Veganism is a religion

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Thedimon, Sep 9, 2018.

  1. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    8,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I came across a post on Facebook where a woman was pictured in front of animals she slaughtered. She was very proud because she raised these animals, slaughtered them and was saying that she was preparing for her wedding to feed all guests with fresh own lamb.
    When I started reading posts under that photo I was disgusted with a bunch of vegans literally wishing her marriage to fall apart, to never reproduce, have all kinds of diseases and some even openly threatened her.
    It seems to me veganism pretty much turned into a religion. You have people talking about 21 century and modern technology and the. In the next sentence they wish someone they don’t even know to die.
    Granted, posting a picture of self with a bloodied knife and two animals in pools of their own blood is not very wise, it still does not warrant such aggression from others. I went there planning to post an opinion that she probably shouldn’t put something like that online and ended up fighting with a bunch of vegans who were just throwing insults at anyone who disagreed with them.
    I also personally know one vegan who is extremely aggressive online, doesn’t even shy away from calling people that he knows idiots for eating meat.
    I’m almost thinking - could it be that lack of meat in someone’s diet causes a spike in aggression? I’ve never seen such toxic posts from anyone, but vegans (and on Facebook no one is truly anonymous). Even Jews are fairly respectful when you question Israel - you might get an insult (call you an idiot or a retard) but at least they won’t wish your whole family to die.
    Any thoughts on this phenomenon?
    To me it seems like veganism is becoming some kind of extremist religion. I can’t think of any followers of other disciplines that could become as aggressive as vegans. The distant second in that rating are probably feminists, and even those could be somehow reasoned with.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  2. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've always thought so. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s not what something being a religion means, even metaphorically. Literally religion is a set of rules and practices, usually with some form of spiritual basis while metaphorically it can be a committed following of pretty much anything (such as a sport or a hobby). Neither necessarily involves the kind of aggression and opposition that you describe here so I don’t think the label is appropriate to use in this context. It just strikes me as an attempt to discredit two disliked groups by mutual association.

    That isn’t the say the behaviour you described shouldn’t be condemned, but only in the individuals who are actually guilty of it. That vast majority of vegans do nothing close to what you describe and there is no justification in condemning millions of individuals all around the world because of the actions of a tiny minority (and that presumes all of those anonymous people are actually vegan of course).
     
  4. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Not for Colin it isn't that's why he sold out to Nike a manufacturer of leather goods.

    Until Colin came along I never thought you would see a vegan promoting leather goods. It's like a Muslim advertising bacon!
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
    Canell likes this.
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    vegan? most certainly is at a minimum a part of their religion and yes could be their religion as a whole as well.

    where did you come up with that?



    Swine were prohibited in ancient Syria[1] and Phoenicia,[2] and the pig and its flesh represented a taboo observed, Strabo noted, at Comana in Pontus.[3] A lost poem of Hermesianax, reported centuries later by the traveller Pausanias, reported an etiological myth of Attis destroyed by a supernatural boar to account for the fact that "in consequence of these events the Galatians who inhabit Pessinous do not touch pork".[4] Concerning Abrahamic religions, clear restrictions exist in Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut) and in Islamic dietary laws (Halal).

    Although Christianity is also an Abrahamic religion, most of its adherents are permitted to consume pork – justified by Peter's vision of a sheet with animals and several verses of the New Testament which guides Christians with the Good News of the Gospels. Since Christianity lost most of its roots from Judaism, Christians are not bound to some restrictions of Mosaic Law. However, Seventh-day Adventists consider pork taboo, along with other foods forbidden by Jewish law. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church[5] does not permit pork consumption.


    Prohibitions in the Torah

    The Torah (Pentateuch) contains passages in Leviticus that lists the animals people are permitted to consume. It first notes what qualifies an animal that is absolutely permitted:

    Any animal that has a cloven hoof that is completely split into double hooves, and which brings up its cud that one you may eat.
    — Leviticus 11:3

    Animals that have cloven hooves and chew their cud are ruminants such as cows, sheep, and deer. This text does not specify every possible animal by name, only their behaviors.

    The text goes on to describe specific animals that are known and meet one, but not both, of those qualifications, thereby prohibiting their consumption. It does not elaborate on the exact reason for prohibition other than physical characteristics.

    Pigs are described in this section as prohibited because they have a cloven hoof but don't chew their cud.

    And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
    — Leviticus 11:7–8

    Deuteronomy expands on the list of permitted animals.

    You shall not eat any abomination.

    These are the animals that you may eat: ox, lamb, and kid,

    gazelle, deer, and antelope, ibex, chamois, bison, and giraffe.

    And every animal that has a split hoof and has a hoof cloven into two hoof sections, [and] chews the cud among the animals that you may eat.
    — Deuteronomy 14:3–6

    Deuteronomy reiterates what Leviticus states on pigs.

