Religion thread - 7

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 15:21

abhischekcc wrote:Thanks for specifying.

However, neither is pork widely available in India. Is that a sign of muslims discriminating against everybody else?

Looking at the link you provided, India does not figure in the top 32 pork eating countries.

I think that most commoners in India prefer to avoid controversial areas.


Indians just do not eat much meat, although stats seem to show that over 60% of Indians eat some form of meat. People from the Kodagu district of Karnataka are pork eaters.

It is laughable and just plain bias to say that the relative unavailability of beef is aimed at some faiths. In that case your observation about Pork should mean that Indians ensure Muslim happiness.

This means that there is a Hindu conspiracy to make Muslims happy with the absence of pork and make Muslims sad with the absence of beef.

I just want to point out the stupidity of the beef argument as a plank to beat Hindus with. The beef argument is just one of the many stupid planks that are used to beat Hindus with and needs to be taken down forthwith.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 15:23

negi wrote:Btw admins Radar thread needs immediate attention,else who knows I&B ministry may ban BR for uploading explicit content. :shock:


what are you talking about? Please specify

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 02 Apr 2007 15:35

Abhishekcc

However, neither is pork widely available in India. Is that a sign of muslims discriminating against everybody else?


That is not the point because nobody is arguing that IMs cause low pork production/consumption in the country. There is a mountain of genuine evidence for muzlim discrimination against kaffirs but this pork-based discrimination I'm hearing here for the first time. It's a bogey, seems like. Pork, like alchohol is banned in most izlamic lands, too bad about minority rights there. Nobody sems to be giving 'em muzlims a hard time about it coz everyone knows the muzlims will zimbly show the finger to such criticism or play victim and raise howls of izlamophobia.

But the beef with beef is a different matter altogether. Apparently flogging this bogey is useful because the thin skinned yindoo is affected and can be driven into apology-mode. Seems as if even the intellectuals and otherwise reasonable folk in other faiths and unreasonable folk in some ideologies (the marxists and macaulayites) have found it easy and useful to induce guilt trips in IWH onlee.

What happens if the yindoo too decides to show the finger instead of care what the other faiths think of his intolerance? What happens if the IWH decides to go rigid and unapologetic and decide not to get all guilted up? Well, what you are seeing on this board is eggsactly a trailer of that. Must admit that the SDRE IWH yindoo onlee showing spine and refusing to take a guilt trip is so a rare a sight, it is a tad unsettling, even to a card carrying SDF like myself......

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Apr 2007 15:45

Very relevant for this thread...from Rediff.

US university to offer six courses on Hinduism

Dharam Shourie in New York

Recognising the interest of Indian American students in Hinduism, Rutgers University in New Jersey will start offering a broad-based programme to provide an overview of the oldest religion in the world.

Starting this summer, the University will provide six courses; these include undergraduate credit courses in Hinduism through its narrative tradition, Hindu rituals, festivals and symbols, Hindu philosophy and Hinduism and modernity.
...
"Hinduism is such a heterogeneous, variegated, and complex cluster of traditions, spanning over 5,000 years. It makes for fascinating study and the summer programme will provide students with exposure to some of its facets," he said.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 15:47

Pork is not available on the street, but it is always available at cold-stores and chains across India, it is served freely in restaurants or chains like TGI Friday etc. But beef or its dodgy varients has always been available only in the oil droplet in northern India. No one else openly publicizes in public that their establishment carries beef. I have visited exotic restaurants that have beef in dilli, but there it is a hush-hush operation and this part of the menu is not listed but only known to old timers. This is even the case in 5* hotels where you are supposed to be served expensive kobe or wagyu steak, but even they maintain a lot of discretion, they are obviously aware of food-inspectors and sundry shady characters who might harass them were they to openly publicize this fact.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 15:59

Well we are the DIE.

We are the people who make it a point to join the carnation behind ear crowd singing "Kumbaya" and eating beef to show how we are "world citizens."

But just ping India and you find that most people do not eat beef and are appalled by the idea of eating beef.

Calling this a ploy to discriminate against other religions is a "you farted" accusation par excellence.

It is a conjured up accusation where no deliberate malice exists to say 'You hate people of other faiths who eat beef, so it's your fault - don't ever describe yourself as tolerant"

This is only one of thousands of games folks.

