Tweet
I think the role of religion is just right in the game the way it is. Apart from worrying about offending people, the history of every religion shows that there is so much variation to the expression of a given religion, that it would be hard to stick to a given definition of its benefits or penalties, unless we went with the most conservative and orthodox interpretation.
As for dietary penalties, we assume that every adherent of a religion always follows the rules. Plus, the strictness of what people can and cannot do changes with the times. Imagine if the Catholic Church still excommunicated everyone who charged interest on loans! And as an aside, not eating something doesn't necessarily mean it's a food penalty: medieval Hindus probably got more caloric output from live cows in terms of milk, agricultural labor and fertilizer than Europeans did or do by eating them. And the Buddha allowed the eating of meat by his followers when received as alms.
Sectarian violence? It's possible, but not necessary in multi-religion societies. Look at the lack of substantial clashes between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan. Or, a Chinese person of the Tang era might have followed the dictates of Confucius, contemplated the Dao, and arranged for funeral rites at a Buddhist temple.
Most of the time, in history, when governments have promoted state religions, they have enforced all the rituals and petty rules of the religion but ignored the spirit of it. Under the officially Catholic Louis XIV, the sale and consumption of meat was forbidden during Lent, but that didn't keep him from having mistresses or waging senseless wars. The only exception to this might be Asoka, who may have actually tried to run his government according to Buddhism.
As for dietary penalties, we assume that every adherent of a religion always follows the rules. Plus, the strictness of what people can and cannot do changes with the times. Imagine if the Catholic Church still excommunicated everyone who charged interest on loans! And as an aside, not eating something doesn't necessarily mean it's a food penalty: medieval Hindus probably got more caloric output from live cows in terms of milk, agricultural labor and fertilizer than Europeans did or do by eating them. And the Buddha allowed the eating of meat by his followers when received as alms.
Sectarian violence? It's possible, but not necessary in multi-religion societies. Look at the lack of substantial clashes between Buddhism and Shinto in Japan. Or, a Chinese person of the Tang era might have followed the dictates of Confucius, contemplated the Dao, and arranged for funeral rites at a Buddhist temple.
Most of the time, in history, when governments have promoted state religions, they have enforced all the rituals and petty rules of the religion but ignored the spirit of it. Under the officially Catholic Louis XIV, the sale and consumption of meat was forbidden during Lent, but that didn't keep him from having mistresses or waging senseless wars. The only exception to this might be Asoka, who may have actually tried to run his government according to Buddhism.
Comment