New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
I know how busy Bill is with his studies and it’s been a while since I’ve posted anything so I’d thought I’d share this news story from the Guardian newspaper today. It details a dispute between a Hindu temple and the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) which is a charity in England.
Essentially the RSPCA put down the temple’s sacred cow after it had been injured in order to end it’s suffering. The temple is suing the charity.
“There are theological and legal aspects to our decision to sue,” Mohandas said. “It is illegal to enter private religious property and the idea of killing a cow, especially a sacred one, is sinful in our religion.”
Do you think that he has a point or not?
Popularity: 7% [?]
Loading ...
The Hindu’s better win this. Its like if somebody walked on to your property and killed your sick dog. Or walked into your church and took something that your church highly reveres. Its a sin, plain and simple.
actually Jared, i strongly disagree. the animal was suffering, it wasn’t going to recover, it was cruel to let the situation continue (not to mention also illegal). this is not remotely like someone stealing an artifact from a church (hint; animal life = not a ‘thing’), this is about not letting abuse happen ‘just because’ it’s religious in nature. do i take it you approve of jehovah’s witnesses letting their children die from curable ailments in the name of religion? why/why not?
Not killing a cow shouldnt be compared too letting children die of curable diseases. I fail to see the comparison. But I do put human life above animal life, which is why its okay to kill a cow when its suffering. But to kill somebody elses cow is a completly different story.
I’m with Ash. The RSPCA always notify the parties involved in advance and always work in the best interests of the animal. Putting it down is always a last resort. I fail to see how this sacred cow has any greater status that a family’s beloved pet dog. Unless someone can explain the difference to me?
I thought that one of the issues is that the RSPC didnt contact them? If they did, then thats jut miscommunication on the Hindu’s part. If thats the case then I agree with you. But I thought that they didnt tell them and just went onto their property and killed their cow.
And I respect all religions and think a Hindu’s sacred cow is more important than a family dog. Its their religion and not just a pet.
Jared, whilst i generally value human life above non-, i have an issue seeing any life being compared to mere posessions. there are many people tho, who view their children as their posessions, and do make those decisions for them, which is why i gave you the above comparison.
i personally find many aspects of many religions are completely unrespectful; and i imagine you share my views on that count - be it the example i gave above, the 9/11 hijackers, causing suffering to an animal, the murder of abortion doctors; the list of atrocities justified by religion goes on. to reiterate my point, abuse in the name of religion is still abuse, and still deserves to be treated as such.
p.s. there may have been a miscommunication; these things happen, but the RSPCA cannot legally go on private property without either owner consent, police escort, or as apparently happened here, a warrant. i don’t see this ( original article here) as an issue of secular authorities disrespecting religious rights, i see this as a religion disrespecting the health, livelihoods and laws of the communities and country surrounding them.
I do not. I respect the right of individuals to believe in anything they like (barely) but nonsensical or harmful beliefs will get the scorn that they deserve. Allowing an animal to suffer or a human to suffer without cause is just such a belief.
The link to the original article seems to have disappeared. Here it is again ==> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/28/animalwelfare
When I compared the cow to a holy relic, I didnt mean to call its life as possession. Sorry if thats what it sounded like. I was just trying to bring it to familiar ground.
But I think if the Hindu’s cow is suffering, its up to them, not anyone else whether they put it down. That was my original point. But If they agree’d to it but somebody didnt tell somebody else about it, then its ‘the person who agree’d and didnt tell anybody about its’ fault. Not The RSPC
The RSPCA are know for their bully boy tactics. Take a look at http://the-shg.org and http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
The RSPCA have a criminal conviction for perverting the course of justice. They were fined £10000 by the High Court.
This cow was being treated by independent vets. What more can anyone ask for? None of those vets suggested that the animal should be put down.
If the RSPCA are now claiming their extremist opinions trump the measured opinion of experts then the animal keepers of the UK are in really big trouble.