Serendipitous enlightenment

Sometimes, casual talk can lead to serendipitous enlightenment ...

I have in mind the recent exchanges between AB, Ur and myself on relating to someone of a certain professed religion.

From their POVs, as I understand what they stated, a person is a person in his own right, and what he likes/dislikes, can/cannot, are not defined by his professed religion.

To a certain extent, I concur.

After all, no one who knows her would say a vorpal-sharp sword would be a most unsuitable present for a certain Imperial Marshal MKY, just because she's a lady.

The fault here would be in the assumption that girls don't like weapons.

Besides the fact that such stereotypes are on the decline, in the first place, there is never such a rule, unless one subscribes to the Victorian "Guide for well-bred ladies" or 班昭's 《女诫》, which I'm quite aware MKY does not (but do correct me if I'm wrong).

But what about when someone is supposed to be a Muslim?  Could we as friends, simply treat him to a beer when AFAIK, alcohol is supposed to be prohibited?  Even though we know the chappy does take an occassional Tiger himself?

Well, there's really 2 answers the chappy himself could give to clarify his own position.

1. It's a general misconception that his religion prohibits alcohol consumption, or at least, the version of the religion he personally subscribes to.

This is quite a normal thing.  Misconceptions abound. The charge that Catholics worship the Virgin Mary came from Protestants.  There're some stout defence against the charge that Confucianism denigrates women.  Happens all the time, folks.

2. It's not a misconception, the chappy is flouting the rules he's supposed to follow, he knows it.

Well, it's really rules he's supposed to follow, not you or I, so there's no reason for us to be bothered about it.  We may not even agree with the rules themselves, right?

That's right.  But that's not the whole of it.

The context is not just religion, but certain obligations a person takes upon when he professes a certain ... path.

It could be a security guard who's not supposed to be smoking while on the job.

It could be a pilot who's not supposed to go scuba-diving the day before his flight.

The latter would have serious consequences on other people, but the former?  It might keep him awake better, or it might help him deal with the stress.  On the one hand, it harms no one.  On the other hand, it's none of our business, especially when his job got nothing to do with us.

But to me, if it's not a misconception about the expectations of the religion/job, then I won't be a party to any flouting of the rules.

Human beings don't live for the sake of obeying rules, but it is a certain matter duty, obligation and honour to stand by your word when you give it.

And if you can't or won't, except for mitigating circumstances, then please do not profess that faith or take up that job.

But hold on, let's consider a scenario more serious.

You got a girl from a certain religious family whose religion dictates the parents decide who she marries.

She's not ready to renounce the traditional religion of her family, but she doesn't want to marry according to her parents' wishes.

Do I tell her unless she repudiate her religion, I won't help her but expect her to conform?

Heck no, if this is not a mitigating circumstance, then I don't know what is.

Do I now set myself up as a judge to decide when a person should follow /respect his religion and when he should be exempted?

That's one way to look at it.

But I look at it as Primum non noce, the Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm".

It won't harm the Tiger-loving Muslim if I buy everyone else one but a non-alcoholic drink for him, if his explanation is #2.

But the hypothetical girl might well come to harm if no one helps her.

But why make things complicated with these labels?

If Primum non noce is the issue, then buying the guy a Tiger won't really harm him either, right?

True, to a certain extent.

Whether he feels any guilt is his own affair.  The other members of his religious community might feel differently about the gesture from *me*, though that is not the most significant issue.

More crucially, I'll feel the guilt for abetting him flout something he knows he's not supposed to, over something that I feel is not worth it.