Shambo slaughter backed by court

[flute202020]

what do you guys think about this issue? Should shambo be saved? Is it correct to make an exception in this case? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6911378.stm Shambo slaughter backed by court Shambo the bullock is being kept in a special enclosure The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to block the slaughter of Shambo, the "sacred" temple bullock. The six-year-old animal, which is kept in a Carmarthenshire temple by Hindu monks, has tested positive for TB. The Skanda Vale community said it was "devastated" by the decision and vowed to continue to find ways of saving him. The Welsh Assembly Government said there was no timetable but it wanted to act with "the minimum of distress to the animal and its carers." The community has fought a hard campaign since the TB test returned positive in May, saying they were guarding against Shambo infecting other animals. But they have faced opposition from many quarters, including farmers, who say the diseased animal provides a threat to the spread of TB among their herds. We will now be looking to move forward but it is not possible to give any timetable at this stage Welsh assembly government A week ago, High Court judge Gary Hickinbottom ruled that destroying Shambo, which is being kept at the community in Llanpumsaint, would be unlawful. He said two slaughter orders had failed to give enough weight to the rights of the monks. But on Monday the appeal court in London upheld the assembly government's appeal. Lord Justice Pill, sitting with two judges who heard the case in Cardiff last week, said former rural affairs minister Jane Davidson acted lawfully when she refused to make an exception for Shambo as a sacred bull. The judge said: "I have come to the conclusion that the minister was entitled to make the decision she did in regard to the very considerable problem presented by bovine TB. Shambo is housed in a temple in the grounds of Skanda Vale "The decision to eliminate the risk by slaughter and not to permit an exception to the slaughter policy was, in my judgment, justified. He said the decision was justified even though Shambo's slaughter would be considered by the community as a sacrilegious act and "a very grave and serious interference with their religious rights". But reacting to the decision, Swami Suryananda of the Skanda Vale Temple said the latest court decision seriously disregarded the principal tenets of the Hindu religion. "We are devastated that an animal in our care might be taken away for slaughter, even though it hasn't yet been proven to be a threat to anyone. "We have consistently asked for other tests to be done to verify if Shambo does have bovine TB. 'Uniform approach' "It seems ridiculous to kill him and then carry out a post mortem to confirm if he does or does not have TB." Ramesh Kallidai, secretary general of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said killing Shambo would be a "grave desecration". He said: "To kill such an important symbol of the Hindu religion on the basis of a subjective and unreliable test is not only incomprehensible but also sacrilegious." However, NFU Cymru president Dai Davies welcomed the decision, saying there must be "consistency and a uniform approach to upholding the law". Mr Davies said: "As a farmer I have every sympathy with anyone who has to have their livestock slaughtered due to bovine TB, however TB must be eradicated..we can't have exceptions to the rule." The spokesman for the Welsh Assembly Government said it had been a "difficult case" for all involved "We are glad that the court has accepted the important public and animal health arguments in this case," he said. "We will now be looking to move forward but it is not possible to give any timetable at this stage." The spokesman said they aimed to work closely with the community to resolve the situation "with the minimum of distress to the animal and its carers."

[King Tendulkar]

Sorry shambo has to go. The protests have been done in correct peaceful way. Glad the hindu council who protested initailly, now say enough is enough and to let go now. Shows hindus in good light compared to other fundamental communities!

[beetle]

If Shambu does have TB...and no sure treatment is available that can also prevent its spread ...then poor shambhu should be put to sleep as humanely as possible.It shouldn't be about religion at all.

[gorah_pindu]

Sorry shambo has to go. The protests have been done in correct peaceful way. Glad the hindu council who protested initailly' date=' now say enough is enough and to let go now. Shows hindus in good light compared to other fundamental communities![/quote'] Yeah I agree - shows that the community understands compromise.

[THX_1138]

I think the slaughter is justified as Shambu might propagate the disease or suffer an incredibly painful death from the same (pure assumption for i do not know the prognosis). it sickens me that our desire for meat has lead to such problems and epidemic of such diseases for fear of whom we must slaughter animals by the thousands just to avoid infection. alas, this will not end anytime soon since humans have tasted the temptation of meat and rarely does humanity renounce a temptation.

[THX_1138]

Sorry shambo has to go. The protests have been done in correct peaceful way. Glad the hindu council who protested initailly' date=' now say enough is enough and to let go now. Shows hindus in good light compared to other fundamental communities![/quote'] actually thats what i loved about this whole issue. their protest was a peaceful demonstration and a signature campaign. not burning welish flags and boycotting welsh bakeries...

[King Tendulkar]

actually thats what i loved about this whole issue. their protest was a peaceful demonstration and a signature campaign. not burning welish flags and boycotting welsh bakeries...

boycotting welsh bakeries:hysterical:some communities would have done that as well:hysterical:

[Guest dada_rocks]

I am sure shambo can be kept in solitary confinement without danger of spread..