Watch the media. Watch people's words and you should be able to unravel many more such travesties to ensure the the Hindu keeps apologizing for his "bad behavior"

At some stage Hindus have to tell folks to bugger off and stick their heads where the sun don't shine.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Apr 2007 16:22

shiv wrote:At some stage Hindus have to tell folks to bugger off and stick their heads where the sun don't shine.

Happening already? :D I guess that's what Acharya meant by the silent minority. Average middle class folks in Gujarat joining rioting mob or a petty shopkeeper next door traveling all the way up to Ayodhya to demolish a mosque, looks strange and disgusting to the DIE and the DDM. But someday you'll need to find out, as from where this pent up anger is coming from.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Apr 2007 16:29

Well, if it a case of zimble 'you farted', then the problem is not going to be solved by accepting beef eating. Because that will open up the accusations in some other area.

Someone said some moons back on this thread that one has to decide what is to be defended in Hinduism before we can actually start the defence. I don't think that one has to agree on the basic principles of what is Hinduism before defending it. I think that the inherent flexibility of Hinduism (as opposed to the stubborn inflexibility of the more 'faith' based religions) is itself a principle that needs to be defended. I don't think we are going to get anywhere if try to hammer out whether god has ten arms or two, or is a he or a she, or has attibutes or doesn't :P .

IMHO, it is easier to defend the reasonableness of Hindu thought against Islam than it is against Xism. Because if we point out that Hindu philosophy at its core is a pretty reasonable one, EJs shout 'Jesus Loves You' to show that the Xian god is even more 'reasonable' (And if don't believe that, you can go to Hell :) ).
Xism does not present a threatening face.

The point I am saying is - before we can agree that Hindu should be defended, one has to agree that Hinduism is under threat. How many ppl off this forum are aware of the immense Xian Wehrmacht unleashed upon the poor unsuspecting souls of the world?

-----------------
At some stage Hindus have to tell folks to bugger off and stick their heads where the sun don't shine.

This happens, from time to time. The Dara Singh affiar is a case in point. Sometimes activists from BD/VHP/RSS go and disrupt a conversion meet.

Note that Dara Singh was not a caste Hindu, but merely a tribal. Perhaps there is something inherently flaccid in Hindu character? IMO, it is our oaffish, pig headed self image as non-violent, ubermoral people that has been our undoing.

Remember Ghandi sitting of fast, trying to get Nehru to return Rs 364 (?) crores to Pakistan, during partition? :eek: :x

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 16:33

Actually come Saturday/Sunday one has to just see the crowd in the oil droplet 'halaal' outlets waiting to purchase weekly supply. A cross-section of society is represented All manner of middle & yuppy/puppy folks can be found there, all the while watching behind their backs what Mullah Ibn Baitullah's faithful followers might to do upon watching so many people invade their oil droplet. The entire experience makes it seem like something shady is happening. This 'taqleef' faced by many is what is made use of by various characters for making their point. take this above board, import and price it whatever one wants and immediately an issue ceases to exist. Beef is an acquired taste like fish, but once you get used to it, one will need it every 3 weeks or so, about when the pangs kick in. People will continue to do what they are doing in any case, but if things are done in a credible manner issues cease to exist.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Apr 2007 16:37

SRoy wrote:But someday you'll need to find out, as from where this pent up anger is coming from.


I doubt it. Because even today DDM blames Ayodhya on LK Advani's yatra. Nobody said anything about the insecurity among Hindus due to:
1. The Kashmiri Pandits expulsion from the valley.
2. The ongoing Sikh militancy.
3. The Shah Bano case (the actual trigger).
4. The opening of the Ram Mandir locks (the eventual rallying point).

Nobody says anything about the fool from 10 Janpath mismanaging his mandate.

DDM will never learn. Those buggers are under the impression that just because they have a pulpit to spread their bullshit, they are gods. (Marie Antoinette, anyone?) But they have a vested interest in keeping the present system of class warfare alive.

-----------
It took me a long time to figure out but the religious conflict is only a mask to hide the class warfare that the elitemen inflict upon us. So, Sachin pilot marries Farroq Abdullah's daughter, who is a partner in NDA, while... Oh well.
Last edited by abhischekcc on 02 Apr 2007 16:45, edited 1 time in total.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Apr 2007 16:40

abhischekcc wrote:Someone said some moons back on this thread that one has to decide what is to be defended in Hinduism before we can actually start the defence. I don't think that one has to agree on the basic principles of what is Hinduism before defending it. I think that the inherent flexibility of Hinduism (as opposed to the stubborn inflexibility of the more 'faith' based religions) is itself a principle that needs to be defended. I don't think we are going to get anywhere if try to hammer out whether god has ten arms or two, or is a he or a she, or has attibutes or doesn't :P .


