A matter of belief and principles: reasonable tolerance (vegans)

[erislover]

I know of a couple, in their fifties now, who have been happily married for well over twenty years. The female of the couple is a Catholic, and the male is Jewish.

I know of another couple, married for only a few years now, who are also happy. This female is also Catholic, and the male is an atheist. Militant, well, sort of, actually.

My best friend is dating a vegan. He is, like most people, an omnivore. He recently got in a rather large fight with his girlfriend regarding the issue of eating meat and she almost left him because of it.

Now, I thought that was absurd, and cited the first two couples mentioend to demosntrate that fact. But today the thought struck me: is this reasonable? Which of the couples are reasonable?

I would not marry a single mother who beat her child by simply saying, "Well, I do not beat the child, and that is all that really matters." I would not be friends with someone who owned a slave and tell myself, "So long as I do not have a slave, that is what is important." And from what I understand the notion behind being a vegan is that using animals as a food source is inherently cruel. So why should I expect a vegan to tolerate my eating of meat? In what way would I consider that reasonable if I accepted their reasoning and/or assumptions? It would seem that they would be a hypocrite if they did anything else. Wouldn't it?

But then I wonder, why should a Jew tolerate a Catholic? It seems unimaginable in the context of religious truth. Can we assume that they aren't practicing their religion if they live together?

In my mind, it seems, all three couples cannot be "reasonable" simultaneously. Are they?

[sjc]

I live with several vegans in a group housing situation. They are really wonderful people and they are very tolerant, but there are limits to their toleration. This is something I understand. You bring up a good point in comparing the situation to having an abusive mother or a slave owner as a potential long term partner.

As I said, the vegans I live with are very tolerant of other people's eating habits and have no problem being good friends with people (like me) who do eat animal products, but none of them could have a serious relationship (read potential spouse) with someone who wasn't vegan. Or in any case their potential spouse would have to be extremely conscious and conscientious about their eating habits.

I really don't like it when people are intolerant because it cuts you off from other people. But when you get down to who you plan to spend the rest of your life with, who you are going to discuss your problems with after work, it does seem like you have to be picky.

It seems that if you hold strong moral beliefs about something you really can't expect to be happy marrying someone who transgresses those beliefs unless one of you changes. Or maybe not, I don't know. This is just a guess.

[p@cific@812]

The issue here is tolerance. Maybe the Catholic wife doesn't agree with the atheist husband's views on religion. Does she demand that he change to suit her? Apparently not. I guess these couples are only unreasonable if the ideologies they follow actively discourage relations with those having dissimilar beliefs.

insensitivity level rising:
Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals-- why are they made out of meat!?

[Eonwe]

It's the difference between an absolute morality, and accepting that other people might live with a different moral code than you.

IMO, a spouse who eats meat would bother me much less than one who was a jerk, made me cry or get upset often, who had problems with honesty, or who didn't respect me. (note: I am imagining I am a vegan... confirmed omnivore here). The thing about veganism is that it is really a radical moral/political position, and most people in the world do not ascribe to its tennets. So, either you truly are mad at most of the rest of the world, or you accept other people for who they are, and accept that they look at things a little differently than you.

That being said, it's all really about what's important to you. If someone else's faith is more important to you than love, you wouldn't marry someone of a different faith. If someone else's views on the rights of animals to not be eaten by people and to not have any of their "products" co-opted by people is more important to you than love, then don't marry someone who isn't vegan.

But, if that's true, it'd also be respectful and responsible of you to not get into a relationship with someone of different views. If you know you can't be long term with someone who eats meat, it's not fair to get involved with an omnivore and then blow up at him/her later because of it.

[Gozu]

My wife is vegan. I am an omnivore. She is Atheist. I am Muslim.

*waits for general shock...still waiting...coughs nervously..anyways!*

In my case, i was the one bothered by her being vegan. It just seemed stupid to me (i've only met 3 vegans in my life so far here being one of them) because of her reasons. I could understand not eating meat. But depriving yourself of delicious cheese, butter and yogurts? HERESY!!!

Anyways, she told me that those animals lived in awful conditions so i backed off. (But aren't there some farms where the animals actually live happy and eat grass and all that?

I grew used to it and the only things that still bothers me today is that she can't always enjoy a good meal when we go to certain restaurants (I love sushi...) and that most of my delicious native country's dishes have meat in them so she will never be able to try them.

but i'm waaaaay off topic here. (How did i manage?)

She has no problem with me eating meat, never really tried to "convert me" and she even buys and cooks meat for me. I WIN! HAHA!

If you ask me, it's the same for inter-religious couples. you just respect your partner's beliefs (it's really not hard). Believe it or not, i was going to submit this reply when i realized that we also had different religious beliefs. We never even discuss it. It's that easy to forget...

children are another issue if you are from different religions. what do you raise them to be? I am happily ignoring this whole issue on the basis of my young age and my lack of maturity.

[zev_steinhardt]

First couple - Jew & Catholic

I would have to imagine that they were not practicing at least one of their religions. It seems totally incongruous to me to, on one hand, go to your temple on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement) and ask forgivness for your sins of the previous year, and then turn around and go to church on Easter to celebrate the resurrection of one who died so that your sins would be forgiven. You cannot, IMHO, logically have both. If, OTOH, one or both are not practicing (and don't believe in the concept of Yom Kippur or the Crucifixtion) then they would be as two athiests or agnostics.

