1) Even among Christians, we more than often hold different perspectives on the same matter: the only thing that we can be sure that we agree on is that we’re all sinners and we all need God’s grace for our hope for salvation. Does being a Christian means she shouldn’t push forward this matter? Do we really know that she did not base her decision on everything that she can know about the whole matter, including all the voices that I’m sure she would’ve heard already? Maybe if we know everything that she knows, then we would make the same decision as she have?

2) I don’t think a Christian politician should hold any more (or less) responsibilities than a Buddist politician or an atheist politician in their respective positions. (Imagine if a Buddist politician did the same thing, would anyone say something like “How can a Buddist do something like this?”)

3) I also agree with you that the government has once again failed to show any signs of compassion, mercy, or even respect, for the opposing voices in this matter. At the same time, there were also those who actually agree with the whole project. Just because we are on the opposition side, we can’t assume that those who agree to the project are ignorant of all the facts and those who oppose know more (just as we wouldn’t want them to think of us the same way). I’m sure both sides have both ignorant and knowledgable people.

Although it’s too late now, a “civilized” way to resolve this is for both sides to have some calm discussion, exchange of ideas, and try to find some common ground. It’s not a matter of all or nothing, but most of us are only opposing to certain points of the matter (ie. funding/budget, location, etc.). I used the adjective “calm” because I don’t believe that any heated discussion can yield a common ground, because most people who’re in the middle of such would usually be too protective of their own terms and wouldn’t give up on even the smallest matter, thus nothing can be achieved.

4) In my limited knowledge of political science, there are 4 methods of integrity while working in a party/government (and often in an organization):
– a) agree with all decision by the government, because you’re hired by them.
– b) disagree with some decisions by the government, but try to change the atmosphere by careful infiltration of the individuals, one mind at a time.
– c) disagree with some decisions by the government, and try to make abrupt changes by open challenges.
– d) disagree with all decision by the government, thus resign from the position and wash your hands clean.

more often than not, a) and b) are very similar on the outlook. There are many things going on behind the scene that we simply do not know about. (Of course, point b can also work against our interest at any given time.) We’re always too small to be able to see the whole picture, but I believe that these people are put in their position because God allowed them to, and thus they serve a purpose in the grand schem of things. We should still do our parts, be it going on parades or writing letters to the officials or simply pray.

I used to hold a lot of grudges on our Canadian government too, from wasting our money on useless investments (remember the expensive vessels that we bought a few years ago?) to holding meetings with the agenda of their own wage increase (now what other organization can you think of that would do such things?). But I remember a sermon (or maybe it was a Bible study) on why did God harden the pharoah’s heart when Moses pleged for him to release the Isrealites? I’m sure at that time, most of the Isrealites were angry at their government, perhaps more so than you and I, but in the end, God’s plan carried out, even though none of them could even perceive such plan.

Now that the project had been approved, we can only pray.

無論如何，我相信苦行之人的見證是不會白費的，因為他們已經為後人在歷史上留下他們的跪印。