Tolerance for other religions

[pael]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

[Luke]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

"Tolerance" doesn't have to mean just laying down and being passively silent about evil deeds. One should strongly discourage people from religious practices which harm living creatures, while being tolerant of the aspects of their religions which don't harm living beings.

[Johnny Dangerous]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

IMO, Don't be tolerant of animal sacrifice. It's an ugly practice. You don't have to go around trying to argue against it if that's not your thing, but from a Buddhist standpoint such a thing really can't be supported or encouraged. Of course it's not our place to mete out justice to others or convert them to our opinions, so it's probably enough just to say that you don't think it's a valid form of religious practice, and leave it at that. You don't have to have an issue with the whole religion to be clear on your feelings about animal sacrifice.

[Punya]

You can also have compassion for the deluded beings who are involved with animal sacrifice.

[Gyurme Kundrol]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

If you can be tolerant of your average person, then you can do this too. The reason is because average people have little respect for life in general. They may not be outright cruel, and they may not personally sacrifice goats, but many people eat meat that is effectively from tortured animals without any discrimination whatsoever. They smash bugs out of fear, anger or laziness. They might even kill various kinds of animals for various reasons. Fish and various mammals for the "sport" known as hunting. They might be perfectly OK supporting things like abortion.

The issue is that the way people are taught to think is to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in their mind, and on one side of that line is the "life that deserves to live" and on the other side of that line is the "life Ill take if I want because it doesnt deserve to live". The reasoning behind this is often that the things on the side of the line that dont deserve life "have no feelings" or because they "dont know whats happening to them". Actually confusion is far worse and more frightening than awareness. Dying in a state of confusion and ignorance is probably one of the worst things you could experience. Dying with awareness and knowledge... is at least much better! So their logic is demonstrably flawed in many ways, still your average person kills frequently and not even to please God, but just out of selfishness, ignorance and pride. In general religions that sacrifice have a positive intention, whereas your average person kills with a negative or neutral one.

[Kim O'Hara]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

Which religions are you thinking of?


Kim

[rory]

I see no moral difference between condemning the sacrificing of animals by various religions and then supporting the sacrifice of animals so you can eat them. Actually the former has a more noble intent.
gassho
Rory

[pael]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

Which religions are you thinking of?


Kim

Islam. I know they have good practices, too (Charity). I know they condemn terrorism.

[Luke]

I see no moral difference between condemning the sacrificing of animals by various religions and then supporting the sacrifice of animals so you can eat them. Actually the former has a more noble intent.

How so? How is wasting an animal by sacrificing it to an unseen entity more noble than killing an animal for food which will help people survive?

I would also like to remind you that thousands of insects are killed while harvesting vegetables. Vegetarians who think that they are not the causes of any death or suffering are deluding themselves.

[seeker242]

How you can be tolerant for religions which sacrifice animals to God/gods?

You can't be. Just like you can't be tolerant of people killing other people in the name of God. But, it depends first on how you define "tolerance" to begin with. What does it mean to be tolerant? What does it mean to be intolerant? These questions would need to be answered first in order to say what is appropriate or not.

For me living in South Florida, Santeria comes to mind. I think it would be entirely appropriate and within Buddhist ethics, to try to outlaw such practices. Trying to outlaw such practices would be bodhisattva action. Not only for the beings killed but also for the people doing the killing. By preventing people from engaging in killing, you would actually be helping them.

[Urgyen Dorje]

It's interesting. Most people seem to have plugged into the connotation of "tolerance" that is related to permissiveness and being non-judgemental and accepting. I plugged into the connotation of "tolerance" that is more related to forbearance and patience. It's not clear to me what the OP intended, though I doubted it was permissiveness as the trend in developed countries is to ban all forms of religious animal sacrifice.

I had to face this very question when I reconnected with an old friend from college, who is now a Santaria priestess. I practiced a lot of forbearance and patience, especially as this was somebody I once loved-- an ex gf.

[steveb1]

I'm not very good at tolerating, say, Christian fundamentalism. In days of old, most Christians were by necessity and by default, religious/biblical literalists. But times have changed. The Enlightenment, science, and modern critical literary and historical studies have shattered the old literalist naivete.

This is why I don't suffer fundamentalists gladly. They no longer live in days of old, but in a world in which science - real, hard science - has revealed "deep space", and more importantly for scriptural interpretation, "deep time". We now know that the earth and the star systems are ancient and vast in a way incomprehensible to the pre-scientific cultures that produced the Bible. NOT knowing that, or pretending not to know it, or knowing about all that data and simply ignoring it is not okay by any standard that I can think of. Pre-critical biblical naivete was de riguer in pre-scientific cultures; today, it is simply inexcusable. And I don't excuse it.