Second couple - Catholic & Athiest

With this couple too, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. Again, you have to ask the question of just how religious the woman is. If her religious faith is really strong, I don't see how she could live with someone who doesn't accept Jesus as their Saviour. Could you, in good conciense, live with someone as husband and wife when you know that they are doing wrong every minute? With regard to him, he's being perfectly rational. To him, this is a superstition. He wouldn't reject her if she threw salt over her shoulder every time she spilled it.

Third couple - Vegan and meat-eater

With this third couple, you have to ask this question: why is she a Vegan? Is she a Vegan because she simply believes it to be a more healthy lifestyle; or is she a Vegan because she believes that eating meat and using animal products is fundamentally wrong. If the former, then that couple is being reasonable. It would be no different from an exercise freak marrying a lazy person. If the latter is true, however, then they may have problems. I know, from personal experience, I could not stand by and watch my wife eat a cheeseburger every day. Since I hold that (for Jews) such an action is fundamentally wrong, I could not sit back in silence and watch it happen every day. I suspect the same may be true here. If they are OK with this, then one of two things is probably true: (1) she may not really believe it is fundamentally wrong (even if she's unwilling to do it herself) or (2) she is willing to overlook fundamental wrongs committed by her life partner (which, if she has a conciense, I doubt would be true).

Zev Steinhardt

[Eve]

This is one of the many reasons why I am not married. I simply could not tolerate anyone who wasn't me.

[erislover]

Gozu, I didn't want to be the first to mention it, but in my friend's case that was exactly what she said: "How would we riase our children, if we had any?" She would not accept them being anything other than raised vegan.

Now, I don't understand not wanting to eat meat, either, but I also don't understand how they get the graphite in the pencils () so I'm not going to say that that lack of understanding implies her craziness, and the more I think about why she is a vegan, the more I think that she is being perfectly reasonable.

I eat meat because I like to eat meat, not because I have a principle which says I should eat meat. She doesn't eat meat because she has a principle that she shouldn't eat meat.

[reiterates slavery bit]

So I am beginning to understand her view. FWIW, she is tolerating the whole affair now much like the other couples mentioned, but I am beginning to wonder if maybe she was right in the first place (given that the very act of using animals in such a way constitutes real cruelty etc).

I am not trying to directly compare being a vegan with being a [religious group member], but rather saying that both do come with some rather stiff assumptions about behavior and truth and justice and so on, and that it has always seemed normal for me to tolerate the existence of Christians (for example), but the thought of veganism sort of irritates me (or, for that matter, making animal cruelty a felony offense!).

Now we have four people who seem irrational. I don't know much about Catholicism, but shouldn't the Jew be headed straight for Hell in the afterlife? If not, then let us construct a hypothetical couple wherein both of their belief systems dicate that their partner is going not going to be rewarded/go to hell/be reincarnated as a fly/etc. Are they being reasonable by living together and loving one another?

It seems one thing to tolerate Christianity from the comfort of my own atheism, but I don't have to live with one. All the moe strange, I have dated people from a few different backgrounds, some more serious than others, and in fact it never did come up. Does this mean our respective religious beliefs were simply not that strong?

There seems no room for tolerance in a belief system which dictates such absolutes as "We are right" and "all animal products are produced by cruelty". I call Christianity a belief because I don't "know" it. But I expect a Christian to know their God exists (else why else are they a Christian??). So how can one live and marry someone who deliberately and willfully denies that truth?

[reiterates slavery issue again]
Some issues seem so clear cut, and others seem clouded by tolerance. But if my belief system held that using or otherwise obtaining animal products invariably caused or was preceeded by acts of cruelty, I do not know if I could share the same bed as someone who would do such things. It would make me sick!

Now I feel like there is only one unreasonable person here: me!

[Eonwe]

Zev, I think you've over looked the fact that he could go to temple without his wife, and she could go to church without her husband.

Also, regarding the meat-eater and vegan, I agree with everything you say up until the parenthetical at the end: "which, if she has a conciense, I doubt would be true."

I think this really depends on how you define "fundamental wrong." If that means, "something you can't live with," then yeah, you're right. Why, though, could someone not live with "fundamental wrongs" being committed by his/her loved ones? If one could think of good reasons why someone else might not accept one's personal definition of fundamental wrongs, might that one not be able to accept those acts being done by others?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Eonwe
Zev, I think you've over looked the fact that he could go to temple without his wife, and she could go to church without her husband.

Yes, I did overlook that possibility. However, if they do go to temple/church without each other, and they truly believe in what thier religion represents (i.e. the church/temple is not just a "social club" to them), thenI don't see how they can, in an intellectually honest fashion, be together.

When people get married (and maybe I'm just projecting my view on to everyone else), they usually want to get married to someone who has the same outlook on life, the same goals and ideas about the world in general. If their religion is *truly* important to them, then I don't see how she could overlook his not accepting Jesus as a saviour, nor can I see his overlooking her deification of Jesus as a part of the Trinity.

Also, regarding the meat-eater and vegan, I agree with everything you say up until the parenthetical at the end: "which, if she has a conciense, I doubt would be true."

