) His Eminence praises Chinese Catholics and states that “there are not two Catholic Churches in China”. If I’m not mistaken, I was the first to affirm this at a meeting of the Synod of Bishops, because, in both communities, the faithful in their hearts are loyal to the Pope (today with the increasing number of opportunists in the community run by the Government I no longer dare to apply this affirmation to the entire Church in China).

But Parolin cannot deny that, for the moment, there are two communities with two structures based on two different, opposing principles. One structure is founded on the principle of the Primacy of Peter on which Jesus established his Church, the other structure is imposed by an atheistic government intent on creating a schismatic Church subject to its power.

b) Eliminating this division and achieving unity must be the desire of every Catholic, but not with one wave of a magic wand, let alone by manipulating the Letter of Pope Benedict.

In the Letter by Pope Emeritus there is this paragraph (8.10): “Some (bishops), not wishing to be subjected to undue control exercised over the life of the Church, and eager to maintain total fidelity to the Successor of Peter and to Catholic doctrine, have felt themselves constrained to opt for clandestine consecration. The clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life, and history shows that Pastors and faithful have recourse to it only amid suffering, in the desire to maintain the integrity of their faith and to resist interference from State agencies in matters pertaining intimately to the Church's life. “Father Jeroom Heyndrickx citing out of context the phrase “the clandestine condition is not a normal feature of the Church's life,” has made it his mission to spread the word throughout China (where he enjoyed great freedom of movement): “there should be no more underground communities, everyone must come to the open and become part of the community subject to the Government”.

In the Commission for the Church in China we pointed out this grave error, but both the Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples ignored this warning, obviously supporting ​​Father Heyndrickx’ theory.

It was only two years later, when this mistake had already done immense damage, that we managed to include some notes in the “Compendium” booklet to try to distinguish the reconciliation of hearts from unity in structures.

c) Parolin says that one should not maintain “a perennial conflict between opposing principles and structures”. But obviously this does not depend on us alone, because one of the two structures is under Government power, which certainly exercises control over it and shows no sign of giving it up.
Pope Benedict says that the journey of unity “is not easy and cannot be accomplished overnight” (6.5, 6.6).

But our diplomats want a miracle and they want it now, and not only. They also accuse others of clinging “to the spirit of opposition to condemn his brother or use the past as an excuse to stir up new resentments and closures” and of not being ready “to forgive, this means, unfortunately, that there are other interests to defend: but this is not an evangelical perspective”.

These are really cruel reproaches to address to faithful members of the Church, who for many years have suffered every kind of deprivation and oppression for their fidelity to the true Church!

When the other party has no intention of respecting the essential nature of the Catholic Church and on our part one wants unity at all costs, there is only one possible choice, that of forcing everyone to enter the “bird’s cage”.

d) With the solution of the “enlarged cage” will this encourage people to walk together? To embark on a new path? With serenity? With confidence?

It is said that it will be a gradual process, but let us suppose that the authors already have the next steps to be taken after the legitimization of the illegitimate in mind.

What will become of those Bishops who are legitimate according to the law of the Church but who are not recognized by the Government? Will they be “accepted”? That is, admitted to the cage? Will it finally be “a” legitimate episcopal conference? (With the Government holding the key to the cage?)

Parolin and company recognize that this solution is not perfect, it is a lesser evil. You can endure and suffer an evil (damage), but you can never do wrong (sin), great or small.
Our suffering at the creation of a schismatic Church by others may be inevitable, but we cannot assist in its creation.

Moreover, a schismatic church created by the party is not a cause for fear, it will fade with the fall of the regime. Instead, a schismatic church with the Pope's blessing would be horrifying!

(4)
Having clarified the nature of the unity to be reached, it is easy to consider the following problem: How do we achieve this unity?

With reconciliation (ad intra) and dialogue (with the Government).

a) Reconciliation is not without difficulty but possible, because it depends only on our goodwill, dialogue with the Government is more difficult.

b) Pope Francis in Seoul had said: “The first condition of a dialogue is consistency with one's own identity.”