If a mission or a project is to succeed, then the leaders must define a shared vision and a shared goal for all stakeholders. Followers don't join a movement for lofty principles, they do so when one or more of their interests are at stake.

You'll need to identify what is commonly acceptable and worth preserving. Once you do that, then propose an action plan.

Yours truly proposed a dedicated center of learning in the version 1 of this thread. Well, I found a news report of some Hindu studies in an US university, why not in India?
Are we short sighted or plain idiots for not recognizing a very fundamental requirement for preserving a tradition?

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 16:50

>>It took me a long time to figure out but the religious conflict is only a mask to hide the class warfare that the elitemen inflict upon us. So, Sachin pilot marries Farroq Abdullah's daughter, who is a partner in NDA, while... Oh well.

this is a good realization. Pre-1990s we used to be a much more integrated society centered around ration-shops, doordarshan etc. There used to be more social movement among classes but today the elite are more firmly ensconced in their own droplet.

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1920
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Postby SRoy » 02 Apr 2007 16:58

abhischekcc wrote:It took me a long time to figure out but the religious conflict is only a mask to hide the class warfare that the elitemen inflict upon us. So, Sachin pilot marries Farroq Abdullah's daughter, who is a partner in NDA, while... Oh well.

So, Jihadi terrorism, funded by Saudi oil money and undertaken by braindead Abduls from well to do families (and well to do countries) is a class struggle? :D

BTW, commies too feel the same way as you do.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Apr 2007 17:06

SRoy wrote:If a mission or a project is to succeed, then the leaders must define a shared vision and a shared goal for all stakeholders.

Agree with this one.

Followers don't join a movement for lofty principles, they do so when one or more of their interests are at stake.

Agree with this one, especially the last part. But I will quote the I-Ching for a better expression of the same:
People come together due to common principles, but stay together for common interests


IMHO, we have two goals to achieve:
1. Identifying and articulating common principles.
2. Identifying and articulating common interests.

Do Hindus spread over such a vast culturalscape, share the same identities, vision and interests? Did the arrest of the Shankarachrya move the North Indians? I have hearsay evidence that says that it caused quite a stir in TN. Is that correct?
Last edited by abhischekcc on 02 Apr 2007 17:57, edited 1 time in total.

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 02 Apr 2007 17:55

SRoy wrote:
abhischekcc wrote:It took me a long time to figure out but the religious conflict is only a mask to hide the class warfare that the elitemen inflict upon us. So, Sachin pilot marries Farroq Abdullah's daughter, who is a partner in NDA, while... Oh well.

So, Jihadi terrorism, funded by Saudi oil money and undertaken by braindead Abduls from well to do families (and well to do countries) is a class struggle? :D


Err, no. Now you are taking this to the other extreme. I was 'merely' refering to the riots and other isolated incidents. Not to global jihad, which is a different animal. For example, the 1993 bombay riots were an act of slum clearance by property pashas of Mumbai.

The recent pro marathi hoohaa done by Shiv Sena falls in the same category. I wonder how that man is able to maintain at least soem of the goodwill of Hindus while simultaneously attacking so many of us (non-maharashtrian Hindus) together? Must be due t o lack of alternatives.

BTW, commies too feel the same way as you do.

Actually, I am more a fascist than a communist. I once thot of naming my future political party the Hindu Fascist Party. 8) (I know, I know, pipedream).

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 02 Apr 2007 18:53

shiv wrote:Your point about why people might not eat meat if they had to do their own slaughtering is a valid one and there is a lot more to this story.

I believe that Western nations long long ago decided to adopt "humane" methods of slaughter in which the cattle are first knocked out with an electrical charge to thehead and the culling is done on an unconscious animal.