I think this really depends on how you define "fundamental wrong." If that means, "something you can't live with," then yeah, you're right. Why, though, could someone not live with "fundamental wrongs" being committed by his/her loved ones? If one could think of good reasons why someone else might not accept one's personal definition of fundamental wrongs, might that one not be able to accept those acts being done by others?

By "fundamental wrong" I mean something that is so basic that the thought of one's loved ones committing it could put irreperable strain on the marriage/relationship.

We can agree that murder is fundamentally wrong, can we not? I know that I could not live with my wife if she committed a cold-blood murder. I could not live with my wife if she were a traitor to the United States. To me, these are examples of "fundamental wrongs." These are things that are just too much to overlook in a relationship. If the Vegan *truly* believes that the act of eating meat is such a "fundamental wrong" (say, akin to murder) then how could she, in good conscience, remain with him?

Zev Steinhardt

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by erislover
If not, then let us construct a hypothetical couple wherein both of their belief systems dicate that their partner is going not going to be rewarded/go to hell/be reincarnated as a fly/etc. Are they being reasonable by living together and loving one another?

You're making a false assumption here. You're assuming that the only reason people keep to their religion is because of some eternal reward. If this were true, then your couple would be rational, simply choosing to take the benefits of the here and now at the expense of the hereafter -- much like a person who is getting drunk. They know that they are going to have a hell of a hangover later, but the drinking now feels good.

However, for most religious people, the eternal reward is NOT the reason for keeping the religion. They keep their religion simply becuase they believe that it is the right thing to do and the proper way to lead one's life. That being the case, IF the religions were completely incompatible (as is the case of Judaism and Christianity) then the couple would be either irrational or willfully blind.

It seems one thing to tolerate Christianity from the comfort of my own atheism, but I don't have to live with one. All the moe strange, I have dated people from a few different backgrounds, some more serious than others, and in fact it never did come up. Does this mean our respective religious beliefs were simply not that strong?

Possibly. Just to give a personal example, I would never have even considered dating a non-Jew, simply because I knew that I could never marry one. To me it made *that* much of a difference, simply becuase I wanted to set up a Jewish household and raise a Jewish family, something that would have been impossible with a non-Jewish woman. That's how strong my conviction was in the matter.

Zev Steinhardt

[Eonwe]

In regards to the vegan thing, I suppose I see your point.

As to the Catholic/Jew, I guess I'd just point to the number of individuals I know who are in mixed marriages and say that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I'm sure that if someone were very strongly Catholic or very strongly orthodox (I'm not sure which "branch" of Judaism you belong to) a mixed marriage would have very little chance of succeding. However, I don't think you can say that just because someone is willing to accept a spouse of a different faith that somehow their religion isn't truly important to them. To be honest, I don't see that being much different than telling someone, "well, you can't be my best friend 'cause you're not Jewish/Catholic/whatever."

Now, if kids came into the picture I can see it being a more sticky situation.

[erislover]

I make no assumptions as to why people have the religious belief they do, zev, only that the religion clearly states that something will happen after death. Don't read into that statement!

It is a fact that a Jehovas Witnesses believe that Hell is not a place but a state of non-existence. To a Jehovas Witness, it is a fact that those who do not accept Christ etc will exist in a state of non-existence for eternity after death (or judgement day or whatever). I don't care why they feel that way (in this thread), only that they do; ie- that they consider it a fact.

If it was a fact that most of your food-based behavior was founded in acts of cruelty, why would it be reasonable for me to live with you?

But it seems you pretty much agree with me otherwise, given your posts.

[nuffle]

Clearly, like most people, your religious couple friends are not totally dogmatic in their beliefs, and therefore they have room for tolerance.

If I were zealously religous (say Catholic) I would be scared poopless every day about the prospect of burning in hell. I would definitely devote my life to living as piously (or whatever my religion demanded) as I could and I would try my hardest to convince the people I cared about that they better straighten up too. If I couldn't, it would probably be splitsville. Some people are that way, and you can't really blame them. If you really thought it would keep you out of hell, wouldn YOU give away all your possessions and devote yourself to living the holy life?

Athiests have it easier. They (we) believe that rules should exist to make people (and perhaps animals and plants) live together more harmoniously. The penalty for breaking an athiest's personal rules is up that particular athiest, and so some athiests can live with "offenders" and some can't.

[Johanna]

I went vegetarian after nine years of marriage, and some years after that, went vegan. Mrs. M has remained a meat-eater. So what? We're more in love than ever after all these years. She cooks me delicious vegan food.

[Rhapsody]

First couple - Jew & Catholic

I would have to imagine that they were not practicing at least one of their religions. It seems totally incongruous to me to, on one hand, go to your temple on Yom Kippur (the Jewish Day of Atonement) and ask forgivness for your sins of the previous year, and then turn around and go to church on Easter to celebrate the resurrection of one who died so that your sins would be forgiven. You cannot, IMHO, logically have both. If, OTOH, one or both are not practicing (and don't believe in the concept of Yom Kippur or the Crucifixtion) then they would be as two athiests or agnostics.