[THX_1138]

boycotting welsh bakeries:hysterical:some communities would have done that as well:hysterical:

hey i am sure there is some welsh pastry that can be renamed as "the rose petals of (insert God/Demigod etc)" if the bakers want to maintain their sales.

[THX_1138]

I am sure shambo can be kept in solitary confinement without danger of spread..

you are right, but that is special treatment for a single animal. when in fact in our belief structure, all cows (for that fact all life) is sacred and a partial infringement is still an infringement. it would be unfair to protect just one cow where we see an element of devinity in all the others that are slaughtered.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Hey guardians of this cow are willing to go extra mile to ensure its safety so why not. It doesn't cost anybody any tax-payer anything. I am not even worried about what hindu scripture says. Hindu scripture says nothing in explicit terms about not using cow-meat as food, and even if it does somewhere we have the precedence of cow-meat eating too. Balmiki ramayan does mention beef-eating forays of God Rama.

[flute202020]

Hey guardians of this cow are willing to go extra mile to ensure its safety so why not. It doesn't cost anybody any tax-payer anything. I am not even worried about what hindu scripture says. Hindu scripture says nothing in explicit terms about not using cow-meat as food, and even if it does somewhere we have the precedence of cow-meat eating too. Balmiki ramayan does mention beef-eating forays of God Rama.

Dada_rocks, interesting take about Rama eating beef in Valmiki Ramayan. I know it mentions Rama eating meat in a indirect way when Human tells sita that Rama is so depressed that he gave up meat and alcohol. I do not remember any mentioln of beef. can you elaborate if your take is something you heard or something you read in Ramayan itself? BTW, I don't think dada rocks -:) Dada is hanging on to his place in team by a thin hair.

[Guest dada_rocks]

...

[Guest dada_rocks]

Honestly I never bothered to examine the merit of beef-eating Rama in balmiki. Chalo achcha hua aapne trigger kar diya aaj. What a fraud these psec writers do with hindu scripture is beyond comprehension, see I consider myself moderately well-read but even I was willing to buy that argument. My google search brought forth following information: So here is the reference: God hanuman addressing sita: “Na mamsam Raghava bhunkte, na chaiva madhu sevate, Vanyam suvihitam nityam bhaktamsnati panchamam.” here he says that Rama doesn't eat meat or honey and is living on food of an ascetic. Extrapolation was made that he must have been eating meat earlier otherwise what was the need to tell goddess sita that he doesn't eat. Mind you it is being said as adepiction of expression fo grief-ridden Rama . No mention of beef whatsoevr. That part is complete imagination. In rig veda chapter 10 vhymn 28 verse 3 . Indra 's refernce of eating bull (male cow) is mentiond but again no cow-meat. Then I found this: Lurker please note the following type has been writing our history consistently and they still do. 7 - On Vedic time Hindus eating Beef Glaring Example of Deliberate Academic Fraud "By late June-early July 1998 … Manoj RaghuVanshi, who runs the popular program Aap ki Adaalat, Aap ka Faisla on ZEE TV invited one of these eminences, K M Shrimali and me to discuss the matter. With much righteousness Shrimali remarked that he was full of apprehensions because the sorts of persons who were now taking over the ICHR [indian Council of Historical Research] were persons who had been distorting history, and suppressing facts. `For example?', asked Manoj RaghuVanshi. Beef was eaten in ancient BhaaratVarsh, said Shrimali, and these people suppress this fact. And what is the evidence for that?, asked RaghuVanshi. There are hundreds of writings to that effect, Shrimali said loftily. In which Ved, in which text, which verse in which text?, asked RaghuVanshi. I have not brought the books with me, said Shrimali, but the evidence is all over. But name one text name one verse RaghuVanshi persisted. Shrimali could not or did not name a single text, to say nothing of any verse or passage from it. Someone from the audience interjected. Here are four Veds, he said; handing over the books, read us a single passage from any of them, which supports what you are saying. RaghuVanshi took the books from the person and took them over to Shrimali. Shrimali refused to look at them. Indeed, he recoiled. RaghuVanshi then went to his table and began reading out passages after passages from the Veds in which there were strongest possible commands to not to eat beef. At my request he asked Shrimali to read the verses himself. Shrimali refused to do that. Instead, he became even more aggressive. So what if I cannot recall a text or recite a verse? He said. ISBN 81-89746-01-4 Maanoj Rakhit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But you are an expert on Ancient BhaaratVarsh, RaghuVanshi said. What has my not being able to recall a verse had to do with my being an expert?, Shrimali answered. Even if you produce scores of verses against eating beef, that will not prove that beef was not eaten, Shrimali now maintained. But when the Veds lay down that the cow is not to be killed, how do you keep saying that there was no prohibition against eating beef? RaghuVanshi asked. I did not say the Veds, he said, I said `Vedic literature.' All right! Name a single book from `Vedic literature', which supports your position. He did not do so. The exchange went on _ with RaghuVanshi and the audience asking for a single passage, for the name of a single book, and Shrimali refusing _ failing is the correct word _ to furnish either. The program was broadcasted in the third week of July." Arun Shourie • ISBN 81-900199-8-8 • On reading this episode several questions hit me at once. Why would someone, who had been acknowledged as an expert on ancient history of BhaaratVarsh, want to spread something that he knew to be untrue? Or did he not know that it was untrue? • If he did not, then why would he want to retain his credits as the expert? For sake of argument let us say that an expert too can make a mistake, but then why would he not want to admit it? • Was it at all a `mistake' to start with considering the way he started the whole debate accusing others? Why would he hurl accusations against those who were now taking over ICHR? (1) • Sometimes ago I had seen English media headlines that history was being rewritten, was being saffronized. What was behind all that? My memory rushed back to what I had read several months ago on the front page (bottom half) of a prominent English daily. The headlines stated that in Vedic times Hindus slaughtered cow and ate beef. ISBN 81-89746-01-4 Maanoj Rakhit

