I suggest that you are doubting the results, and traducing the integrity of the pathologists in question, without a shred of evidence. Skepticism is a fine trait, but to accuse experts of lying just because you don’t like the result is something else.

‘So they found “lesions typical of TB”, which is not a real proof for TB’ Agreed, but a strong indication, when added to the initial positive results.

If a case can be made for provisions to be put in place for an alternative system in exceptional circumstances, then by all means lobby for it by building a strong case. It will take time, but the system allows for it, I’d be sympathetic towards that. But my point remains that you can’t demand exemption on the hoof, as it were. The rules are inflexible because the consequences of laxity are so serious.

As for David Taylor, I am happy to accept that he is an expert in his field, but I’m rather cautious about a scientist who says that the chances of something happening are ‘less than zero’. That is rhetoric, not evidence.

I don’t dispute that Shambo could have been treated, although my understanding is that this would not have been as straightforward or as certain of success as you seem to think. However, that’s just google-wisdom and I could be wrong.

Truly, if you are going to lobby for a change to the rules which can stop this happening again, and which is safe, rational and acceptable to all fair-minded parties then good luck. I imagine the government would welcome a chance to avoid friction with religious groups, that does seem to be the pattern.

As for sunray, I couldn’t make head nor tail of his point.

I really seriously doubt the post mortem results.
Imagine what would have happened, if the government would have announced, there was no sign of TB found.
So they found “lesions typical of TB”, which is not a real proof for TB, I think you agreee with that.
But that doesn´t change too much, we all have to accept it finally. For even if shambo had TB, still he could have been treated.

What is your opinion about David Taylors statement then?
———-
…
and the statement of sunray might contain a lot of truth about human nature.

I certainly didn’t.

Ullam,

‘…who would have expected something else!!!’

Are you seriously suggesting that the post mortem was fixed? Really? Three exclamation marks is a pretty strong allegation.

Its funny how anytime someone crtisises the Hindu or even other relgions for NO GOOD reasons the band of merry men on this forum join in to praise the big mouth (who probably just wants name and fame.)

J Lakahni is a guy who says he is ashamed to be a Hindu.

This is a case of Human nature and not a Hindu nature.
But he or anyone else here wouldnt understand this.

David Taylor, a renowned vet said there was almost no risk of shambo to spread the disease http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/06/23/shambo-the-bull-update/

And of course Shambo showed “lesions typical of TB” in the post-mortem-examination; who would have expected something else!!! I´m not an easy believer, neither in the field of religion, nor in the field of so called “science”.
—————————————————–

“These Hindu bodies are only fighting for special privileges for animals at Hindu temples” says Mr. Lakhani, as if this was a crime.
What does a religion mean in the end, when it is not prepared to do what it can, to keep up its basic values at least in its temples.
This is also a question of values somehow. I wonder what Mr. Lakhani or anybody else of his opinion would do, if they were to be slaughtered for some “greater good”, instead of being treated, when they are ill (please think about this point very well, even if you feel somehow unconvenient with it).

(some kind of “Irony” now following:)
The money saved by not treating such ill people could be used to save children in africa from dying of Hunger.
(“Irony” end.)
That´s what he suggests in his letter shown above (example with the money, that should be used to save cows in india instead); not for humans but for animals, that is his way of thought. But I think it is completely wrong, this attitude towards life, especially when you are claiming to be a Hindu following sanatana dharma. How can one claim authority in religious questions with such a view om life.
——

The policy of ‘test and cull’ may be harsh, it may be inflexible, it may be distressing to those who lose valued herds, but it is also a proven way of eradicating a killer disease.

A second test would have made no difference as the post mortem showed that the animal was infected.

As far as I can make out (via PubMed) there is no reliable prophylactic. I could be wrong, of course, but I’d need to see reputable studies before I risked the return of TB to this country.

Isolation is well and good, but as any warm-blooded vertebrate can be a carrier you would have to ensure that the infected animal never so much as exhaled in the presence of a starling or a dormouse, let alone a badger or a human. This is not something the farming community is going to regard as realistic. We’re talking Porton Down levels of isolation.

Of course the temple kept the beast for non-farming reasons, but that makes no difference to it’s potential to spread the disease. You are fully entitled to press for a review of the regulations, but not to demand an exemption from them. I’m sure you appreciate the difference.

‘there will still be some anti-Hindu or anti-somethingwhatever attitude in the UK…’

Yes. The latter. It’s called racism. I seriously doubt that there is an anti-Hindu attitude in the UK. Or anti-Sikh. I’ll concede there may be an anti-Islam or anti-semitic attitudes, but that is another story. Are you seriously suggesting that the Welsh Assembly was motivated by a hostility to the tenets of Hiduism? A desire to offend Hindus?

If you are saying they are racist, then step up and say it. Make your case.

It was an infected animal. The rule is that it gets culled. If you can make a sound, rational, scientific case for changing the rules, that is your right. Claiming exemption on the basis of personal belief is not.