I do not see these religions as being in conflict with each other. God already promised the jews heaven. Jesus is the path for non-jews. Neither is really in conflict with the other. There are of course differences in things such as someones adherence to being "kosher", but they are things that could be compromised on fairly easily without doing any religious harm to either. As for the children there would be no harm in allowing them equal exposure to each religion so that they can settle on what feels right to them.

[WV_Woman]

But then I wonder, why should a Jew tolerate a Catholic? It seems unimaginable in the context of religious truth. Can we assume that they aren't practicing their religion if they live together?

In the case of both couples, I'd say yes, we can assume that.

Marriage outside the faith is a no-no with Catholicism, and Judaism as well I think. How can you say that you follow the "rules" of your religion when you deliberately go against them? It's not like you can "accidentally" marry someone.

[Shade]

Originally posted by p@cific@812
insensitivity level rising:
Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals-- why are they made out of meat!? [/b]

insensitivity level rising further:
Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat people-- why are they made out of meat!? [/b]

I am vegetarian, though not as committed as I'd like, and am extrapolating to vegans:

Most vegans consider it wrong to eat/use/kill any animals at all, but have to compromise since this ideal is impossible to achieve. [Amateur psychologist] We have to be blocked out, the same way we do foriegn starving children. [/psychologist] Some people will see marrying a non-vegan an acceptible compromise. Some will not.

[RickJay]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
[b]But then I wonder, why should a Jew tolerate a Catholic? It seems unimaginable in the context of religious truth. Can we assume that they aren't practicing their religion if they live together?

In the case of both couples, I'd say yes, we can assume that.

Marriage outside the faith is a no-no with Catholicism

No, it's not. Who told you that?

I'm a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a Catholic church, with the Church's blessing. Wanna see the letter? The Church recognizes such weddings, has for years. Indeed, we were quite specifically told it would be sinful to coerce our spouses into converting.

[gigi]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
Marriage outside the faith is a no-no with Catholicism

Not true, although it is a cause for circumspection:

From the Catechism:

Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunityeven in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

Again, nuffle, don't proceed with the assumption that religious folks all follow their religion out of fear of hell. Reread what zev said above.

[gigi]

Originally posted by RickJay
The Church recognizes such weddings, has for years. Indeed, we were quite specifically told it would be sinful to coerce our spouses into converting.

Yep, no coercion, but perhaps free conversion, from my source above:

In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

Not saying it should, but the Church holds out hope. My mom converted to Catholicism when she was a teenager and married my father while he was still a Protestant . He converted soon after.

I am a practicing Catholic and I could only marry a non-Catholic if he hadn't made up his mind and was questioning. He would have to be willing to let me raise the kids (as many as we had naturally) Catholic and not take away from that at all and I think that's a tall, if not impossible, order. The whole celibacy until marriage thing could really weed them out though.

[gigi]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
Marriage outside the faith is a no-no with Catholicism

Not true, although it is a cause for circumspection:

From the Catechism:

Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunityeven in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

Again, nuffle, don't proceed with the assumption that religious folks all follow their religion out of fear of hell. Reread what zev said above.

[erislover]

Jomo, I think I addressed your "So what?" in my OP. If you went vegan for other reasons, though I cannot conceive of other compelling reasons to go vegan, than animal cruelty issues, then I don't know what else to say. You are outside the scope of my understanding of vegans, of those who I have met.

I am not disparaging a religion for tolerating the existence of other faiths, etc, but I am wondering how it is that someone who really believed these things could possibly be with someone who didn't.

I could never marry a person who insisted that water really boiled at 99.8 degrees centigrade, and all the thermometers in the world were wrong.

It just feels, to me, that it sort of trivializes my own thoughts and beliefs to just say, "Well, not everyone thinks that way. hidey-ho!" and carry on like it was no big deal. I mean, it is only unspeakable cruelty to other living creatures. It is only about the existence of your eternal soul. If anything is supposed to matter at all I would think those two would rank pretty high up there.

I understand tolerance because there are very few things I absolutely believe in. But I have no tolerance (well, rather, very little) for different opinions on what I do believe in (that is, what I know). I mean, that is why I say I know them.

"I know that Jesus Christ is my personal savior." Could I comfortably live with and build a life with anyone who thought differently? It isn't a matter of liking pepper more than salt, after all. It is about the eternity of your soul.

"I know that all animal products are obtained by acts of cruelty." This makes meat-eaters almost like lesser-cannibals. they relish in cruelty, and live of it, literally! If I knew this was a fact, I could not share my bed with a meat eater.

Perhaps I am not a christian because I mischaracterize the nature of religious knowledge? Am I totally wrong about why people become vegans in a general sense?

[gigi]

Originally posted by erislover
I understand tolerance because there are very few things I absolutely believe in. But I have no tolerance (well, rather, very little) for different opinions on what I do believe in (that is, what I know). I mean, that is why I say I know them.

This is a tough one in general, not to mention in the context of your spouse. It would be hard to have any friends if they had to believe what I do; even Catholic friends may not follow the tenets of the Church. I believe that an absolute Truth exists and would exist regardless of what people think, and I believe that I believe in that Truth. How do I approach friends who don't believe it, who don't understand the idea that there is one Truth, etc. Without compromising my beliefs, I can engage in some dialogue and/or steer clear of the discussion. I won't temper what I say out of some sense of being tolerant to others, but I don't believe I hurt anyone either. I am just steadfast in what I express.