    And the pig, because it has a split hoof, but does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You shall neither eat of their flesh nor touch their carcass.
    — Deuteronomy 14:8

    Prohibitions in Islamic law

    One example of verses from the Quran on pig consumption:

    He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than God . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, God is Forgiving and Merciful.[6]

    Other

    Scottish pork taboo was Donald Alexander Mackenzie's phrase for discussing an aversion to pork among Scots, particularly Highlanders, which he believed stemmed from an ancient taboo. Several writers who confirm that there was a prejudice against pork, or a superstitious attitude toward pigs, do not see it in terms of a taboo related to an ancient cult. Any prejudice is generally agreed to have disappeared by 1800.
    Interpretations of restrictions

    The cultural materialistic anthropologist Marvin Harris thinks that the main reason for prohibiting consumption of pork was ecological-economical.[7] Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in the Middle East. Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean; and a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem.

    Extrapolating all of this into a modern scientific context, one could surmise that the very close relationship between humans and pigs[8] also makes them undesirable as food.

    It is speculated that chickens supplanted pigs as a more portable and efficient source of protein, leading to the religious restrictions.[9]

    Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher and legal codifier, who was also court physician to the Muslim sultan Saladin in the 12th century, understands the dietary laws chiefly as a means of keeping the body healthy. He argued that the meat of the forbidden animals, birds, and fish is unwholesome and indigestible. According to Maimonides, at first glance, this does not apply to pork, which does not appear to be harmful. Yet, Maimonides observes, the pig is a filthy animal and if swine were used for food, marketplaces and even houses would be dirtier than latrines.[10]

    Rashi (the primary Jewish commentator on the Bible and Talmud) lists the prohibition of pig as a law whose reason is not known, and may therefore be derided by others as making no sense.[11]

    The Chinuch Sefer HaChinuch[12] (an early work of Halachah) gives a general overview of the Jewish dietary laws. He writes "And if there are any reasons for the dietary laws which are unknown to us or those knowledgeable in the health field, do not wonder about them, for the true Healer that warns us against them is smarter than us, and smarter than the doctors".


    religion comes from religio, which means 'to bind', and may be spiritual, and may not. More often its bound to quality factors. Such as refraining from eating pork, and in this case all meat, also matters of conscience and so forth. Atheists refrain from belief for instance. These are all religious tenets.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
  6. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said veganism can’t be part of a religion and I didn’t even say it couldn’t be a religion, or at least a sole religious practice, in itself (though I’m not connived it ever is).

    I only stated that the actions of the (purported) vegans described in the OP don’t in and of themselves render veganism as (or even like) a religion. It’s basically just attacking a large group of people on the basis of the actions of a handful of extremists (a dangerous precedent for people posting on internet forums to set ;) ).
     
    RiaRaeb likes this.
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you went on to define religion however and your application to veganism was incorrect, since veganism as I have cited falls under the same umbrella as not eating pork, therefore is a religious tenet, and is not a metaphorical usage. You stated much more than what you claim to have 'only' stated.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
  8. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    An individual religious tenant is not the same thing as a religion. Just because a person is doing something that is a religious tenant doesn’t mean they’re doing it for religious reasons. Some people are vegan for religious reasons, some people are vegan for secular moral reasons and some people are vegan for health reasons. Only the first group are practising a religion by definition.
     
  9. Canell

    Canell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,269
    Likes Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, that will achievethe opposite effect - people disgusted of vegans, as yourself for example.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So then in your opinion it can only be a religion if some G/god forces you to do something or is the focus of your decision process?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2018
  11. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I have no idea how you got to that from anything I've said. You're so desperate to twist things in to your point of view that you're become detached from reality. I've no interest in discussing anything with you when you're doing that.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no one ever is when they contradict themselves, but I am happy you acknowledge the contradiction now that its been brought to your attention.
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you just misunderstood (or, based on past experience, wilfully misrepresented) what I said. I never mention gods in the statement you quoted. Belief in gods can often be an element of religion but it isn’t always the case and isn’t a requirement for the common-use definition of the word. I don't believe any gods exist but I do believe religion exists so I can't possible have intended to say that something can only be a religion when it is forced by a god.
     
  14. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you of the opinion that threats or ill-wishing is the defining characteristic of a religion? I see no problem with identifying things which some individuals of various groups have in common with religions, but to thereby say that they are religions seems to me to be muddying the water.
     
