M JOSÉ'S BIRTHDAY
We thought last week’s meeting went well and people enjoyed it. The crazy mix between a birthday celebration and talk of Japan seemed to work well together. For our next meeting we are preparing a brief picture show of Japan and remember we have half a bottle of Saki left which needs finishing.
I also suggest talking to Marietrina because she has some pics of Lisboa and like us people would like to see them. It would also serve a purpose in getting her to our meetings on more of a regular basis.
Third, talking with Sara she said that Dani is practicing his magic tricks a lot. I therefore suggest that next week we plan Dani’s second public performance. Irene and Peter have talked to a restaurant owner who is keen to have Dani perform his magic on a Sunday. I think with their support next Sunday would be ideal for his second ever public performance. This would also serve to bring people together and maybe encourage others to come once the Sunday event is announced.
So, in all I think next week’s meeting should be in two parts, first part picture show, Japan and Lisboa, second part planning Dani’s next public performance.
JOHN & JACKIE KRACHAI
SUGGESTED TOPICS BY PETER
1. Are Jewish claims in Palestine legitimate? Is the land God given or did Hebrews steel it by conquest? First under Joshua c. 1,200 BC. Second c. 500 BC after an absence of c. 70 years known as, ‘the Babylonian diaspora’. Third in 1947 after an absence of c. 2,000 years. This prompts the question, is military conquest just legalised theft supported by nationalism and religion? If such claims are lawful then are continuous Islamic claims on Spain also justifiable?
2. Refugees, like those fleeing hardship across
Africa and the middle east. How should they be
helped, by granting asylum, perhaps to millions? By improving their
countries of origin or some other means?
3. Learning through humour. Like songs humour is a
good way of learning a language. I have no difficulty recalling the first
risqué joke I heard over 65 years ago.
Perhaps if we all translated a joke to give to the class, it may help
our understanding and have a fun evening.
4. Should ex
ISLS fighters be allowed back into western democracies? Does ISLS’ radical leadership only allow
their fighter to return home as a fifth column?
5. Experiment. I
ask the class to write down in order of importance, five things they are
reasonable sure will happen in the future.
Another experiment on the same lines would be if we all wrote down a few
old sayings or superstitions, i.e. sentiments not longer in vogue. For example in our part of the U.K. when
Irene and I were children, women advised each other, ‘not to wash their hair
when menstruating’. There is a beneficial motive behind these experiments which
I will reveal after interested parties have take part.
Below is a suggested topic.
Gender Inequality.
1. How did it get started? Was it through, physicality, intellect, emotional or religious elements?
2. How is it maintained? Through religion, i.e. anything from female genital mutilation to the often menial role of women within churches? Did religion class women as inferior from its beginning? If not why do religious books hardly mention women by name as Genesis 7: 13 exemplifies. A man can have any number of women, a woman is confined to one husband. Who made the rules, men, women or God, and in what sense are they equal? What part do national and domestic traditions play in gender inequality and if it is a gross injustice, are ancient tradition valid reasons to maintain a system that disenfranchises 50% of the global population?
3. What steps must be taken to bring about gender equality? Is religion still actively promoting gender inequalities?
Here is a predominant gender difference. Generally speaking, when asked about the quantity of sexual partners, if the true answer is 10, a man will say 20 but a woman will say 5. The former sounds like macho boasting the latter like shame. How Retirement age debate: should it be raised or lowered?
Retirement age
is becoming a heated debate. When is the best time to retire? Can governments
afford current pension schemes? Is paid retirement in danger?
Retirement age debate
Most developed countries recognize the right
to retirement with a pension. Retirement age differs across
the world, generally between 50 and 70. The wealth of the country, average
life expectancy and socio-economic paradigms impact the age when people
can retire and get a pension. In addition to the normal retirement age,
usually government set an early retirement one.
For instance, in the US early retirement age is 62 while that enabling full
pension is 67, in the UK 65 and 68, in Italy 57 and 67, and in Sweden
61 and 65.
