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?

The NSW Opal card

NSW Australia has introduced a stored-value, debit card that is to be used to pay fares on their public transport system.  This card is called the "Opal" card.  It is similar to the MRT pass used in Singapore, and the "myki" used in Melbourne.

The virtues of the Opal card have been debated on news media for months.  The Opal website tells of the positive points, but not the negative ones.  To counterbalance what it says, I shall summarise the negative points I have noticed here:

• While it gives business to newsagents and convenience stores, it lessens business for the CityRail ticket counters now that many paper tickets have been discontinued.  This results in a level of unemployment.
  
• If one does not tap off properly, one will get charged the maximum fare.  Unlike Singapore, though, the maximum fare is expensive.  Sometimes, it is not one's fault that one does not tap off properly.  Eg. if one thinks one has tapped, but actually missed.
  
• When on a train last week, ticket inspectors boarded to check the tickets of the passengers on board.  Most of us checked out okay, but one didn't.  This man said he tapped on at Town Hall.  He did not know why his Opal card did not register that.  Ticket inspectors seemed to have suspected something foul happening, and was giving the man a hard time.
  
• The system apparently gives discounts on individual fares, although possibly, it is more expensive compared to the seasonal tickets that many residents use.
  
• The old system allows passengers to travel for free within the City Circle.  The Opal card doesn't.  But this might be okay, since the system only charges for eight trips/week and subsequent trips become free.
  
• The Opal card system is not friendly to outstation visitors.  Especially to those from other countries.  Such visitors would not be used to the public transport fares of NSW.  This and the uncertainty of their travel plans make it hard to determine how much value to store on their Opal cards.  Then, these visitors cannot get refunds easily.  Refunds come in the form of a cheque or a bank deposit in Australian dollars to an Australian bank account.

What do you think?  Is the Opal card a good system overall?  Do the positive points outweigh the negative ones?

I find that by the ways in which some of the other tickets have been discontinued and the way some of the other discounts have become unavailable, people are being herded onto the Opal card system, even if they do not like it.  Choices are few if one does not choose what the authorities want one to choose.  The customers have choices, but the alternatives are not attractive.

Do you find this to be the case too?  Does this indicate manipulation in a negative sense?  Or do you think it is all positive?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

Low class dogs

It was amusing to read that Louis Vuitton pulled out of sponsoring a "save the street dogs" program because of the image.

Apparently, the famous fashion label had donated some items to be auctioned at a charity fund-raiser.  The cause was to save the street dogs of Singapore.  LV pulled out from their support when they realised what kind of mongrels roamed the streets of Singapore.  They seemed to have been turned off when they realised that these dogs were "low classed", and did not fit the image that LV would like to uphold.

What do you feel about this?

Isn't this the way of big business?  Aren't sponsorships and good deeds efforts to get publicity to help boost sales?  Is nothing done out of altruism, but with the ulterior motive of increasing sales margins?

The movie "the Climb" depicts this kind of attitude.  Mack, the owner of the chain-store Mackie's, was persuaded by the public to open a store at the south end of town.  This ended up taking a long time to happen, as Mack's right hand man and a share-holder saw it to be bad for business.  However, they favoured sponsoring two men to climb a mountain in Chile as it was good publicity.  (In the end, Mack had to make good of his promise for the sake of credibility.)

What do you think?  Is profit always the driving factor?  Should it be?  Where does kindness come in?  Does everyone always just look out for himself/herself without caring about the rest of the world?

Where does God fit into this picture?

Retention

How does one retain supporters for one's political party?  How does one keep one's customers?  Gets the visitors to one's website to keep coming back?

Colin Myles' blog post spoke well on this topic.  What do you think of it?  Does it challenge you?

I think the same principles apply to churches.  We wish to get people to come to attend church.  We wish to have these people come back and attend regularly.  But the hypocrisy turns visitors away.  Older members die.  Families with children move away.  How do we grow churches in these circumstances?

(At least the internet and multinational corporations are accessible from almost everywhere ... churches with physical addresses are not as accessible when one is overseas.)

I think the real aim of the church is to introduce people to Jesus.  What do you think?

Are churches out for conversions or for retentions?

How do we keep people interested enough to keep coming back?