[flute202020]

Dada, Inspite of the link you provided, my readings of various indian history books point to a strong possibility of beef eating in India. My query to you about Rama was only out of curiosity and had nothing to do with "shock" of seeing my God eating beef. There are some rig vedic references to beef and horse meat eating. There are some vedic rituals which culminate with the consumption of horse and cow meat. In fact, aswa medha yagam that Lord Rama was supposed to have done involved killing of horse and eating its meat as an act of partaking its strenght and virility. But, it is an entirely different matter that the part of Ramayan, i.e uttar Ramayan was not written by Valmiki, and is a work of fiction added by brahmins much later to perpetuate the caste system. It is really silly how some hindus want their entire history to be free of beef eating in addition to them being non-beef eaters. I do not eat beef and I have a healthy respect for the fact that hindus worship cow. But, at the same time, I am not shamed or embarrassed that may be ancient hindus ate beef. Every soceity evolves and ours did too. no big deal.

[Guest dada_rocks]

History books do not fall from tress people write it and people mentioned in this tv debate are the ones writing it.. History of beef-eating and scripture supporting beef-eating are two different matters.. I did extensive google coudl not find beef-eating reference yet..yes horse-eating is there bull-eating is here..

[Predator_05]

Does eating beef (steaks in particular) make me a bad hindu ?

[Ram]

Does eating beef (steaks in particular) make me a bad hindu ?

Oh ! So you know you are a Hindu ?? Outstanding !! :congrats:

[CC1981]

Does eating beef (steaks in particular) make me a bad hindu ?

No.

[Guest dada_rocks]

In terms of eating habit common sense is the way to go. If I can eat chcicken ( jeev-hatya involved) so can I eat cow (jeev-hatya). heck I say i should be able to eat humans too ( there is nothign sacrosanct about human life either). But my self-inetrest comes in the way of practcing this universalism. Because let us say I find some vulnerable fellwo and end up killing and eating him tomorrow I too might be prey of someone else. So we human being cooked up this human-life-sacronsanct principle. This way it ensures one thing whihc is we won;t be preyed uppon by another human. if we could we wud have sold this dictum of human-life-sacrosant theory even to canibal animals but unfortunately it can't be done. So as far as religion is concerned I don't see much value in bannign beef-eating. But religion by very definion is set of belief and belief by its very definition inculcates fair ammout of irrationale. So what should be the dharma is not under scruntity here actually the point being debated is the scriptural backing of beef-eating. On that count so far closest i have come through my googling is precedence of bull-eating. Thanks to OP I did delve into it yesterday and as it stands Rama-eating meat evidence is tenuous let alone beef. The verse which I have already mentioned makes hanuman say that rama doesn;t eat meat and honey lives on parboiled vegetable item. Psec historians have extrappolated it as an evidence of rama eating meat in normal circumstances otherwise why would hanuman mention it. Not this line of reasoning ignore one glaring fact whihch is union of Rama-hanuman took place when Rama was griving over his wife Sita and shunning meat might have been the normal eating habit of rama not an addendum over his wife's kidnapping induced grief. Basically hanuman never knew rama before the dvent of Sita-haran so he was in no position to do comparison. He might have expressed those words assumign kshatriya eat meat hence rama too must be meat-eater and these days in sita-viyog he is not eating. Anyway point is rama eating meat itself is tensuous and yes beef-eating is total bull. I have not come across that reference so far. what intrigues me is the audacity of the psec guy in that TV debate. He went on and on and on how scripture supports eating beef but despite being constantly goaded to produce single verse he kept on making excuses. In fact comoeone even procured him vedas but he could not produce. OTOH the guy who was adovocating oppositae stance produced several verses right there on stage, but that didn't make psec historian revisit his view-point. This is what I call in ur-face intellectual-dishonesty.