I might pity those who falsely believe that their salvation depends on biblical literalism, while I despise their arrogance in calling informed, educated people ignorant. That's how I see it, and I can't imagine changing my position without some huge intellectual/emotional upheaval that might overtake me...

[dreambow]

Steveb1, "while I despise their arrogance in calling informed, educated people ignorant" There arrogance stems not from browbeating so called educated people but more the point of being so sure that they and only they, have captured the truth.

[Kaccāni]

Rather sacrifice the animals, and then make a big feast, taking care that nothing is wasted, instead of senselessly killing them and hanging trophys. Or throwing stuff away in masses at supermarkets. Then there's at least awareness of what one is doing.

Best wishes
Kc

[Urgyen Dorje]

I've spent 30 years in the Deep South as an educator, 25 of them as a Buddhist. So I feel ya.

One thing I've learned is that fundamentalism has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. It's a world view, an intellectual style, a personal approach in itself. Some people like, want, no need, a lack fo space, a poverty of possibilities. Just write the answer on a piece of paper, and they can fold it in quarters and put it in their walllet, and yep, it's done.

I've seen people drop Christian fundamentalism to become athiest fundamentalists, and I've seen people go from Biblical literalism to Buddhist literalism. If that's how one approaches the world, it doesn't matter what one fills it with. I've even know what I'd call scientific fundamentalists who have no space for anything in life that isn't scientific.

It really has nothing to do with times or with science, it's a way of approaching the world based on fear and distrust.

I'm not very good at tolerating, say, Christian fundamentalism. In days of old, most Christians were by necessity and by default, religious/biblical literalists. But times have changed. The Enlightenment, science, and modern critical literary and historical studies have shattered the old literalist naivete.

This is why I don't suffer fundamentalists gladly. They no longer live in days of old, but in a world in which science - real, hard science - has revealed "deep space", and more importantly for scriptural interpretation, "deep time". We now know that the earth and the star systems are ancient and vast in a way incomprehensible to the pre-scientific cultures that produced the Bible. NOT knowing that, or pretending not to know it, or knowing about all that data and simply ignoring it is not okay by any standard that I can think of. Pre-critical biblical naivete was de riguer in pre-scientific cultures; today, it is simply inexcusable. And I don't excuse it.

I might pity those who falsely believe that their salvation depends on biblical literalism, while I despise their arrogance in calling informed, educated people ignorant. That's how I see it, and I can't imagine changing my position without some huge intellectual/emotional upheaval that might overtake me...

[Malcolm]

We now know that the earth and the star systems are ancient and vast in a way incomprehensible to the pre-scientific cultures...

Huh? Have you read the Mahābharata, or even the Pali Canon?

14 billion years is nothing compared to an Asamkhya kalpa.

To give you a picture, just check this wikipedia entry on kalpas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

[Malcolm]

We now know that the earth and the star systems are ancient and vast in a way incomprehensible to the pre-scientific cultures...

Huh? Have you read the Mahābharata, or even the Pali Canon?

14 billion years is nothing compared to an Asamkhya kalpa.

To give you a picture, just check this wikipedia entry on kalpas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

[Caodemarte]

Also living in South Florida I can tell you that Islam is not a problem (http://www.islamicconcern.com/sacrifice01.asp' The Sacrifice of "Eid al-Adha" AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE AGAINST ANIMAL SACRIFICE is informative in this regard). Variants of Santeria, as noted, and Voudon with the usual melange of superstitions are a problem. They are often the ideological sources for the rare remnants of animal sacrifice found in parks here.

[Urgyen Dorje]

It's interesting you say that, as it was a muslim who introduced me to vegetarianism and nonviolence towards animals (nonviolence in general). There is a long tradition of muslim vegetarians who see the animal sacrifices at Eid al-Adha as apostsy. Of course the fundies hate them. I'm pretty sure there are no variants of Santeria that don't rely on animal sacrifice, but I would be delighted to hear otherwise, as I hope my ex-gf isn't into that...

Also living in South Florida I can tell you that Islam is not a problem (http://www.islamicconcern.com/sacrifice01.asp' The Sacrifice of "Eid al-Adha" AN ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE AGAINST ANIMAL SACRIFICE is informative in this regard). Variants of Santeria, as noted, and Voudon with the usual melange of superstitions are a problem. They are often the ideological sources for the rare remnants of animal sacrifice found in parks here.

[Malcolm]

I'm pretty sure there are no variants of Santeria that don't rely on animal sacrifice...
]

Nope, none. It's chickens all the way down...