In the pre-electricity days, the "humane" method of slaughter was the Jhatka where the neck is supposed to be severed quickly, preferably with a single stroke, so that the animal's suffering is minimized. The Sikhs, and some Hindu Kshatriyas are supposed to eat only this type of meat, and not the Halaal meat. Since they form a large component of the Indian Army, perhaps that is why the IA serves only Jhatka meat as ShauryaT had posted earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhatka

From the following page:

http://www.sikhs.org/meat.htm

Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura dated February 15th 1980 that Amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat as long as it is jhatka meat

An Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh is not allowed to eat the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way

Jhatka meat is meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Apr 2007 19:18

Its very easy for a person from one religious background come and say a few words that leads to hunt two other religions. In fact this is emphatically done against India for the past centuries and thousands of years. Still, the very basic arguments persists, only shows how vulnerable we are, and we not quick to settle down to accept the weakness.

For example: An EJ could say a few words, and that would trigger a big fight in the streets of India between beef eaters and pork eaters.

Care must be taken to understand the psy-operators.
Last edited by SaiK on 02 Apr 2007 19:19, edited 1 time in total.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 19:19

Amritdharis are not supposed to eat meat of any kind.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Apr 2007 19:26

Looks like this forum has degenerated completely.

The original distortion was caused by a post from Calvin stating - rather mischievously - the false claim that beef was banned in India, and that showed the intolerance of Hinduism, or non-recognition of the religious rights of minorities.

Before Shiv does the needful, cleans up this thread, and brings it back on track, let me outline the facts of the matter:

1) Cow slaughter may be banned in certain states, but consumption of beef is NOT banned. People are free to import beef from outside such states, and consume it.

2) Beef-eating is NEITHER a religious necessity for Indian minorities, NOR a fundamental right granted by the Indian constitution. So, the charge that a ban on cow slaughter somehow shows intolerance of Hinduism is a bogus and malevolent charge.

3) Some laws can be influenced by religion, or tradition of the majority community, even in an avowedly secular, tolerant nation.

Sunday is a government holiday by Law in most secular Western nations.

Some counties in the US ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays, and some counties prohibit alcohol sale altogether.

Slaughtering cats and dogs for food is illegal in the US, even though they are considered delicacies by some US citizens of particular ethnic descent, simply because of the will of the majority ( couched in innocuous terms as "culture" ).

4) Some charges have been raised about "inhuman" treatment of cattle as a subterfuge/bogey.

Given that this charge is likely to find sympathy among a bunch of ill-informed people, the facts of the matter need to be clarified.

Most of this "inhuman" treatment referred to here occurs at the hands of the butchers and leather-manufacturers, who wish to transport these animals to the abattoirs and leather foundries for a fast profit.

No points for guessing which religion the butchers belong to!

Given the above facts, the ban on cow slaughter is perfectly acceptable without compromising on the established fact of tolerance inherent in Hinduism in any way, shape or form.

Period.

Now, if everyone would be kind enough to put an end to this digression, and return to the central theme, it would be greatly appreciated.
Last edited by S.Valkan on 02 Apr 2007 19:28, edited 1 time in total.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 02 Apr 2007 19:27

Raju wrote:Amritdharis are not supposed to eat meat of any kind.


Not a correct statement as per the link I posted earlier:

http://www.sikhs.org/meat.htm

The view of Sikhism is that eating meat or abstaining from it is the individuals choice. A Sikh is considered no lesser or greater a Sikh if they eat meat or are a vegetarian.

The Akal Takht represents the final authority on controversial issues concerning the Sikh Panth, in this regard the issue of meat eating has been settled. Hukamnama issued by Akal Takht Jathedar Sandhu Singh Bhaura dated February 15th 1980 that Amritdhari Sikhs can eat meat as long as it is jhatka meat and that eating meat does not go against the code of conduct, Kurehit, of the Sikhs. Thus a Sikh cannot be excommunicated for eating meat.


Perhaps Sandeep can clarify.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 02 Apr 2007 19:35

Valkan,

I raised a similar sentiment a day back and have gotten wiser since.

The controversy is not about beef/pork etc. Thats just symbolism.

The underlying principle at stake is that subtle and not-so-subtle psy-ops against SD based on false premises continues to be used precisely because of yindoo tolerance. To the uninitiated, the avidya laden and the spineless, such psy-ops would seem perfectly reasonable/ logical and hence it would seem to stick.

For once, the SDFs are fighting back, calling it like they see it. And the results of such an experiment would be very interesting to know indeed. Does 'rigidity' as opposed to tolerant flexibility of the theologically intolerant, work? The implications for the future shape, conduct and bearing of SD in Hindu could be glanced by observing what happens next.