  15. Thedimon

    Thedimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2018
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    8,714
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To me, when a group of people throw similar talking points, and then when you disagree with them start with insults, that’s a sign of extremism. They don’t even hide on forums behind anonymous profiles and would go around the web and insult people they don’t even know, people who might live in a different country or a different continent.
    How can a group of people, who get a little orgasm every time they say 21st century and technology, resort to a bunch of vile insulting apes when you disagree with them? The only thing that’s wrong with them is their belief - vegans are better than anyone else, some even claim humans will split into two species and vegans will be more advanced than meat eaters. And that comes from people who sincerely believe they are smarter than anyone else.

    That’s what makes veganism religion to me.
     
  16. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If one sports team has a few backers who are really obnoxious and extreme, does that make being a fan of that team a religion?

    No. Same with veganism.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not at all, I fully understand, its that you dont understand what the words you use actually mean.


    Christian worldview. Christian worldview (also called Biblical worldview) refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which a Christian individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.
    Christian worldview - Wikipedia

    same goes for:

    Atheist worldview. Atheist worldview refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs through which a Atheist individual, group or culture interprets the world and interacts with it.
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This thread isn't about Christianity and atheism, it's about veganism. Please don't derail the OPs thread with your personal predilections.
     
  19. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well similarly, I'm not sure I'm buying that that is the defining characteristic of religion. That seems to me to make them extremists rather than religious. I mean, there are plenty of religious people of traditional religions who don't hold opinions as extreme as that, if that's what it takes to be religious, do you suggest that all those people aren't actually religious?
     
  20. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nike doesn't use leather. Leather is too expensive. They use cheap fake leather, and they charged prices usually reserved for real leather.
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My response isnt about Christianity either, you cant have it both ways, and its laughable to suggest that atheists have only one belief, and presume they have no system of beliefs.
    I am still waiting for your distinction between philosophy and religion.
    Thats why usage and context are so important. It is used metaphorically for sports borrowing the literal context to express highly focused, dedicated etc. but in the literal sense derives from conscience and value system.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2018
  22. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I have repeatedly told you, I’ve never said atheists have only one belief, I have told you atheism is only one belief. Two individuals could agree on the non-existence of gods but disagree on literally any other question you care to come up with.

    There’s a lot of cross over but philosophy will general be just a set of beliefs and principles while religion involves both beliefs and proscribed practices. Theism and atheism are individual beliefs while veganism (remember, the topic of the thread? ;) ) is an individual practice. They could all be part of a philosophy or religion but can’t form either.
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Care to quote it? It seems not to exist.
    Not proscribed, you do not need a legal organization to assign or demand your religious practices, you choose your religion.
    The proper word is rejected, maybe condemned.
    Nothing is 'part' of a philosophy since philosophy covers everything you or anyone else could ever imagine.

    Atheism is a religion in the sense that like theism there are beliefs and practices directly associated with it.
     
  24. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,841
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We’ve had this discussion in several previous threads. I’m not interested in searching any examples down.

    Proscribed could be a little strong in some cases but I think there is some implicit implication of organisation or structure. I guess it could apply to a personal and individual set of beliefs and practices but only if they’re consistently defined and followed. As a casual description of how an individual goes about their life, it doesn’t seem like the right word.

    It don’t see how. They’re almost opposites of proscribed and don’t fit with what either of us is saying.

    The two meanings are distinct. Philosophy can refer to the general study and understanding of “everything” while a philosophy can refer to a specific set of beliefs and opinions held by an individual or organisation. Companies, charities and political parties will often talk about “our philosophy” in their marketing materials for example.

    There are beliefs and practices “associated” with literally everything though. If your definition of a word boils down to “literally everything”, is it possible that definition might just be a little to generic? ;)

    In reality, there aren’t a lot of beliefs and even fewer practices commonly associated with everyone who could be defined as atheist and I don’t see how the idea that some atheists might have some common beliefs and practices automatically means all atheists are implicitly part of a religion can work. Again, your definition of the word religion means it could be applied to literally anything, rendering it effectively meaningless.

    Note that you can still have your negative opinions of people who don’t believe in any gods. You don’t need to call atheism a religion to express those opinions and it doesn’t actually do anything to help you support or justify them. :cool:
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    False, what makes you think I have negative opinions of the people? I am merely stating atheism is a religion no different than I claim agnosticism and the nones have a religion and I am agnostic.
    Are you trying to say I have negative opinions about myself too?
    You arent making sense, so people who have the same ideology iyo will not get along? Seems atheists here get along quite well.
    Not true, you said it earlier yourself, matters of conscience and value are religion and yes that is a huge group, nothing wrong with that what so ever, except to the statists who want the power to suppress everyones religion.
    religion is the practice of your beliefs, of value or conscience, if it came from philosophy or God, the source is irrelevant.
    Yes that is why I commented on your use of proscribed
    has nothing to do with consistently, only forced upon you like a statist would do.
    Oh well when you say we talked about it I look to the thread we are talking about it in.
     

Share This Page