Who complains

The world is afire with revolt, but a new kind of revolt, befitting our young century: The revolt of the middle class.

While their complaints are all different, the specifics only magnify what they have in common: All of these protests and rebellions are being led by comparatively well educated, affluent citizens upset about their government’s violation of liberal principles and the rule of law.

These words, from http://aholeofthecentury.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/the-revolt-of-middle-class.html, provoked a realisation within me.  It seems that a vital ingredient in the process of democracy lies in having reasonably educated people with sufficient wealth to power the protests of the masses.  People who read and think and feel for the underprivileged, and want to do something to help.

Do you think so?

The minorities would be trodden down, if nobody stood up to defend them.  And when the oppressors are the government voted in by the majority, it takes the power of the voters to get it right again when they realise the harm they have caused.  People who repent of their earlier voting, or who see that the people that they have voted for abusing the power that they have been given.  People who wish to correct the wrong in society.

While the media may influence the thinking of the people, while religious leaders and moral crusaders may tell people what to think and how to vote ... the power ends up with the educated who have enough wealth and muscle pulling the masses with them to voice their protests.

Is this how God works?  Is this how democratic society works?

I think it was so in the days of Jose Rizal in the Philippines.  Of Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma.  And perhaps several more.  But perhaps there is more to democracy and how the people think and drive their protests than this simple statement.

What do you think?

Plain language

How can we reduce our words, speak/write to communicate more clearly and more concisely?

In this day when people try to get to the point quickly, skim read through texts and do not pay attention well, it does pay off to present one's point well by getting to the point clearly.

The Plain English Foundation helps people do this in English.  They also collect a series of "worst words", where people try to hide or dress up what they say so to seem more intelligent or less offensive.

This year, the Foundation nominated the phrase "conscious uncoupling" to be the worst.  This expression was used to mean "divorce" by Chris Martin and Gwyneth Paltrow.  It was deemed that such a way of dressing up the truth may be suitable for the speaker, but not really with the clarity that the public is wishing to hear.

Some other examples of such "double speak" is the phrase "rapid disassembly" that was used to mean "exploding airbags", or "pavement failure" to mean "pothole".

What do you think?  Do such euphemisms help communication, or do they make the comunication process worse?  From whose point of view?  Why do people dress up what they wish to say in riddles?  Do people try to hide their intentions behind their words?

How will God be pleased with the way we handle ouor words?  How can we do it well?

Guns in society

People have been talking about relaxing gun laws in Australia since the recent Sydney Siege.

What do you think?  Is easing the right to have guns for the public good for the society or not?

In favour for having guns, people are saying that perhaps people could have defended themselves against the gunman.

Against the idea is the realisation that the USA have lesser gun controls, and massacres in schools happen once in a while.  People accidentally shooting each other, or killing another and then regretting it.

I remember Australia taking a tough stand against carrying knives, when policemen were stabbed many years ago.  The law changed such that one may carry a knife as part of one's work, but not for self-defense or for willfully wanting to hurt anyone.  And the knife should not be concealed if it is larger than a certain size.

If this logic prevails about knives, how much more would it apply to guns?

What do you think?  How should people defend themselves if they were to be denied weapons?  How can we prevent people from using weapons in harmful or threatening ways if they were allowed these?

The gunman of the Sydney siege was not licensed to have a gun, but yet, he had one.  How can we prevent people even from breaking the law in this regard?

Why did Jesus come

During the Christmas season of cheer, people sing of "peace on earth, goodwill to men".  Some remember Jesus in the midst of the season, others don't.  Nevertheless, this warm fuzzy feeling of "peace on earth, goodwill to men" gives people around the world a reason to rejoice.

Do you think so?  What do you think of Christmas?  Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

This year, as I read my Bible, I come across messages of sin and of God's intention to deal harshly with it.

Passages like Revelations 9:20-21:

The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

Or Zephaniah 1:18:

Neither their silver nor their gold
    will be able to save them
    on the day of the Lord’s wrath.”

In the fire of his jealousy
    the whole earth will be consumed,
for he will make a sudden end
    of all who live on the earth.

These passages tell me that "peace on Earth, goodwill to men" is not entirely the message that we are to get.  We should also know that Jesus is coming again to judge the world because of its unrighteousness.  While judgement and unrighteousness are not popular messages, it is really something that we need to prepare for if we are to have peace with God ... eternally.

Would you agree?

Should we listen to only messages that we like, and shut out the ones we find unpleasant?  Is there good and bad intertwined, as ying-and-yang?  What is God really telling us?  Are we listening?

Allowed eating

"When I walk into a restaurant, ... it shouldn’t be important to the waiter what my religion is", wrote Dr Taj Hargey 

I agree with him.  Hungry people want to eat.  It doesn't matter how the chicken was killed.  So long that it has been handled in a reasonably sanitary kind of way, I would think it would be okay.

Hargey points out that for chicken to be truly "halal", it has to be killed in a certain way, with the blood drained from it, and prayers chanted.  However, the Quran does not actually require that Muslims eat food that is truly "halal" only.  It says in Chapter 5:5 that 

‘This day all good things are made lawful for you. The food of the People of the Book [meaning the Jews and the Christians] is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them …'

Hargey, as a Muslim, would allow himself to eat any meat other than pork.  He reckons that non-Muslims have even less reason to fuss over the detail of whether food is "halal" in the Muslim context or not.  And Muslims, eating non-halal meat of allowed animals are not violating the Quran's command, so they do not need to be as picky as what some have become.

Would you agree with him?

Why then is there this big fuss over "halal" food?  Why are companies paying big bucks to be halal certified?  And why are companies forced to take on the "halal" certification in order to export their produce?

Is this a money making venture to keep the Imams in business?  Or are there other hidden reasons behind this?

Are people making a bigger deal about Islam and drawing an unnecessary "them" vs "us" line between the Muslims and non-Muslims?  Why would people do this?

How are we to love one another when conspiracy theories abound?

What do you think and believe?