…the monks would have loved to do this even before the 20.000 petitioners where involved (didn´t you get that, still), but the welsh assembly government DID NOT ALLOW IT….so they started the petition which made the Hindu Organisations step in ….who is the joke here finally: temple or government?!?

And yes: there will still be some anti-Hindu or anti-somethingwhatever attitude in the UK; but this is still no reason for the government to kill their temple-bulls.

Because Hindu temples keep their animals for a different reason, treat their animals in a different way than any farmer would probably ever do.
Life is not looked at there as something, that you only consider in terms of how it can be best exploited and bring yourself a lot of money and that you can kill whenever it suits you.
And that difference in attitude makes the monks so concerned about their animals not beeing slaughtered.
Is this really so difficult to understand; is this so bizarre?

I think the temple has and had every right to urge the officials and politicians to make an exception.

“The issue of poor treatment of animals bred for human consumption” is not a primary concern of Hindu Temples, because they don´t own “animals bred for human consumption” – and have good reasons why this is not so.

To me it seems to be rather rhethorical that question.

Anyway: Don´t mix up Mr. Lakhanis view with “The Hindu stance”.

hey any good debate these days has to involve muslims. to give the debate to credibilty. this comment only reltates to the article, see link above.

If they were fighting the issue of poor treatment of animals bred for human consumption, they would have our support but that does not appear to be the agenda. These Hindu bodies are only fighting for special privileges for animals at Hindu temples!

The point rather is, that there was no political will to consider the viewpoints of the many Hindu Organisations that wrote letters and emails to the welsh officials/politicians, and asked for an exception for Shambo, as did the temple. Well, probably I expect too much here…
But I think the whole story shows a lot and brings up a lot of important questions for the future.

Hopefully this will also bring a better understanding for each other.

Do you understand the concept of ‘the law of the land’? This isn’t a VHP run locality in India where Hindutva mob rules.

And even then, the point made about the hypocrisy of these people, as if the life of one animal is more sacred than another, is succint.

But Shambo was owned by an organisation that did care about animal-life (as well as any other life) and holds it sacred. So of course the temple had to fight for shambos life, following sanatana dharma.

I cannot find any mistake in that action, and I wonder why Mr. Lakhani does.

Where in the world should sanatana dharma seriously be practised then, if not even in temples?

Or is the message of Hinduism nowadays “When life is ill, you are allowed to kill”? … for some abstract “greater good”? (How about you, if you were killed for some “greater good” this way…think about it, please).

And: The “greater good” was probably not even at stake here, because shambo could have been cured and the risk to the public was not very high – that is at least what David Taylor, an international vet, said on the 15th of June.(http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/shambo+timeline/628072)

I think there was a lot of irrational fear of TB introduced, which can anyway not be erradicated by killing all the suspected cattle.
Finally, an example was set at the cost of the temple, which has tried everything in its power to stay true to its convictions and the rules set out by sanatana dharma.
I think, the Hindu community should be affected by this!!!

‘Everyone should realise that a Religion in its core is not represented by people who just talk about and probably know a lot about it in theory, but by people who live and seriously practice it, especially when it really counts, when it really comes down to the basic ideas of it, which are usually beyond human “rationality” ‘

Quite so. Not the subtle and rareified abstractions of theologians, or the smooth assurances of media-savvy front men, but what people actually believe and do. Whether for good or ill, that’s how you judge a religion.

However, while adherents are free to be as non-rational as they please in their beliefs and devotions, a government agency charged with protecting the public health must only consider rational arguments. Anything else would be unworkable.

As for Ullam’s claim that the decision was anti-Hundu and that ‘obviously the Hindu viewpoint doesn´t count anything to the government’; has it occurred to you that the case was in fact heard at some length, was given sympathetic treatment by the courts and that in the end the case was lost because it simply wasn’t strong enough? Or is any argument you lose invariably because of anti-Hinduism? It doesn’t matter how many signatures you get on a petition, the judgement must be based on a rational assessment of the case and an even-handed application of the law.

Mr. Ramesh Kallidai seems to have better understood what it is about and he now wants to talk to the government about a special law for temple animals.

To say the things Mr. Lakhani does, only shows, that his understanding of religion is rather a theoretical than a substantial one. He should be removed from his post as educational director of the Hindu Council of UK.

If someone really understood what his Religion is about, he wouldn´t anxiously care too much about the credibility of it in the public. And now the statement about the welsh assembly government: of course their decision was also a Anti-Hindu one, because 20.000 signatures and voices of several Hindu-Organisations where not enough to allow a second TB test or at least make them seriously talk about alternatives. So obviously the Hindu viewpoint doesn´t count anything to the government (although Mr. Lakhani tries to make people believe that its only the viewpoint of some “naive” monks down there in vales). Please check your values and don´t look away from this and fool yourselves. Community cohesion on that basis would be a great illusion anyway. Better tell how you really feel and THEN find a basis for true community cohesion.