This only becomes magnified in a relationship as close as marriage is and may become unbearable. There would have to be some sense that there is a common ground or respect for my beliefs so he would have to have similar ones or be questioning. An atheist who felt I was a superstitious delusional (not all would but I've seen some on these boards anyway) wouldn't have an acceptable level of respect for me in any case.

[robertliguori]

insensitivity level rising further:
Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat people-- why are they made out of meat!?

People have a tacit agreement with each other. I don't eat you all, and none of you all eat me.
'Sides, kuru is a bad thing.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Rhapsody


I do not see these religions as being in conflict with each other. God already promised the jews heaven. Jesus is the path for non-jews. Neither is really in conflict with the other.

I can think of several Christian groups who would disagree with you Rhapsody. The Southern Baptists have spent quite a bit of money trying to convert Jews. Historically, the Catholic church tried to get Jews to convert as well. If Jews are already promised heaven, why bother?

As an aside, if the Jews are already promised heaven, does that mean that they can go out rob, rape, steal and kill and still have heaven, even without accepting Jesus?

There are of course differences in things such as someones adherence to being "kosher", but they are things that could be compromised on fairly easily without doing any religious harm to either.

Not really. If you *truly* believe that God commanded you to only eat kosher, how can you compromise? What compromise can there be?

As for the children there would be no harm in allowing them equal exposure to each religion so that they can settle on what feels right to them.

Actually, in the eyes of Judaism (and I would suspect most Christian denominations as well -- if I'm wrong please correct me) there would be great harm.

From the Jewish POV, one of the worst things a Jew can do is to convert to another religion. It is one of the three commandments for which we are commanded to allow ourselves to be killed rather than violate. As such, allowing children to be exposed to other religions for the purpose of possibly allowing them to follow that religion would constitute a great harm.

I'm fairly certain that most ardent Christians would not want their children growing up without Jesus as their Saviour. Admittedly, I can't state that with certainty (not being a Christian), but I'm fairly certain that this is the case.

Zev Steinhardt

[Rhapsody]

As an aside, if the Jews are already promised heaven, does that mean that they can go out rob, rape, steal and kill and still have heaven, even without accepting Jesus?

God has promised a place in heaven for "his people". That does not mean though that just being of jewish origin wins you a place in heaven. Basically in the bible God lays out the rules for the jews and promises them that adherence to those rules will earn them a place in heaven. No such promise was made to the rest of us until Jesus came along.

Not really. If you *truly* believe that God commanded you to only eat kosher, how can you compromise? What compromise can there be?

I am speaking of the couple compromising to make things work NOT compromising their religion. A christian is in no way made less a christian by also adhering to a kosher diet, nor by simply respecting the kosher wishes of one even if they themselves do not eat a kosher diet.

From the Jewish POV, one of the worst things a Jew can do is to convert to another religion. It is one of the three commandments for which we are commanded to allow ourselves to be killed rather than violate. As such, allowing children to be exposed to other religions for the purpose of possibly allowing them to follow that religion would constitute a great harm.

Knowledge is never a bad thing. If judaism is threatened by the simple knowledge of other religions then perhaps judaism needs to have its own "truths" re-examined.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Rhapsody

Knowledge is never a bad thing. If judaism is threatened by the simple knowledge of other religions then perhaps judaism needs to have its own "truths" re-examined.

Knowledge can sometimes be a bad thing when we are dealing with children (which was the topic of converstion), who don't have the maturity to fully understand it.

I have a fair knowledge of Christianity and, as such, can reasonably compare and contrast it with Judaism. So, when someone makes the case to me that I should accept Jesus as my Saviour, I can rationally discuss with them (and argue) why I do not. My children, however, cannot do that. You can tell my five year old about Jesus, but she will not have the ability or maturity to understand *why* Jews reject him, nor do I think I can rationally explain it to her in a way that she will understand at this point. Maybe when she's a bit older. But until then, I see no need to confuse her by introducing her to other religions.

Likewise, I'm sure you don't see too many devout Christian parents telling thier kids to pick up copies of the Qur'an...

Zev Steinhardt

[the_great_dalmuti]

I can easily see how your friend found himself in an argument with his vegan girlfriend. If they're out on a date, and he orders something that contains animal products, she pops the question "do you respect me as a person?" Uh-oh. It's all downhill from there.

Myself, and most other vegans I know are vegan through and through. It's a lifestyle choice, not necessarily just a diet choice.

Personally, I can't possibly imagine myself with anyone but another vegan. To me, if you choose to eat meat, it inherently reflects something in your personality and belief structure which is 100% incompatable with the way I see the world. To you it's just a big, juicy porterhouse. To me, it's a dead cow that lived a terrible life, it's a plate of money that the meat industry can now use to further advertise its product to children, it's a huge waste of food and energy (why didn't you just east the original grain and soybeans, instead of filtering it through the cow first?), and it's unacceptable.

Is this intolerant? Sure. Is this intolerance necessarily a bad thing? Nope. As erislover put nicely, I'm merely living by my principles, and surely it's not unreasonable for me to want to live a long, happy life with someone who shares the same principles.

When my girlfriend and I met, all those years ago, we were both vegetarians. We just naturally started phasing out certain habits, and before we knew it, we were gung-ho vegans, and happier than ever.