Raising retirement age
Most people don't feel comfortable with the
notion of working longer. However, the recession and aging population has
made more difficult the sustainability of system of state pensions and benefits in many countries and forced to reconsider the
retirement age. Some analysts argue that if we would work longer we
could ensure better standards of living during retirement period. Governments
could be able to pay considerably higher benefits to those retired due to the longer contribution periods. Moreover, for many people retirement
is actually a problem. Working allows them to feel useful. Writers, artists,
academics, etc. tend to continue working even in their 70s. Life
expectancy has increased in most countries and most jobs require less
physical effort that they used to decades ago (when retirement ages were
set in most developed countries).
Lowering retirement age
Working can be enjoyable, but most people prefer
to devote time to their families and hobbies. Most people working at a
late ages are not as productive as they used to be. If retirement age was
lowered, those jobs could be occupied by younger people who are likely
going to be more productive. This could be a way to reduce unemployment rates
which is another important side effect of the crisis. Justice is another
argument. People that have worked in lower-paid tough jobs tend to die
earlier than those conducting better paid jobs. Thus, raising retirement
age would impact mostly working classes. Finally, in countries with aging
population, immigrants could occupy the jobs and contribute to make
pension systems sustainable.
PETER'S VIEWPOINT ON TERRORISM
Thanks for your comments on terrorism which arrived yesterday. It’s a big subject leaving not much time to formulate short succinct answers, well that’s my excuse for this pathetic attempt.
Two points spring readily to mind. First, terrorism’s definition. ‘To govern by intimidation. A policy striking terror into those against whom it is adopted. A terrorist is one who attempts to rule by extreme coercion. To terrorise, to induce fear’.
I doubt there is a government or religion that is not involved in terrorism of one sort or another. America, along with general western approval used the chemical ‘agent orange’ in Vietnam. Fifty years later children are still born severely affected by this terrorising weapon, yet the “free media” hardly mentions this Western terrorism. Such sparse coverage brings into question partisan loyalties or patriotism in league with religion endemic within the media.
Turning now to religions. They have always governed through terrors of Hell’s torments or Heaven’s rejection. On these bases their histories and present day activities are riddled with terrorising wars usually in the name of monotheism’s remaining god. But when did the media address this aspect of the terrorist problem? My research suggests that exchanging nationalism and religion for what I call “secular internationalism” will ultimately eliminate terror. The following briefly exemplifies that research, providing reasons to dismiss terrorism's twin causes.
There are still thousands of religions divided into over forty thousand sects, mainly Christian, Jewish and Islamic. Sects can only emerge through equally plausible interpretations of so called infallible texts, resulting in vehemently opposing doctrines. Now ask yourselves, do forty thousand sects testify to unambiguous texts? Certainly not. Therefore the question becomes, can an omnipotent mind (i.e. god) produce an ambiguous document with all its resultant wars and suffering. Not at all, therefore so called holy writ must be human products, thus God does not exist. To take religion seriously one has to ignore such logical deductions.
Today only those brainwashed from childhood or those denied objective examination of faiths, still believe the reality of a surviving monotheism. They fail to understand that monotheism is merely the remaining vestige of ancient superstition and polytheism.’ Perhaps such questions belong to tomorrows media, they certainly don’t feature currently.
Since nationalism and religion are terror’s principal causes, discussion of peripheral matters only turns attention from them. Before one allows another to dictate what god says or does, first insist they prove his existence through a similar code of reason used above.
For most people the above ideas, rather than being central to Thursday topic may seem disconnected. The truth is I doubt they will be seen as relevant for many years to come. Nevertheless I remain confident that one day the majority will connect Nationalism, Religion and conflict, thereby realising humanity’s escape route through “Secular Internationalism”.
Hugs and kisses, especially to your lovely girls,
Peter.
No comments:
Post a Comment