LogFAQs > #914725920

People might feel a moral imperative to not eat meat- for example, or perhaps they might find some personal ethical reasoning to not drink alcohol or participate in something else. When people claim that something is not within their capability because of religious reasons it's dropped almost immediately out of respect. If the same situation is encountered and someone declines because of their own personal ethical/moral imperatives or inclinations they are often met with a rebuttal and challenged by a person or group.

Shouldn't these two hold the same weight? Both are constructed as a means to help guide people through life or whatever, yet because of niceties and standards religious imperatives often can not be challenged as it would be disrespectful.

Anyways at the risk of saying the obvious above...

Should 'it's against my ethics' hold as much weight as 'it's against my religion'? Should both be allowed to be challenged without the risk of appearing to violate a norm? Should niceties be afforded to those who abstain from something outside of religious reasoning instead (mind your own business, etc)?

Have you ever been met with a rebuttal or challenge because you've plainly stated that you abstain from something (in person)?
---

http://www.last.fm/user/walkingishonest