A buddy of mine ate dog soup in Korea. That’s where I got it from. So imagine the guest is Korean and he loves dog soup.
I agree at this point a “social apology” is probably the best course.
I noticed that hasn’t been commented on (maybe because it’s obvious to everyone else):
Although you knew eating meat was abhorrent to them, you didn’t know that paying for someone else’s meat meal was just as abhorrent. Perhaps at the time the host thought you did know (because of your choice of meal) and you told your husband, but he didn’t care. Maybe that’s where he got the “maneuvered” idea.
All? How exactly was he “forced”? So he would have paid some social price. Apparently that was more abhorrent than the alternative.
By his own logic, he did commit a sin - his choice, his problem, his bad karma.
I say do your husband a favor. Keep the lady as your friend, but just make her one of those friends you hang with when you have “ladies” night out.
I’d hate to speak for your husband, having never met him, but I’m going to go out on a vine and say he probably doesn’t have a whole lot of fun hanging out with veggie boy.
Jeesh! how pretetious…
Just popping in to retract what I said about PHtJ being a control freak. I didn’t realize there was such a wide cultural gap. Carry on.
Being rude to his guests would have been worse karma than paying for the meal. It was literally a “lesser-of-two-evils” situation.
You’re assuming that SbS’s husband feels that he was the cause of someone elses pain. Its already been stated that he thinks he did nothing wrong and has nothing to apologize for. If I inadvertantly step on someone’s foot and they yell “ouch”, I apologize. If it was someone else that stepped on their foot but they think it was me, I don’t apologize just to comfort another person. What’s the downside for apologizing for things that aren’t my fault? I like to look at myself in the mirror and like who I am. I don’t think I (or anyone else) can honestly do that if they go around apologizing for things they don’t believe is their fault, but do it so they can comfort other people.
I hope that made some sense. I’m tired and need some sleep.
I don’t think SBS’s husband needs to apologize either, but since the Jain has not asked for an apology, why is it an issue?
I think the Jain dude is getting railroaded a little bit in this thread when all he really did was blow off some steam to his wife. It doesn’t sound like he’s holding a grudge or that he even intended for SBS and her husband to know he had been offended. I think we should cut the guy some slack.
How is he “pretentious?” It’s a religious belief that he not eat meat, nor support the slaughter of animals by paying for it.
milroyj-are you deliberately being nasty? Vegetarianism is NOT a “fetish”. Let’s say I invite you to dinner, and serve a salad and fettucine alfredo, with cheesecake for dessert. That’s a vegetarian meal. Did I just push my “crazy fetish beliefs” on you?* :rolleyes:
It basically sounds like the whole situation was one big misunderstanding. SbS Hubby perhaps could say, the next time he sees this guy, “Hey, I’m sorry-I wasn’t aware of your beliefs, and I honestly didn’t know that you couldn’t pay for a meat dish.” And PHtJ could say, “Thanks, and for what it’s worth, I shouldn’t have assumed you knew about it. I probably should have mentioned it before hand.”
See? That’s all. BTW, those who are claiming that PHtJ shouldn’t assume that SbS Hubby intentionally sought to make him commit an offense, aren’t you doing the same thing by attributing malice to PHtJ?
Just sayin’, is all.
*Note, I’m not actually a vegetarian
I don’t know that anybody’s saying PHtJ is malicious, Guin, just that he’s been unreasonable. There’s rather a difference, you know.
Unreasonable to who? The only person he said anything to was his wife. Cripes, can’t a couple talk behind another couple’s back anymore? 
Not if one of 'em’s gonna immediately turn around and tell the other couple what was said.
And yeah, I tend to think that automatically assuming the worst about your wife’s friends in the absence of actual evidence of bad intentions is fairly unreasonable. I also tend to think that I wouldn’t enjoy social outings with someone who automatically assumes that I’m a big ol’ jerk. That’s just me, though, ymmv.