One last point. Thank you, erislover, for saying:
I eat meat because I like to eat meat, not because I have a principle which says I should eat meat. She doesn't eat meat because she has a principle that she shouldn't eat meat.

This is huge, common discourtesy that many people don't afford to their vegetarian/vegan friends and acquaintances.

Even if you weren't religious, you wouldn't attend a friend's Catholic wedding wearing a baseball cap and a Slayer t-shirt. You wouldn't give your Jewish friend a tinned ham for her birthday. Also, you wouldn't necessarily bring a bottle of wine when your Quaker buddies invite you over for dinner.

Why? I would assume because you respect them as a person, and therefore respect the fact that they have beliefs which they choose to live by.

Now, imagine you're on a date with a vegan. Don't you think it would be polite to pass up the spare ribs and just order some cous cous . . . ?

Best,

TGD

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

People have a tacit agreement with each other. I don't eat you all, and none of you all eat me.

If that's your main reason for not eating people, I'm keeping you away from babies.

Daniel

[Odesio]

It isn't so much a matter of tolerance or love as it is a matter of compatibility. If your values differ to greatly it will probably cause some friction in the relationship. Despite what some may say love does not conquer all and a long term relationship is about more then love.

Vegans tend to have some pretty radical ideas about animal rights and what humans should eat. Can you imagine being a vegan married to a meat eater? You probably wouldn't appreciate your spouse frying up some bacon in the kitchen. I mean imagine the smell, the mess, the poor pig that died, and not to mention kissing a mouth that has partaken of innocent flesh. (And I don't mean that in a good way.) Let's not forget how frustrated the spouse will get when it comes to dietary disagreements.

Also, I think some of you really don't know what tolerance is all about. Refusing to date someone or marry them because of philosophical differences is not intolerant.

Marc

[erislover]

MGibson, this is precisely the issue, however. My initial reaction was that she should just get over it and have some tolerance. But the more I think about it, the more it seems that, from the position she holds, there is no way to be tolerant.

But I bring up the slavery issue not as a sly analogy but as a deliberate metaphor. Slavery, I think most agree, is inherently cruel.

[Lissla Lissar]

If I were zealously religous (say Catholic) I would be scared poopless every day about the prospect of burning in hell.

I am not moved, my God, to love you,
By the heaven you have promised me.
Neither does Hell, so feared, move me
To keep me from offending you...

It is your love that moves me, and in such a way,
That even if there were no heaven,
I would love you,
And even if there were no Hell,
I would fear you...
- St. Juan de la Cruz, 17th century Catholic saint and mystic. Loose translation of one of his poems.

[elelle]

I'm a long-time vegetarian, not vegan, though tend toward that viewpoint more and more as I learn the specifics of modern day animal husbandry. I view factory farms as being unecessarily cruel to animals, and so vote with my mouth. I eat small amounts of dairy, and eggs & honey occasionally, and buy them from small (local if possible) producers who treat the animals with some respect.

The slavery analogy is a good one, as the vegan perspective is that modern factory farming is an abuse of sentient beings, and abhorrent. This is a rather new idea in application of practice in human history, because it is easier to have that choice now, at least in the US. We ain't a starving nation, and it's pretty easy to find meat alternatives, with pre-packaged name brands even. It's still a new idea, though, which many don't understand.

Not too long ago, 130 years, human slavery of African-Americans was an accepted practice in this country, and those racial misperceptions are still felt. It took awhile for for people to see that was not appropriate behavior, it was cruelty. Perhaps the levels of cruelty perceived by a society are determined by the ability to survive and prosper beyond the basic need of that cruelty. I think that we are at a point that we can flourish without causing unecessary harm to animals, who I see as being sentient beings deserving of kind treatment.

As to the OP, kind treatment is my MO in relations with other folks. I was not raised as a vegetarian, but came to that after the same upbringing most Americans have had. Certainly had my fair share of pork chops, and remember that enjoyment. Don't care for it much now, but do understand where it comes from. I reached a different conclusion about kind treatment to all creatures than is the norm, now, but by the same precepts of kindness, am not going to tear into another's pholosophical jugular to satisfy my baser ego needs. I don't need that kind of eating.

Comparing vthe vegan principles to religious principles is apt , perhaps, in enthusiasm, but not in terms of long held practice. There is not a prophet, nor canon, for vegan protocol. It's new and weird. Most vegans don't have a church to back them up, so don't have the grace of long term authority, nor the glamour of established pageantry, so have to rely on their arguement and belief. The beliefs are in the formative stages, so less likely to be understood by a partner of differing belief. So, then the frustration beween a couple who differ in that regard, as opposed to a couple who differ in respects to established religions, would be more intense because of a floundering of established community support, to my mind. And then, there's the basic issue of going to the store everyday.

For me, if I were to the point of discovering another through love, I'd hope they'd understand my heartfelt beliefs, and I'd abide by theirs as well: talk long into the night, and try best to understand that, whatever goes down the gullet. Hopes this helps your understanding erislover [b]erislover[/B

[Johanna]

erislover, your ideas about what a vegan should or should not think are highly restricting, overly theoretical, and presuming too much. You have no idea what makes me tick and you're not doing a very good job of guessing.

