Ethnicity

Shakira was disappointed to find that Filipinos in New York would not connect with her based on their race.

She wished to speak her language, enjoy the food from her ethnic background, talk about things from "back home" with people that she thought were from her country of origin.  However, the people she wrote about did not wish to connect with her that way.  They preferred to identify themselves as Chinese instead.  Or terminate the conversation and walk away as quickly as they can.

Why is this so?

Have these people forgotten their roots?  Are they ashamed about where they have come from?  Are they like the proverbial "kacang lupakan kulit"?

Or is Shakira racist in wanting to connect with people of the same ethnic background as herself?  Is it wrong to wish for such connections?

Many Filipinos that I meet are like Shakira.  They long to connect with other Filipinos, especially while they are not in the Philippines.  Even if they have lost their Filipino citizenship, they would identify themselves as Filipino, cheer for Manny Pacquiao, speak in Tagalog, and eat food that originated from that country.  However, not all Filipinos are like this.

Which behaviour is better?  Holding on to one's origins in preference to mixing with others while abroad?  Or mixing with others in preference to having friends from one's ethnic origins?  Does it matter?

Does it change for people whose ancestors migrated several generations ago, as compared with first generation migrants?  Or visitors and temporary visa holders?

What is your experience in this matter?

Don't mock the prophet

The consensus of the recent Charlie Hebdo incident seems to be clear.  Don't insult the Muslim's prophet.  It enrages the Muslims.  The more militant of them can respond violently.

Muslims around the world - militant or otherwise - seem to agree.  The Prophet Mohammad's is sacred.  It needs to be defended.  http://www.kinitv.com/video/14852O8, http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/india-muslim-cleric-says-what-charlie-hebdo-jihadis-did-was-completely-legitimate-as-per-sharia-laws, http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/highlight/2015/01/13/how-to-end-insults-to-islam/ and many other webpages seem to carry this message.

Some other webpages seem to generalise terror, and say that it is not just Muslim militants who do it.  http://www.salon.com/2015/01/17/why_religion_unleashes_humanitys_most_violent_impulses_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow and http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html?via=desktop&source=facebook are among these.

Would you agree with what these webpages say?  What is your opinion on this matter?

What do you think the Christian response would be?  Why is it that many ridicule the name of Jesus without as many Christians taking such a violent stand?  Is it because Christians are cowards?  Too peace-loving to retaliate?  Too confused, or too weak in their beliefs to want to do anything?

http://thecripplegate.com/the-ineptitude-of-moral-equivalence/ reckons that it is because Christianity started off more peacefully.  People were attracted to Christ because Christians endured the ridicule and shame.  They exercised more self control.

God's name is holy and people should regard it as holy.  Yet God gave up that position when He took on human form in order to restore us to Himself.  Philippians 2:5-8 says:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 

 rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature of a servant,
    being made in human likeness. 

 And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Given what God has done, Christians seem to prefer to love rather than to retaliate.  Although not all Christians are like this - some do war in the name of their faith.

Do you think Christians are like this?  How do Christians generally behave?  Do they attract people to Jesus or turn people away from Him?  How should Christians behave?

In the same manner, how do you think Muslims and people of other faiths should live out, act out, and defend their beliefs when they are called to?

Are vocations equal?

Does it matter what job you get?  How long you stay in the job?  Stay within the same career?

Many ask these questions, as they enter the workforce for the first time, or as they leave school and choose their Uni courses.

From one perspective, it doesn't really matter.  So long that you are contributing society.  So long that you feel happy and satisfied.  So long as you have enough to pay your bills.

From another perspective, it does matter.  Some dread going to work, and this is not a happy feeling.

Amy Sherman says it does matter.  Some jobs are immoral.  Others may not be aligned with your personal goals in life, and consequently feel like a waste of your life, even though you might be earning your living.

Amy reckons that ideally, you find a job that fit the gifts you have, where the goals fit where you think God is taking you.

Do you think so?  Is it hard to find such a job?  Do such things come out in job interviews?  Or is the job market so desperate that one needs to take the opportunities that come up even if they do not exactly align?

Amy also recommends that we are aware of our seasons in life.  Some jobs that may be okay when we are younger may not be when we are older.

Do you think this is good advice?  How satisfied are you with your job?

Introverts

The Cambridge Dictionary defines an "introvert" to be "someone who is shy, quiet, and unable to make friends easily".  Wikipedia, though, reckons that this is a common mistake.  It said that "mistaking introversion for shyness is a common error. Introverts prefer solitary to social activities, but do not necessarily fear social encounters like shy people do.".

Carl Jung describes introversion and extroversion as a spectrum.  Different people have different levels of introversion and extroversion, and cannot exactly be boxed as one or the other.  Those somewhere in the middle of the spectrum are called "ambiverts".

The Huffington Post lists the following characteristics of introverts:

• They withdraw in crowds,
• They prefer deeper conversations to small talk,
• They do well on stage, but not the light conversations after,
• They are easily distracted, but do not feel bored,
• They are drawn to creative, detail-oriented and solitary careers,
• When surrounded by people, they prefer to be closer to the exits,
• They think before they speak,
• They don't take on the mood of the environment like extroverts,
• They don't like talking on the phone,
• They shut down when it is time to be alone.

At a recent conference that I attended, introverts were defined as people who energise in solitude, while extroverts are gain their energy when in a crowd.  Somebody said that she has shifted closer to be an ambivert compared to her younger years.  Another person said that she felt awkward while living in a foreign land, where she needs to converse in a foreign language frequently, but she is able to make friends and feel comfortable in that environment even so.  Yet another cautioned against regarding introversion as a handicap - they are normal people who just draw their energy differently.  They just need to have some "alone" time to recharge after interacting with other people.  Introverts long for company and friendships just like everybody else.

Are you an introvert?  What helps you survive the social environment if you are?  How do you think introverts can be assisted socially?

Public vs personal economics

Apparently, passengers pay an average of $2.70 for each Sydney train journey.  Taxpayers subsidise these journeys by $10.60, as the average fare does not fully cover the cost.

There are many reasons behind this.  Concession fares for children, the unemployed and the elderly is one reason.  Also, if the commuters had to pay the full cost, then people would not be attracted to use the rail system.  This would result in a higher volume of road traffic - and this would cost the tax payers about $6.80 more/journey.

So it depends on how we look at the issue.  One, interpreting it at an individual level, may say that the train fares need to increase in price in order to recoup its losses.  The government and the tax payers shouldn't need to bear the cost.  The rail network should turn a profit in themselves, and not be a liability to the public.  There should be less concession in the fares in order to make this possible.

On the other hand, when one looks at the issue from a community perspective, one can say that given the benefits of reducing traffic from the roads, from less carbon emission pollution, the reduction in inflation, etc, the economics of running the rail system at this reduced rate is the right tact.

Are there other issues in life that fit this model?

Eg. education - which are a burden to the public purse, but necessary for the next generation?  Tithing and taxes - which have a negative impact on an individual's budget, but are necessary for the church or state to have resources to use?  Driving in such a way to suit self instead of obeying the rules to help every other road user as well as self?  Litter in the streets?  Social welfare?

What if people seek out for their personal good instead of thinking big-picture for the good of the community?

Are banks, governments and individuals too self-centred instead of community-centred in their mindset these days?

What do you think?  How can we have a better world?  Does God have a part in solving this?