JMT, of course.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36415
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Postby SaiK » 02 Apr 2007 19:41

imho, if you have a fundamental concept, it should withstand any kind of attack (psy ops).. if not, we need to go back and correct the fundamental understandings.

from that sense, i see a value. but, it does not reflect here.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 02 Apr 2007 19:50

S.Valkan wrote:Looks like this forum

No points for guessing which religion the butchers belong to!

Given the above facts, the ban on cow slaughter is perfectly acceptable without compromising on the established fact of tolerance inherent in Hinduism in any way, shape or form.

Period.

Now, if everyone would be kind enough to put an end to this digression, and return to the central theme, it would be greatly appreciated.


Acceptable to you perhaps, but certainly not to others.
Acceptable to a majority on this forum perhaps, but certainly not to others.
There are important things in Hinduism that needs discussion and elaboration rather than this 'requirement' to ban cow slaughter.
So while you can go on making all kinds of decisions on behalf of hindus in india, i really doubt if a nation wide cow slaughter ban will ever come in your or my lifetime.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 19:56

S.Valkan wrote:
Given the above facts, the ban on cow slaughter is perfectly acceptable without compromising on the established fact of tolerance inherent in Hinduism in any way, shape or form.

Period.



I am not concerned with ban or no ban, but the bovine meat should be freely available in sanitised conditions. So the status-quo is not 'perfectly' acceptable. No other issues.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Apr 2007 20:10

HariC wrote:Acceptable to you perhaps, but certainly not to others.


You are barking up the wrong tree.

It is acceptable to a vast majority of the State subjects in areas where cow slaughter is banned, and that is precisely why the ban was instituted in the first place.

And, in case you missed the point of 'acceptability', it was that a ban on cow slaughter in several states ( as it exists today ) does NOT demonstrate 'intolerance' of Hinduism, and hence perfectly acceptable.

People that relish Angus steaks and Wagyu Carpaccios, like me, are free to import beef slaughtered legally from outside the legal boundaries of such states, and enjoy them in the comfort and privacy of their own homes.

i really doubt if a nation wide cow slaughter ban will ever come in your or my lifetime.


Perhaps it escapes your attention, but I don't demand such absurdity.

The point was very simple.

As per the Constitution of the Union of India, residual powers are vested in the states, and their legislatures are empowered - as is in any republic - to enact laws that reflect the will of the majority.

The current will of the majority of Cow-Belt states is that cow slaughter be banned. And, since that will doesn't contravene the rights granted by the Union Constitution, there is absolutely no problems with the ban at the state level.

People who do not like such laws are welcome to move to states that do NOT have such laws.

Also, just to take that argument to its logical corollary, if a vast majority of Indians will it so, the social contract ( Union Constitution) may also be renegotiated, and an explicit India-wide ban on cow slaughter may be instituted.

However, that's a secondary matter, not relevant to the facts on the ground.

Go figure.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3284
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Postby Kakkaji » 02 Apr 2007 20:21

HariC wrote:So while you can go on making all kinds of decisions on behalf of hindus in india, i really doubt if a nation wide cow slaughter ban will ever come in your or my lifetime.


A nationwide cow slaughter ban has never made it through Parliament.

Even when the BJP was ascendent in the wake of Ram Janmabhoomi movement, some hotheads proposed it but the idea was quickly shot down. Jyoti Basu made a statement that WB has a large minority population and hence cannot ban it, and Delhi backed off. IIRC there was also opposition from the northeast and from some tribal groups in Jharkhand.

In this era of coalition Governments, I don't see how the issue will get any traction in Parliament. Even if the BJP came back to power with a two-thirds majority (highly unlikely IMHO), they have other more important controversial issues on their agenda to deal with, such as UCC, Article 370 etc.

A 'nationwide ban on cow slaughter' is a chimera and a bogey. The last time there were widespread agitations on this issue, was during the '60s. These were confined mostly to some cities in the 'Hindi Belt'. These were dealt with in the normal course of things, and no legislative impetus ever built up, like what has repeatedly built up over the issue of reservations. The issue just does not have 'street cred'.

So let's stop flaying this dead horse. As a law and order issue, as long as the cow transport for slaughter and cow slaughter is done in a discreet way away from public eye, vast majority of Hindus don't care. With changing habits, it is likely that beef will become more and more widely available in India. It is the equivalent of 'don't ask, don't tell' as practised in the US on some sensitive issues.