I'm vegan for a combination of a variety of reasons, and one of them is to reduce cruelty to animals. Others include my own personal health, the impact on the environment, and the fact that I just plain like vegan food best of all.

If I were unmarried and thinking about marriage, I would prefer a vegetarian wife, that would be something to take into consideration. But your "theory" forgot to allow for the possibility of a person decided to go vegan after being married for years already. What do you expect me to do, dump her for cooking chicken once in a while? I already said we're in love. Amor vincit omnia. You tried to oversimplify and forgot to take all the complex, messy details of real human life into account. So your theory is excessively reductionistic.

[erislover]

Well, sorry for wonding, Jomo. Next time I'll be sure to not investigate any matters for fear that I might find out some new information on how people with vastly different ideas about behavior can live with each other. My deepest, most sarcastic apologies.

[Johanna]

erislover, you asked for information and I chipped in. Your response was to cast doubt on my contribution based on your preconceptions. If you were looking for information, you might have adjusted your theory to account for my experience. But it looked more as though you were only looking for data that would support your theory.

[Tristan]

Tolerance, to an adult, is a learned thing. To a child, it is natural.

I feel that to be with a Vegan, one must be tolerant of their wishes.... but in the same respect, the Vegan must be tolerant of my love of a steak done up rare with crispy fat.... Mmmmmm...

However, more and more I see less of that happening. People are so caught up in proving that they're right, that they forget about the person they are dealing with.

I respect all people, if they respect me. This isn't easy, as some pretty sad people have shown me respect.... and though it may be hard, I try to be tolerant of who they are and what they believe.

In the end, tolerance is also a personal thing. One can only be so tolerant, IMHO. If I find something abhorant, I will say so, in time, and I will not be tolerant of it.

The trick is that I find very VERY few things intolerable.

Maybe that's the trick, just not to be so hung up on things.

[gigi]

Originally posted by Tristan
Tolerance, to an adult, is a learned thing. To a child, it is natural.

Actually, I would think children are generally intolerant, in the sense that they are much more obvious about their perceptions of differentness. A group of homogenous children naturally picks on the different one among them. Respect is instilled and over time people grow out of the immaturity of focusing on "weirdnesses".

[Tristan]

gigi- I disagree. Observing my children interacting with other children has shown me that children (at least mine, and those I've seen them play with) may be aware of differences, but don't make a big deal out of it. Then again, it's an age thing... my daughter is six, and will play with ANYBODY. She could care less if the child was black, green, or paisley. One arm? No problem... she just won't play catch.

But later, I'm wondering if I will see that change as she spends more time away from us and more time with her friends in school. We'll see.

[erislover]

Maybe I am not understanding a vegan's concept of "cruel to animals" properly. If someone were to tell me that raising animals for food was inherently cruel, I would liken that (and I have, in this thread) to my own notion that slavery is inherently cruel.

And I would most emphatically not tolerate slavery. That is, quite simply, something i do not tolerate.

Given this, then, I swung 'round and determined that my friend's gf was being reasonable. Should I encounter a slaveowner that I cared for I would demand something entirely similar. But, again, this already assumes there is a similarity there.

Given that this quality is there, I cannot understand how tolerance could ever even be considered. This is why I ask: was she being reasonable or not? Jomo, we certainly clashed here, but you see, I don't understand being a vegan at all other than what I hear. And you've even repeated it.

I'm vegan for a combination of a variety of reasons, and one of them is to reduce cruelty to animals.

Yes, and from what I understand, that is the key factor which seperates a vegan from other brands of vegetarian. I know several vegetarians who could care less about animal cruety (at least, it is and was not their motivation for their dietary choice at all).

So when I see the word "cruelty" used as a foundation for a behavioral choice, and I do not understand the application of "cruetly" there nor do I understand the behavior, then I have to liken it to something I do understand, which is the cruelty that something like slavery represents. And on the contrary side, I thought of religions which tolerate each others' existence even though they were more or less fundamentally opposed on many, many different topics. I do not understand how a practicing Jew and a practicing Catholic can live together, much like I do not understand how a vegan and an omnivore can live together, much like I do not understand how a slave-owner and an someone opposed to slavery (shall we say, fundamentally opposed?) could live together.

Now, again, the two have worked things out, and he is free to stay with her provided that he doesn't eat or bring meat in the house, and that he doesn't order it in etc, and similar behavior. But the only thing I can grasp in this context is the slavery issue, and I still wouldn't accept living with a slave-owner on analogous grounds.

So, please accept my non-sarcastic apology here, and let's start this over. Where do my misconceptions, in your case, lie? How can you stand to live with someone who eats meat?

[the_great_dalmuti]

erislover, to answer your questions:

"This is why I ask: was she being reasonable or not" and
"How can you stand to live with someone who eats meat?"

I believe that it is very, very reasonable for her to expect her boyfriend to live up to her demands. Everyone does that, to some extent. Some people refuse to date smokers, or someone who drinks etc. If he cares about her enough, he'll change/act accordingly in order to show that he respects her and her ideas.

But, I frankly don't understand how a vegan could date an omnivore. (Though it's a whole different story if one member of an established couple decides to stop eating meat, but that topic's already been covered, so I won't go into it)

I think you're correct, and very brave, to make the slavery analogy. I think if more people really thought about their habit of eating meat, they would come up with many, many contradictions in their own lives.