It is a matter of honesty, of justice. We need to know and let it be known where we want to arrive, that is, what our conscience dictates as a desirable outcome to dialogue. In our case, obviously it is: “a true religious freedom which not only does not harm but favours the true good of the nation”.

Will we be able to manage this dialogue? Is there a hope of success? Is there at least a minimum foundation to hope in the present situation when the Chinese Communist Party is more powerful and overbearing than ever? When, both its words and actions point to an even more rigorous control of every religion, but in a special way of the so-called “foreign” religions.

The Communists no longer feel the need to save appearances. Photographs show that it is the State that manages the Catholic Church in China, which is no longer Catholic but Chinese, schismatic. (The joint meeting of the Patriotic Association and the so-called “episcopal conference is [always] led by a government official”) The Popes refrain from using the word “schism” for compassion for those who find themselves not of their own will under severe pressure.

From what we can observe see, the Holy See is acquiescing to this unacceptable reality. (Is it really sure that this is for the good of the Church?)

In order for a dialogue to be true, it must start from a position of equality. There is no real dialogue between the jailer and the prisoners, between the victor and the vanquished. But our own seems to start from a position of weakness. Reliable source says that the Vatican Delegation could not discuss the case of Bishop James Su Zhi Min who has been in the hands of the government for more than twenty years, because our interlocutors refused. In my opinion, our delegation should have left the negotiating table and come home. Accepting their refusal is like kneeling down to them from the outset.

After all we are not the vanquished. Do our diplomats not know that the faithful of the clandestine community constituted, and perhaps still constitute, the majority? That they have churches and cathedrals in various places? That in the city, where obviously they cannot have churches, they say Masses in private homes so as not to be disturbed by the public security authorities who are also aware of everything. Unfortunately, as of February 2018 we can expect a much stricter control by the Government on the activities of these our brothers and sisters, also because the Government knows that by now it also has the consent of the Holy See.

c) While supporting the need for external dialogue with the government, the Vatican has stifled dialogue within the Church. With a supremely rude gesture it dismissed the Pontifical Commission for the Church in China set up by Pope Benedict without so much as a word. The only competent Chinese voice in the Vatican was Archbishop Savio, sending him as Nuncio to Greece. So much for “finding synthesis of truth”! So much for “discovering God's plan together”! They are convinced that they “have considered everything properly”.

(5)
The most repugnant thing I find in the whole interview is the dishonest exploitation of expressions of the Letter of Pope Benedict, making it appear as if he was a faithful supporter of the Pope Emeritus, whereas in reality he and the then Prefect of the Congregation for 'Evangelization of the Peoples have thwarted all of Pope Ratzinger’s efforts to bring the Church in China back on the right path.

At the beginning and end of the interview he made two citations respectively.

a) In Chapter 4 Paragraph 7 Pope Benedict says: “The solution to existing problems cannot be pursued via an ongoing conflict with the legitimate civil authorities; at the same time, though, compliance with those authorities is not acceptable when they interfere unduly in matters regarding the faith and discipline of the Church.. “

b) In Paragraph 6 he had said: (Citing “Deus caritas est”) “The Church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice..”

In both quotes, Parolin took advantage of the first half, leaving out the other half, losing the balance of Pope Benedict’s thought.

(6)
Given the recent controversies, I feel the desire to clarify my relationship with Pope Francis who, whenever I meet him, fills me with tenderness.

It is true that my revelations of a private interviews may have caused him embarrassment and for this I am sorry. But I am still convinced that there is a void between the way of thinking of His Holiness and the way of thinking of his collaborators, who readily take advantage of the Pope's optimism to pursue their goals. Until proven otherwise I am convinced that I have defended the good name of the Pope from the responsibility of the erroneous judgement of his collaborators and that he has communicated his encouragement to my brothers in China who are, as we say in China, “in the burning fire and in deep water”.

If, by chance, one day a bad agreement is signed with China, obviously with the approval of the Pope, I will withdraw in silence to “monastic life”. Certainly as a son, even if unworthy, of Don Bosco I will not make myself the head of a rebellion against the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.

Let us pray for Pope Francis “that the Lord will preserve him, give him strength, make him happy, and save him from the hands of his enemies.”