Who’da thunk this OP would generate over 90 posts? Man, we gotta get lives, people!
Ones religious belief does not make one pretentious. Expecting people to only order certain items off the menu is. And if the guy is so gung ho about not suporting the slaughter of animals, then what the hell was he doing at a restraunt that served meat anyway? I mean the dude can order all the veggie plates in the world from this restraunt and still help this restraunt stay in bussiness. A restraunt that gasp serves meat.
This alone leads me to believe that the guy REALLY wasn’t upset that he had to pay for a meat dish, but rather the husband wasn’t caving (or one could say agreeing ) to his philosophical beliefs. Which would be absolutely pretentious.
This is not entirely true, kharmic consequences are subtle and can be shared and interlinked and are not exclusive to an individual, in fact, this is a serious chain of kharmic cause and effect that directly ties the Jain to the suffering and death of a living being. Polly, Polly’s husband, Starved’s Hubby, Starved and even WE are all involved in the Kharma of this incident. There is only ONE. We are not seperated from anything in existence. We are meant to bring an end to Kharma by helping others extricate themselves from it as well, by Buddha’s example (JC’s example serves well also.). We are responsible for another’s Kharma and our own very well may depend on theirs.
The way to stop this Kharmic effect for Polly’s husband and Starved’s husband and generate a positivity and an end to this Kharmic chain could involve a sort of an “act of attrition” (perhaps he could adhere to Jain customs for a day and consciously avoid being involved in the harming or killing of anything.) or maybe, simply an enlightened realization from Starved’s Husband, in deference to Jain beliefs might generate something miraculous. The chain can be broken and there is an end to suffering. I’d ask Polly’s husband how best according to his beliefs you could help rectify this.
LOVE and RIGHT ACTION.
Small ripples…
You beat me to it. But I was going to use a grilled cheese sandwich and cream of tomato soup and salad for lunch, or else Macaroni and Cheese with cole slaw, or spaghetti marinara, or egg salad sandwich or a cheese omlette or . . .
There are a lot of main dishes (or dishes that are often used as main dishes) that do not contain meat. Odds are that most people have actually been served a completely meatless meal and they didn’t think twice about it at the time. Look at the examples above. You mean if someone you knew served you any of those yummy-sounding dishes that you’d freak out and call them a “fetishist” because they dared not serve you meat at every meal? Come on. Give me a break.
Regarding the OP: I agree that it’s mostly a misunderstanding. The OP’s husband did nothing wrong and he should not apologize. I think that asking for more open discussion so that no more misunderstandings occur seems to be the better way to go.
I figured that there might not be, that’s why I put God in quotes. It was a figure of speech, just to show the absurdity of the guy’s position.
He is not “simply being in the presence of someone else who is eating meat”, he is friends with him. If I just stand next to Ted Bundy in the train, then it is not my fault, but if I become friends with Ted Bundy, knowing fully well what he does, then I am ethically to blame.
Yes, it is logically inconsistent, and just because other religions are also inconsistent, doesn’t mean we have to give Jainism a free pass.
If you two want to exchange apologies, you may do so, but this will be dropped now.
That would be the ultimate in bad form. You simply don’t invite people out to dinner AND try to dictate what they eat. He’s welcome to his own views on meat, but the only place he can actually control the consumption of it is in his own home.
No way. The other guy should apologize for being a self-righteous jerk. Find something else to do other than consume food with this guy.
Assuming that’s true, it’s still his problem.
SbS’s husband is right, but, to repeat, a “social apology” is probably the best course.
I see. The other guy’s a jerk for having “absurd” religious beliefs. Very nice.
That’s not how it works in Jainism. And dining with a carnivore is not in the same karmic ball park as befriending a serial killer.
What do you mean by “give it a free pass?” The guy has not asked for anything. He TOOK responsibility. He wasn’t happy about it but he kept it to himself, so what’s the big deal? What did he do that was jerkish?