"Save the whales, eat the cows." "Don't tease my pet cat, but be sure to give your money to companies who torture and slaughter millions of chickens." "Wash your hands before eating your bacteria and feces-laced hamburger." "I would never own a fur coat, but take a look at my swanky new leather pants . . ."

Also, if you want to further understand the "cruelty" vegans and vegetarians speak of, check out this (admittedly slanted) site.

There can be any number of assorted reasons why one chooses to go vegan. There's usually no "one" supreme reason, but rather a mixture of the following:

1. Not supporting companies who torture and slaughter animals ie Animal Rights
2. Not supporting companies who advocate the use of synthetic hormones and chemicals in their products
3. It's been proven to reduce the change of contracting serious disease - ie Health Reasons
4. Environmental reasons (includes everthing from GMOs to pesticides to overuse of water to soil degredation)

So, I'm still not really sure where you're going with your questions. (Nicely and not at all trying to be sarcastic . . .) Where is this leading ?

You said: "Maybe I am not understanding a vegan's concept of "cruel to animals" properly. If someone were to tell me that raising animals for food was inherently cruel, I would liken that (and I have, in this thread) to my own notion that slavery is inherently cruel. And I would most emphatically not tolerate slavery. That is, quite simply, something i do not tolerate."

So, I guess the big question is: Then why do you tolerate eating meat? How can you justify/tolerate your own, personal choice of supporting and engaging in something you feel is akin to (comparable to in terms of cruelty) slavery?


Best,

TGD

[erislover]

Oh, I am not looking for a pro-vegan argument. I simply eat meat because it tastes good, and in the general case, I do not care about animals at all.

I'm looking to understand why it is that someone might expect a vegan to simply deal with it. That, if they weren't to deal with it then they would be unreasonable. I don't expect a vegan to deal with it, and in that, I find their position reasonable.

So it isn't that I'm going anywhere, but rather looking to see where I am. Am I reasonable to agree with the intolerant vegan? I feel that I am, but that comes from my own notions of what it is to be vegan, which admittedly I do not understand any more than an atheist understands what it is like to believe in God. Which is to say, I recognize the sounds, but I'm not clear on the meaning.

[the_great_dalmuti]

Well, obviosuly, I think you're reasonable to agree with the intolerant vegan. But, that goes without saying . . .

So. Are you saying that you personally believe vegans are, in fact, more "moral" people than omnivores, and don't deserve to be called "unreasonable" or "intolerant"?

Now, are you talking about being sympathetic and understanding to vegans in general (as a way of life), or being understanding of a particular vegan, with whom you may find yourself going out to eat with?

Also, I don't think that comparing veganism with religions is the best analogy. Much better to equate veganism with a philosophical movement, a la feminism, environmentalism, or any other -ism that suits your fancy.

I'm sorry, I still can't really see what you're reaching for. Are you looking for reassurance? Are you looking for someone to villify vegans? Are you looking for some vegan recipes? I can't really tell. Please elaborate.

Best,

TGD

[erislover]

I am looking to answer the question: is it reasonable for the vegan to live with a meat eater? And, is it reasonable for a vegan to demand their SO stop eating meat?

I only brought up religion because that is what first came to my mind. "If a catholic and a jew can live together happily, I am sure she could manage to stay with you" [to my friend]. To be honest, I still feel that that makes sense, except to say that now I am sort of in amazement at the catholic and the jew instead of the other way around.

So somewhere, my thinking is muddled? Thus, I am also thinking of the question: is the opposite of a reasonable notion on tolerance also reasonable? In the case of slavery, the only thing I know to compare this to, it would not be (to me). So where I once shook my head at the crazy vegan, I now shake my head at the crazy catholic+jew. How can they tolerate it reasonably?—it is as if they didn't come to their beliefs through reason, nor hold them for reason, but that they just are and others aren't and so what... (which is why I wondered if they were really practicing their faiths... in what situation could they be said to be practicing their religion if they behave in this fashion?).

I don't want to say whether one is more moral than another, but rather, does it make sense to say that a vegan who insists their SO stop eating meat is unreasonable? The answer seems to lean toward the "no" side, and this feels right to me, but then I would like to know, is it then reasonable for a vegan to live with a meat-eater and not demand they stop (ie—the vegan "tolerates" the omnivore)?

The two cases seem to me, as they seem to seem to you, the_great_dalmuti, to be mutually exclusive. But we have at least once specific instance where a person does tolerate that behavior from an SO. And I should like to say: this is a reasonable person.

So what's the reason? What have I failed to understand that I cannot accept the opposite of reasonable as reasonable? (I do not intend for that to sound like an obvious contradiction, but it does, and I apologize for that phrasing yet can think of no other)

[Count Trari de Reeson]

My wife and two teenage stepchildren are almost vegans (they do eat some cheeses). Even though my wife is a vegan for religious reasons she has no problem that I like meat. I rarely eat it at home though because it would mean preparing two meals. When we go out together for dinner I will order a rare and bloody steak sometimes. I don't feel badly about this because I don't have the same religious convictions as she, and she doesn't hold that against me. My wife also knows that meat tastes good so if I want to jeopardize my place in the next life she knows it is my choice.