As for those postors who keep repeating "but this law is oppressive, and that law in oppressive", please note that there are lots of laws on the books in India (and even some in the US), that are observed more in their breach than in practice.

Just my 2 cents.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 20:23

shiv wrote:It is laughable and just plain bias to say that the relative unavailability of beef is aimed at some faiths. In that case your observation about Pork should mean that Indians ensure Muslim happiness.

This means that there is a Hindu conspiracy to make Muslims happy with the absence of pork and make Muslims sad with the absence of beef.

I just want to point out the stupidity of the beef argument as a plank to beat Hindus with. The beef argument is just one of the many stupid planks that are used to beat Hindus with and needs to be taken down forthwith.


This is a psy ops game and has to be beaten to submission.

S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Postby S.Valkan » 02 Apr 2007 20:29

Raju wrote:I am not concerned with ban or no ban, but the bovine meat should be freely available in sanitised conditions. So the status-quo is not 'perfectly' acceptable. No other issues.


Your concern is duly noted, and merits a response.

The trouble in India is that meat packaging and processing is at its infancy, because of consumer preference for freshly slaughtered flesh.

There is a marked change in the last few years, with food retail in megamarts, and there is a possibility that some consumer outlets will - in due course - sell thawed prime cuts of IQF bovine flesh, treated with Nitrogen Dioxide to appear "fresh", in sealed, sanitised polythene packs.

That should surely alleviate your concerns, correct ? :lol:

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 20:29

Kakkaji wrote:
Not a correct statement as per the link I posted earlier:

http://www.sikhs.org/meat.htm

.


As per my understanding Amritdharis should not even touch food prepared by non-amritdharis let alone having meat. But I guess they have flexible rules and it varies from one jatha to another.

S.Valkan wrote:
There is a marked change in the last few years, with food retail in megamarts, and there is a possibility that some consumer outlets will - in due course - sell thawed prime cuts of IQF bovine flesh, treated with Nitrogen Dioxide to appear "fresh", in sealed, sanitised polythene packs.

That should surely alleviate your concerns, correct ? :lol:


yes, it does alleviate my concerns.

Most people who eat red-meats know that there is a danger of chemical contamination. At the most one can and does wash the meat before cooking, but chemicals are usually taken in the stride.

But this is a much better option than hordes of people frequenting oil droplets and dodgy operators who might also be unlicensed and give two hoots about how they deal with the animal.
Last edited by Raju on 02 Apr 2007 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54682
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 02 Apr 2007 20:37

Valkan, Can you comment on the decline of Buddhism in India? Early on it had support of Emperors and Kings like Ashoka, Kanishka, and Harsha yet it declined eventually. Please comment on the how and whys?

Thanks, ramana

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 20:39

In many ways I don't consider this thread a digression.

The reason really is that it is not just a few people who read these threads. The threads have had 50,000 views in 18 days and I think this beef business should never ever have to come up again as an accusation of "Hindu intolerance to other faiths"

The argument is astoundingly exactly like we saw in the Islamism thread:

"Since you don't believe in what I believe, you are against me"

On here we have

"Since Hindus don't encourage the eating of beef, Hindus are against the faiths that allow beef eating"

Anyone who makes this allegation actually needs a kick up the backside, not tolerance. But we still tolerate them. Are you telling me that the Hindu is NOT tolerant?

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 02 Apr 2007 20:47

So shall we close the topic by saying

* Cow slaughter is banned in some states as per the local requirements
* Cow slaughter is allowed in some states as per the local requirements
* people wanting to eat beef are wlcome to do so. if its not available they can import it from the nearest neighbouring state that allows it.
* if they can not afford it, they can move to a neighbouring state which allows it to be made (and hence cheaper)
* calling for a nationwide all india ban on cow slaughter is not the right step as it deprives the segment eating beef of their right to eat their traditional or acquired foods(regardless of what community they belong to)

I think its the last point that everyone is fighting about.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 20:51

HariC wrote:So shall we close the topic by saying

* Cow slaughter is banned in some states as per the local requirements
* Cow slaughter is allowed in some states as per the local requirements
* people wanting to eat beef are wlcome to do so. if its not available they can import it from the nearest neighbouring state that allows it.
* if they can not afford it, they can move to a neighbouring state which allows it to be made (and hence cheaper)
* calling for a nationwide all india ban on cow slaughter is not the right step as it deprives the segment eating beef of their right to eat their traditional or acquired foods(regardless of what community they belong to)

I think its the last point that everyone is fighting about.


Thank you for the very tolerant and understanding suggestions HariC - but that is NOT what I am on about.

I am talking about how the fact that Hindus in general are not being keen on eating beef has been used on this forum as an indicator of Hindu intolerance to other faiths.

Do you agree with that accusation?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 21:01

Kakkaji wrote:
HariC wrote:So while you can go on making all kinds of decisions on behalf of hindus in india, i really doubt if a nation wide cow slaughter ban will ever come in your or my lifetime.


A nationwide cow slaughter ban has never made it through Parliament.


It still possible to make it a country wide ban citing cultural values.

HariC
BRFite
Posts: 358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby HariC » 02 Apr 2007 21:04

shiv wrote:[
I am talking about how the fact that Hindus in general are not being keen on eating beef has been used on this forum as an indicator of Hindu intolerance to other faiths.

Do you agree with that accusation?


Thats a stupid accusation if it has been made on this forum. no debate on that.

Such an accusation has been well responded to. The proper response would have been to prove the accuser wrong by showing there is no such thing as a nationwide beef ban or cow slaughter ban in India and it was merely psyops on his behalf. Some states are free to implement what they want, others allow it at their level. That has been adequately elaborated by all .

But quite a few on this board got suckered into the argument and actually started demanding a ban on cow slaughter thereby exhibting some level of intolerance and giving more ammunition to the accuser (cow slaughter ranks pretty low on the priority of things on my list of threats to hinduism).

(Before you ask me "Is asking for cow slaughter ban exhibiting intolerance to others' - yes i believe so.)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 21:05

HariC wrote:(Before you ask me "Is asking for cow slaughter ban exhibiting intolerance to others' - yes i believe so.)


Can you explain this rational.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 21:09

Acharya wrote: It still possible to make it a country wide ban citing cultural values.


You know Acharya, I eat beef, and I did not have any strong opinions on the issue until - to my utter astonishment I saw on this forum the accusation that I have posted above.

If the attitude towards Hindu sentiment and a historical quirk in India is that callous - my feeling is that a ban on beef is fine.

I can cite dozens of reasons why cows should not be killed and beef not eaten.

There is politics and politics. There is the politics of incitement and the politics of reconciliation.

We don't really need beef. People who want to buy beef should get licenses and go to licensed abbatoirs. and hotels with licenses should supply beef. That way you can control quality and ensure that the murder is kept to a minimum.

Raju

Postby Raju » 02 Apr 2007 21:09

But quite a few on this board got suckered into the argument and actually started demanding a ban on cow slaughter thereby exhibting some level of intolerance


Yes, somewhere down the line the conversation turned into an "us vs them". But why should everyone hold Hindus to higher moral standards, even Hindus can be intolerant and we must accept their right to be in a world where such tendencies are rampant.

Why single out just one community to higher standards ?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 02 Apr 2007 21:15

shiv wrote:
Acharya wrote: It still possible to make it a country wide ban citing cultural values.


There is politics and politics. There is the politics of incitement and the politics of reconciliation.

We don't really need beef. People who want to buy beef should get licenses and go to licensed abbatoirs. and hotels with licenses should supply beef. That way you can control quality and ensure that the murder is kept to a minimum.


I agree with this. They have created a false argument of oppression using the ban on cow slaughter which is historical in India going back to 1000 years.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Postby shiv » 02 Apr 2007 21:16

HariC wrote:
But quite a few on this board got suckered into the argument and actually started demanding a ban on cow slaughter thereby exhibting some level of intolerance and giving more ammunition to the accuser


I understand what you mean.

I find it ironic that you too are sensitive to intolerance by Hindus and do not wish them to be intolerant. But your sentiment isn't worth a milligram of dry cowdung to a person who thinks that Hindus are against other faiths anyway. Just like that.

Shouldn't Hindus have a rethink about this completely un-appreciated "tolerance" that we like to talk about and become just a teeensy weensy bit intolerant to those who trample wantonly on innocent sentiment?
Last edited by shiv on 02 Apr 2007 21:20, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Religion Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests