Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Sacred BS
Living in the United States of America as I do, I have a tendency to gloss over incidents of unreasonable religious behavior from religions other than the various and sundry flavors of Christianity. The society that I live in is soaked in Christianity and I have to deal with that fact on a daily basis, so this is understandable. However, there are times when a situation outside of my direct experience demands a response from me.
In the United Kingdom, in southwest Wales in the historic colony of Carmarthenshire, there is a community by the name of Llanpumsaint [map]. Within this tiny rural community is a multi-faith community of monks named Skanda Vale, or "The Community of the Many Names of God". It is mainly Hindu. These monks keep various "sacred animals" in their monastery including Shambo, a six-year-old black Friesian bull who is worshiped in the Hindu tradition as a representation of the various deities within the Hindu pantheon.
Shambo has tested positive for bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis). Bovine TB has the rare ability to jump the species barrier and infect humans with TB. A human can contract TB by eating the meat of an infected cow or bull, by drinking the milk of an infected cow, or through aerosol droplets.
In other words, just being around old Shambo is very, very dangerous. It has been estimated that in the first half of the twentieth century, bovine TB killed more farm animals that all other infectious diseases combined - and nearly a million human beings.
More below the fold...
The disease has been all-but wiped out through a systematic and scientific campaign that tests and identifies infected cattle, then slaughters them.
Today, July 26, 2007, after a ruling by the Court of Appeals determined that it was lawful and in the interest of public health to put Shambo down, policemen and veterinarians arrived at Skanda Vale to take Shambo away to be slaughtered. They were turned away by the monks because they did not have a warrant. (Under British law they could not obtain a warrant until they had been turned away.) Right now they are attempting to secure a warrant from a local magistrate.
They should have no trouble getting it, but the monks at Skanda Vale have stated that when the policemen come back, they will physically prevent the removal of the bull by having a religious ceremony in front of it - forcing the policemen to disrupt the service and violate their religious freedoms.
This strikes me as the epitome of religious arrogance. These fanatics are in essence claiming that their magical happy fantasy-land delusion trumps the health and safety of not only themselves, but of their neighbors, their community, and the farm animals that provide much of the livelihood of the surrounding area.
This is a perfect example of religious faith directly and stupidly contradicting science, and the laws of their own country. I have no problem with religions doing any sort of silly thing they want to - as long as it does not endanger other people. As soon as it does, it is my opinion that we, in the form of our government, have the moral imperative to protect the health, safety, and livelihood of the community at large.
Even some of their fellow Hindus think they are being stubborn, ignorant idiots.
[link] The monks have said they regard Shambo as sacred because of their Hindu religion and as such he should not be slaughtered, which is usual course of action taken when such an animal tests positive for TB.
But Mr Lakhani, who is also the co-author of the book Hinduism for Schools, said his opinion was this interpretation was "seriously wrong" because it did not take into account the "greater context in which we operate" as Hindu teachings do.
"If the life of one animal may endanger other lives or human lives as well, then we must take into account the greater good and sacrifice the individual good," he said.
"(The Hindu religion) says that it is necessary sometimes to use violence in order to uphold the greater good."
With that in mind, I guess my questions to you all are these: At what point do we stop "respecting religion" to uphold the law and protect human beings? Do these monks have a good case for keeping their silly sacred bull from being slaughtered, or are they simply being small-minded, arrogant, selfish, unreasonable, irrational religious fanatics? Can you think of any parallels here in America? And finally, how do you think us Americans would handle a situation of this nature?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Sure I can think of paralells here in America
One of the things I learned is that the Amish and people like them who reject modern technology (including modern vaccinations) are breeding grounds for diseases like polio that would otherwise have been wiped out. Should, therefor, the kids of these people be vaccinated even against the expressed wishes of their parents? On the one hand part of me says "Yes, vaccinate them, and to hell with what they want", but on the other I appreciate the fact that they are actively preserving the breeding ground of what is an endangered species of pathogenic organism (either way, am I really treating them with the respect people usually expect to a sentient individual?). And in yet another way, if I forced them to give up their religious beliefs just because that's what the "larger community" thinks is good, I'd be no better than those Christian bastards.
There is something you're not taking into account, and that's that sacred or not this cow may be regarded by the monks as a pet (it wouldn't be the first time people used religion as an arguement for personal feelings). Now if it were, say, a dog instead of a cow would you still be for killing it?
Then, there is the final slant to the arguement. Should people with incurable strains of disease be killed as a way of preventing the disease from spreading? If for whatever reason something mutated to be a highly contagious highly drug resistant pathogenic organism should the carriers be killed for the good of the larger community? If yes it would greatly reduce the overall impact of the infection, at the cost of any survivors at the time an antibiotic was found having already been killed (oh well, more for the living I say). If no, why is it you're willing to sacrifice an animal but not a human (why is it wrong to kill humans?), and what will you do if because you showed mercy the infection starts spreading out of control? Or if there is no cure and you're merely condemning the people to suffer as they die waiting for a cure that will never appear?
Heck yeah, I'd kill the dog.
Cat:
If a dog is rabid, or has any other dangerous, highly communicative disease, you put it down. I love my dogs, but they are still only dogs; I don't make the mistake of imagining they are my little children in fur coats.
Very simple selfish reason: I'm a human, and I would just as soon not be killed. By forming a political/social contract with my fellow humans to protect my life and property, human happiness, including mine, is maximized. If we can get to a contagious human in time to kill him before he can start an epidemic, we can instead quarantine him in time to prevent the epidemic.
Good answer
I'd put down the dog too. However the disease you mentioned, rabies, is a far cry from a disease that shows few or no outward symptoms. If a dog is rabid you'd have to be a retard not to figure out something's wrong. However it sounds with this cow like it wasn't so easy to tell.
As for the humans, hell ya I'd kill them. Why not after all? They're merely another individual of a species that isn't endangered, in terms of population dynamics they'll be replaced several times over before they even finish the process of dying. And if the disease is contagious enough that it's not even safe to keep them caged (or quarantined if you prefer a less loaded term, but a cage is a cage unless you're free to leave) than regardless of personal feelings there is no luxury for such things as sparing the infected/prisoners. Hey, after all they can't leave, so aside from treatment, which hasn't always been that great, what is the difference between being imprisoned for a disease you happen to carry and being imprisoned for a crime you committed?
Classic, I'm sure that worked well with that guy with antibiotic resistant TB a while back. Or Typhoid Mary. Or any other person who is a carrier of a dangerous disease but doesn't think they are. Unfortunately unless you're seriously ready to imprison an infected person for life (a life that, in fact, may end painfully) it's hard to watch an innocent person sitting in a cage. You want to spare them the pain of being treated like that, so you make a deal with them to avoid activities that would spread the disease, and then you let them go. Mercy, a fine quality in a human being, but it can occasionally be a weakness. Well, in this case there is no right or wrong answer, and I take a certain sardonic pleasure in playing devil's advocate in cases like these. Ideally whether you live with an incurable disease or choose death should always be your decision.
ARgh.
Between black and white, there's a huge territory of shades of gray. Ditto between "dog" and "little children in fur coats." Lotta real estate there.
Care to elaborate?
Dogs are our most beloved animals, and I wouldn't hesitate to put down a beloved dog with a dangerous disease, whereas I wouldn't put down any human merely because they had a communicable dangerous disease. What gray area do you see?
Humane treatment
Whenever a human becomes a danger to his or her fellow citizens it is considered 'humane' to isolate and imprison them. In the case of the infected individual you mention I think quarantine would be the most likely solution. I can't really see someone being executed for being infected, and the reason for that is that we all understand that they probably did not intentionally get infected. Of course if they did, as part of some elaborate bio-terrorist plot that might be a different story. The intent to cause harm makes a difference.
The keepers of the cow are akin to drunk drivers. They aren't setting out to do harm, but they understand what they are doing has that distinct possibility. Either they should quarantine the cow or kill it. I have little sympathy for cows. If I did I wouldn't eat hamburgers and I have no intention of giving them up.
why is it wrong to kill humans?
Ah, now there is an interesting question. Obviously some people have no difficulty at all with killing their fellow humans and don't consider it to be wrong. Suicide bombers, murderers, people who start unprovoked wars, etc. But most people do not fall into those categories and think that killing (in general) is wrong. But on to the question, and here we stray into the realm of the philosophical.
Why is it wrong to kill humans? There is an inherent assumption here that it is wrong to kill humans, but we shall pass over that for the moment and define some terms. A human being is one individual of a species 6.5 billion strong. A primate most closely related genetically to the chimpanzee. They are arguably the dominant species of the planet and certainly its top predator having run many thousands of other species into extinction. They are however mortal. Each and every one of them is condemned to die at some time, by killing them you do not change the inevitable you merely hasten it. So by killing we mean hastening the time of their inevitable death. So what then is lost when one of them dies? If killing them is wrong then there must be something of value in their being alive. Do we mourn the loss of their feces, their urine and the carbon dioxide that they might have produced? No. Do we mourn the loss of the heat that they might have generated? No. We mourn the future lack of their thoughts and the way that those thoughts might be communicated by their words or actions, and possibly physical potential (such as the potential to produce or raise children). What is lost is that persons relations and that persons decisions. That is what is taken when a human being is killed. Because we are a social species and interdependent (as I have pointed out elsewhere) interaction has come to be seen as having an inherent value. So provisionally at least I would have to conclude that killing people is wrong because it terminates their relationships. With others, with the world and with themselves. Like it or not that is where the value lies. And those with many strong relationships have more than those with few or none. (Remember that the term 'relationship' doesn't necessarily mean a personal interaction. The person who develops a cure for cancer will have a relationship with everyone who receives the cure even if she was a hermit).
Sacred BS
"I have little sympathy for cows. If I did I wouldn't eat hamburgers and I have no intention of giving them up".
Wow. How macho. Real Men Are Indifferent To The Welfare Of Non-Human Creatures. You probably started shaving your chest while still in high school. I am SOOOOO underwhelmed.
Don't be ridiculous
I had my toadies shave my chest hair in high school and if they didn't get the pattern just right I naturally beat them within an inch of their lives. However I realize that the true test of masculinity is issuing anonymous schoolyard taunts from the safety of ones computer chair. Truly that is an astounding display of machismo. So just how many cows are you keeping as pampered pets? Cow pie with whipped cream for desert again this evening? Yummm.
Sacred BS
"However I realize that the true test of masculinity is issuing anonymous schoolyard taunts from the safety of ones computer chair. Truly that is an astounding display of machismo."
And you do it so well.
"So just how many cows are you keeping as pampered pets?"
None
I would be more than happy
To speak them to you face to face.
Fine, come and visit me then.
"To speak them to you face to face."
I am afraid I simply cannot afford to travel to the USA. Not until I win the Lottery anyway. However if you would care to come to Dublin, Ireland I am sure we could arrange a meeting and then you can impress me with your philosophy of disdain for non-human creatures.
You astound me
There are a rather large number of animals in the world (even in Ireland I would imagine) and for some who cares so very very deeply for each and every one of the poor little tykes it really is amazing that you find time to come here and berate us carnivores and casual animal abusers. Surely some bedraggled Irish cat is going without a pedicure because you are here not to mention the lonely hamsters spread far and wide throughout the emerald isle pining away for the lack of your warm and comforting presence. The neglect that you demonstrate by denying them your soothing presence...well it's simply heartwrenching.
So how many other Jainists are there in Ireland?
Whereas you run true to form.
"There are a rather large number of animals in the world (even in Ireland I would imagine) and for some who cares so very very deeply for each and every one of the poor little tykes it really is amazing that you find time to come here and berate us carnivores and casual animal abusers. Surely some bedraggled Irish cat is going without a pedicure because you are here not to mention the lonely hamsters spread far and wide throughout the emerald isle pining away for the lack of your warm and comforting presence. The neglect that you demonstrate by denying them your soothing presence...well it's simply heartwrenching."
Sarcasm, it is said, is the lowest form of wit. And wit is best left to the witty, not the witless.
"So how many other Jainists are there in Ireland?"
As I am not personally acquainted with the entire population of Ireland I cannot answer your question.
So just where do you find
those nifty little brooms that allow you to sweep away all of the tiny inoffensive creatures in your path so that you'd don't inadvertantly crush them? I was just wondering because I have not seen them in stores. Do you Jainers have to order them on line or something?
I do feel a hint of sadness for those poor animals you are neglecting by coming here though. The need is great and your self-professed level of caring is of the very highest calibre. Could it be that your actions don't match your words? Heavens no! Say it is not so! Because that would make you a... well, something unspeakable. So how much more of your valuable animal comforting time will you spend answering this I wonder?
Is there no end to your ignorance?
"So where do you find those nifty little brooms that allow you to sweep away all of the tiny inoffensive creatures in your path so that you'd don't inadvertantly crush them?"
I accept that the by merely existing I cause the death of other forms of life. However I do my best to minimise the harm I cause and unlike you I do not gloat over the misfortune and death of living creatures.
"I was just wondering because I have not seen them in stores. Do you Jainers have to order them on line or something?"
In your previous idiotic outburst you referred to Jainists and implied that I am one. Now it is "Jainers". As I do not know what you are talking about (any more than, I suspect, do you) I can neither confirm or deny this.
"I do feel a hint of sadness for those poor animals you are neglecting by coming here though."
Liar. The only thing you feel for animals is contempt. Just as you do for people who do not share your viewpoint. And in trying to appear contemptuous you only show yourself to be contemptible.
"The need is great...."
Yes, thanks to people like you.
"....and your self-professed level of caring is of the very highest calibre."
There is no "calibre" involved. Either one cares or one does not.
"Could it be that your actions don't match your words? Heavens no! Say it is not so!"
Very well. It is not so.
"Because that would make you a... well, something unspeakable."
Doubtless by your reckoning a person who cares about non-human creatures IS something unspeakable.
"So how much more of your valuable animal comforting time will you spend answering this I wonder?"
About as long as it takes to drink a cup of tea.
»
Certainly
My ignorance is no match for your omniscience as demonstrated by your incisive reading of my personality from an ocean away. Granted it isn't the biggest ocean, but still.
Your powers of mind reading are indeed a thing of mystery and wonder. You have some proof perhaps that the only thing I feel for animals is contempt? Some proof that I never ever felt anything else? You can provide that any time now.
Ah so the contempt is for anyone who does not agree with me. I'll make a note of that.
Ah for those lost days of bear baiting. Now you will get me all nostalgic. It would seem that I am quite the villain aren't I? Perhaps you should report me to the authorities. Heaven knows what such a reprehensible person might do. That reminds me though. I need to buy more black shirts.
Indeed and caring without action is a cheap commodity. It invovles only saying in your mind "I care about all animals on Earth. ::sigh:: I am such a wonderful person for being so caring. In fact I care so much that I don't really need to do anything that shows this gargantuan caring as it is so self evident. Who in their right mind could question it?"
This is the age of the internet and Wikipedia. If you can't do two seconds of research with a search engine I wont be the one to hold your hand. Look them up, you might like to join. Then you can come and thank me for pointing you to them.
To answer your question: No. More new information is being generated daily in all the fields of science than I could possibly keep up with and so my ignorance grows daily. So does yours and everyone else's.
Time for another cup of tea.
"My ignorance is no match for your omniscience as demonstrated by your incisive reading of my personality from an ocean away. Granted it isn't the biggest ocean, but still."
Let's leave omniscience to God or the Pope shall we? And your personality speaks for itself through your comments.
'Liar. The only thing you feel for animals is contempt.'
Pity I do not know how to construct those pretty quote boxes. However.
"Your powers of mind reading are indeed a thing of mystery and wonder. You have some proof perhaps that the only thing I feel for animals is contempt?"
The proof is there for all to see in your original comment.
"Some proof that I never ever felt anything else? You can provide that any time now."
I made no claim that you "never ever felt anything else", ergo I am under no obligation to provide anything. I am referring to your present feelings.
'Just as you do for people who do not share your viewpoint.'
"Ah so the contempt is for anyone who does not agree with me. I'll make a note of that."
No need to make a note of something that is second nature.
'Doubtless by your reckoning a person who cares about non-human creatures IS something unspeakable.'
"Ah for those lost days of bear baiting. Now you will get me all nostalgic."
Why bother? You can always fall back on cockfighting and dogfighting, those favoured pastimes of braindead sports "celebrities". Then you have the good ole redneck recreations, rodeos and rattlesnake roundups, seems to me as if you are spoiled for choice.
"It would seem that I am quite the villain aren't I?"
You said it, who am I to disagree?
"Perhaps you should report me to the authorities."
What would be the point? Condoning animal abuse is not, as far as I know, an indictable offence. Unfortunately.
"Heaven knows what such a reprehensible person might do."
"Might" does not cut it from a legal viewpoint.
"That reminds me though. I need to buy more black shirts."
Your sartorial preferences are your own affair. Bear in mind though that it requires a certain degree of, shall we say, panache to wear a black shirt, especially a tailored one.
'Either one cares or one does not.'
"Indeed and caring without action is a cheap commodity."
Yes. That is why I prefer the "hands on" approach in my own small way.
"It invovles only saying in your mind "I care about all animals on Earth. ::sigh:: I am such a wonderful person for being so caring. In fact I care so much that I don't really need to do anything that shows this gargantuan caring as it is so self evident. Who in their right mind could question it?"
Absolutely. As somebody once remarked, inability to participate in a given course of action does not disqualify one from approving it or simply speaking out in its favour.
'In your previous idiotic outburst you referred to Jainists and implied that I am one. Now it is "Jainers". As I do not know what you are talking about'
"This is the age of the internet and Wikipedia. If you can't do two seconds of research with a search engine I wont be the one to hold your hand."
You have no idea of the horror I feel at such a prospect.
"Look them up, you might like to join. Then you can come and thank me for pointing you to them."
I did and for "Jainist" I discovered several references to the Jain religion. "Jainer" however only led me to someones personal web page. Of course the term "Jain" would have sufficed but I presume you were somehow trying to be facetious or otherwise indulging in some kind of cheap point scoring. I am, as it happens, fully aware of the Jain religion and do in fact hold it in the highest esteem. However as a confirmed agnostic it is not for me. My respect and regard for all living creatures is not motivated by the fear of what a wrathful deity might do to me in the next world, rather out of concern for this one.
All that time spent on wrath leaving the animals unloved
Ah, of course. You care ever so much, but do damned little (if anything). What a surprise. One quick pat to the cat and some high pressure spleen venting here and you are ready to mount up on your (pampered) high horse and declare your patron sainthood of animals. Maybe it would improve your attitude if you had an occasional cheeseburger.
By all means waste some more time responding that you might otherwise use actually doing something to help animals and show everyone the true depth of your 'character'.
All that time spent on driveling idiocy.
'Yes. That is why I prefer the "hands on" approach in my own small way.'
"Ah, of course. You care ever so much, but do damned little (if anything)."
How do you know (or care) how much or little I do? Do you have my home under surveillance?
"What a surprise. One quick pat to the cat and some high pressure spleen venting here and you are ready to mount up on your (pampered) high horse and declare your patron sainthood of animals."
I believe animals already have a patron saint. St. Francis.
"Maybe it would improve your attitude if you had an occasional cheeseburger."
If your example is anything to go by I'll pass.
"By all means waste some more time responding that you might otherwise use actually doing something to help animals and show everyone the true depth of your 'character'."
As I am neither a qualified veterinarian nor a game ranger my options are somewhat limited. Doing a little is not as good as doing a lot but better than doing nothing. Cheap sneering and lying will not deter me from showing you up for the callous, unfeeling excuse for a human being that you are, although you manage to do that all by yourself. Regarding depth of character, there is more in one of my discarded nail clippings than there is in your entire cheeseburger stuffed carcass.
»
It would seem
That you have your work cut out for you. Best get moving. Or better yet make some more snide comments to bolster your self esteem and do nothing. Your choice.
Geez have you forgotten already? I can tell absolutely everything about you from the comments you make. I thought you had already established that.
One would think if you cared as much as you say about animals then you'd become one. I guess being hypocrite and making blog comments is the easier course.
Yeah that comes through pretty clearly. So when are you going to learn how to make quote boxes Mr. Classy? Oh, and someone as obviously valuable as yourself should save his nail clippings. They might be worth money some day.
It would seem
That you are geographically illiterate in addition to your other shortcomings.
'How do you know (or care) how much or little I do?'
"Geez have you forgotten already? I can tell absolutely everything about you from the comments you make. I thought you had already established that."
Far be it from me to spoil your delusions of grandeur. Your self esteem (such as it is) could not stand the shock.
'As I am neither a qualified veterinarian nor a game ranger my options are somewhat limited.'
"One would think if you cared as much as you say about animals then you'd become one."
Not possible due to a combination of circumstances, age, money and lack of education among them.
"I guess being hypocrite and making blog comments is the easier course."
You guess? Surely you are fully conversant with your true nature by now.
'Regarding depth of character, there is more in one of my discarded nail clippings than there is in your entire cheeseburger stuffed carcass.'
"Yeah that comes through pretty clearly."
Obviously it does when even you can recognise it.
"So when are you going to learn how to make quote boxes Mr. Classy?"
As soon as someone teaches me how. When are you going to desist from using schoolyard jargon in your pathetic attempts to score points? Speaking of class there is more in one of.........Oh, never mind.
"Oh, and someone as obviously valuable as yourself should save his nail clippings. They might be worth money some day."
I would if I thought I could make money for animal welfare/conservation charities by doing so.
»
No wonder..
Looking at your intensity in this matter, Thameron, I am wondering if one of the animals did you. Does atheism come from experiencing a priest, then?
Well now
Does all intensity imply priestly sodomy? Why would you assume that?
Not at all..
Intensity associated with harshness, cruelty and bitterness, to animals as well as altruists--such as you demonstrate--is more likely to have a root in a bitter experience. Hence the assumption.
Trumpeting her name does not
Trumpeting her name does not make a fool, Thameron, wiser than an anonymous wise person.
But she may grow up one day. So, I wish you the best.
Soylent Green Is People!
Hi Cat,
First thing, I'd like to thank you for commenting here on UTI. You always come up with some great comments that make me think. I really enjoy reading your stuff.
Because they are human beings and I am a species-ist. I would sacrifice a thousand tb-infected bulls to protect a single child with an "incurable" disease. For one thing, science marches forward. Who is to say that a cure or a treatment for this previously "incurable" disease won't be found tomorrow? If by showing mercy the disease started to spread out of control, we would deal with it as best we can. I suppose this is the price we pay for holding our own species in a position above all others. However, we have a lot of experience with mitigating situations like this, procedures in place by which we can by isolating the infected person(s) and treat them with drugs or what-have-you. Epidemic outbreaks of disease is something that us humans have been forced to deal with time and time again over the course of our species' history. We've gotten pretty good at it. If the outbreak is among human beings, we mitigate the spread of the disease. If it is among an animal species, usually we kill them. Hey, it works. :) Not perfectly, but it does work.
Interestingly, this is the same argument that the Hindu monks are making. They consider Shambo to be "sentient" (their word, not mine.) And in the Hindu faith they think that it is wrong to kill a sentient being.
Personally, I think that their definition of "sentient" is stretched all out of shape.
Thankeys
Glad to make people think. Being a mental irritant is definitely an activity I enjoy.
Truthfully the question of "Why is it wrong to kill humans?" came to me while watching X and I've been turning it over in my head ever since. Don't get me wrong, I don't think humans should be killed (well, OK, the part of me that doesn't like to see things die is split between "don't kill humans" and "kill humans for the good of the planet" but that's just me), but the mental disection went something like this.
Why is it wrong to kill humans?
Well, I don't like hurting things.
What if you have no choice? What if it is a difference between life and death? (note: this could mean either being attacked or needing food)
Well, I suppose if I value my life more than theirs (which I guess I do, I guess it would depend on the individual) I would have to kill them. I'd be more comfortable with it if they'd attacked me though.
Than why wouldn't you?
The police would catch me and either kill me or cage me.
What if there were no police? What if there were no downside to killing other than the loss of an individual you don't particularly care for?
Er... (this is where the dialog comes to a screeching halt).
Gross as the idea of eating humans might sound my "survival" group in the English class studying Lord of the Flies was made of five girls and one boy, the four other girls voted to eat the boy (and he was hoping he'd be marooned on a deserted island with five bored girls). Although humans are risky to eat because of diseases so I'd rather eat non-humans. Actually I've seen a surprising number of people answer the question of "who would you like to be lost with on a deserted island with?" with the fattest individual they can think of for that very reason (I usually answer with either the most competent survivor I can think of, the person who I think stands the best chance of devising a way to get off said island or the person I'd most like to be marooned on a deserted island with, but if I were going for meat I'd ask for the most muscle bound moron I could think of). History is written by the winner, and they could say he died of a heart attack (there'd be very little evidence left so it might come down to confessions by the survivors). I'm pro cannibalism if the victim consents to be dinner, but against if the victim doesn't (I don't, however, subscribe to the fuzzy belief that animals give themselves willingly to us as food. I tend to agree with the study that found that killing and torturing animals for fun is similar enough to killing and torturing humans for fun to make the individual that does the former more likely to also do the latter).
One thing about Hindu culture is that they have the belief that humans can reincarnate as cows. Why? Hell if I know why cows were chosen instead of something like an elephant that's actually intelligent and long lived. Weird? Ya, I wouldn't want to come back as a giant mass of steak tartar. Now you stated that the cow in question was seen as the incarnation of various deities rather than the reincarnation of a previously living human, not sure if that makes a difference. Heck I'm not sure if it would make a difference if I knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was in fact the reincarnation of a human (hmm, probably not since in that case I'd probably assume that I've been lunchmeat in at least one of my many incarnations, this time I eat you, next time you may eat me, fair's fair after all). Ironic really, that the Hindu religion treats cattle better than their lowest caste of humans. In this case I know from studying basic college genetics that cattle are much dumber than their wild counterparts, and lets face it they were bred to be meat, not to be able to beat champion chess players, so they're not one of the critters I'd credit with sentience. Corvidae, yes, delphineds, yes, cows, not really, pigs, not sure, although if they were proved to be sentient it might mean sentience is not a criteria for getting off the menu (hmm, now wouldn't that cause an amusing series of debates).
There was a story
There was a story I once read where, for reasons I don't remember, suddenly all animals learned how to talk. People immediately stopped eating animals, but after a couple of weeks when they realized that the animals had nothing but the same dumb things to say day after day they started eating them again.
Sacred BS
"Because they are human beings and I am a species-ist".
A boast about as worthy as "I am a terrorist"
"If the outbreak is among human beings, we mitigate the spread of the disease. If it is among an animal species, usually we kill them".
Any excuse to exercise our bloody-handed dominion. The most contemptible form of war on the weak.
"And in the Hindu faith they think that it is wrong to kill a sentient being".
Pity the Hindu faith is not more widespread.
And from your original comment:
"Do these monks have a good case for keeping their silly sacred bull from being slaughtered,"
It is quite clear to me that the silly one here is certainly not the bull.
... "or are they simply being small-minded, arrogant, selfish, unreasonable irrational religious fanatics?"
If they are they are no worse than the rest of the small-minded, arrogant, selfish, unreasonable irrational non-religious fanatics that delight in pontificating about things that they know nothing about and do not in any case concern them.
"And finally, how do you think us Americans would handle a situation of this nature?"
Probably the same way as you handled the situation with the First Nations and the bison.
I guess my comment is a bit
I guess my comment is a bit deviation from major thrust of this article in principle, but being of scientific attitude as we are, we should consider the following.
1. Nobody is going to eat this particular bull.
2. Bull will never give milk, I guess :)
3. Aerosol droplets are only infective if there is an active open lesion in the bull's lungs. Has that been checked out?
4. Does the bull live in isolation or is with a herd? If it is in isolation, there is little chance of other animals being infected.
5. Have they even considered treating the bovine TB? We don't kill infected and spreading human beings, why the bull?
Above arguments would not be necessary for any ordinary cow (unless you happen to believe in animal rights to live), but when a significant number of people consider this particular cow valuable to them (for whatever reasons), we should respect them and try to save this life if possible. Sometimes governments are prone to be more arrogant in taking actions against religious minority of little consequence. I agree with Dirk, Jews have consequence.
Good Points!
Those are really great points, Anonymous. I will respond to them each as best I can.
1. True, but is this a good enough reason to circumvent the law that has without a doubt controlled the bovine TB epidemic in the UK for the last 100 years or so?
2. Heheh... very true.
3. I have no idea, but again, the law is very clear on this. It seems to me that they do not want to take any chances.
4. It is (I mean "was" now) indeed without a herd. It was not, however, in "isolation". From what I understand it was used as a worship object by the monks in very close quarters.
5. From what I read the government doesn't ever treat infected cattle, they simply and effectively kill them instead. The government official stated that even if they treated the bull, there are no procedures in place to do it first of all, and secondly, that they would not know if the bull had been cured or was in remission or whatever. They just do not have the procedures in place to do that. Plus, the cost of treating and nursing the bull back to health would be payed by British citizen's tax money - and why in the world would someone who was not a Hindu want to foot the bill for it's recovery when just killing the silly things has worked so well in the past 100 years?
Yes, we should try and respect all religions, minority or not, but not at the expense of human beings. Yes, governments can be arrogant at times, but in this particular case I agree with the government's actions. They have a huge amount of evidence that suggests that killing TB-infected cattle works. There is no evidence to suggest that treating them for the disease works as well, or even at all.
Why test a wildly unknown procedure when the law and the evidence says otherwise, and risk harming human beings or their livelihoods?
Again, this is only my opinion. It may indeed be a simple thing to treat a single bull for bovine TB. If they did treat it though, would that set precedent that required the government to treat every infected cow or bull? And if so, how much would it cost? I think it would probably be astronomical.
But, good, good points. Something to consider anyway.
Sacred BS
"when just killing the silly things has worked so well in the past 100 years?"
Spoken like a true speciesist. Your contempt for non-human creatures makes me want to puke. Doubtless you also approve of the British government's well and truly discredited "policy" of slaughtering thousands of badgers annually because they allegedly spread bovine TB (which they contract from cattle in the first place).
Cornelius, I share the same
Cornelius, I share the same sentiment as you about Brent's this comment.
Mind, I do not mean by that that I do not respect his rationalism, his intelligence, his outspokenness. And I also understand that a large number of humanists, strangly, do not care about animals, or plants, and frequently pass such cruel statements.
Why wouldn't you care for a life? How can you be so insensitive about another living, breathing being? Yes, you eat them for survival, you eat them for pleasure, but to take a posture like.. they are silly things, kill'em, I don't care?
I can't respect such a person as a whole.
No respect for those who do not respect all life.
"Why wouldn't you care for a life? How can you be so insensitive about another living, breathing being? Yes, you eat them for survival, you eat them for pleasure, but to take a posture like.. they are silly things, kill'em, I don't care?"
And now we have someone else professing to love their dogs while using the pejorative term "only" in reference to them. "He's only a road sweeper". "She's only a hash slinger". "They're only slum dwellers".
"I can't respect such a person as a whole."
You and me both.
Leave the kids alone in their own playground
Cornelius, it is likely that the people who don't respect all life have their minds still shadowed by the religious preachers of childhood, confirming that only humans are made in the image of god. Or that only humans have soul (I have been given such answers by evanglicals here in US).
To well reasoned people, it wouldn't take a fraction of second to realize how valuable a life is. How amazing, almost miraculus, life is. So many moving parts, so much self-identitym, retention of information and self-consciousness make up each animal (yes, including ants and spiders and bacteria and plants). And then they respect the fact. An atheist, who has reached to atheism by great personal effort to understand the world, this is given. It is the people jumping on atheism bandwagon, because it makes sense to them and sounds cool and defiant, would still retain some or the other dogma (such as species-ism). They are no better than the fundamentalists by any other name.
Thanks, Brent. As you know
Thanks, Brent.
As you know there are counter-points to make, but with no knowledge on how well the court had considered this case, I would let it go. Perhaps they looked at all important angles.
But I am intrigued by your species-ism (RE: Cat). Perhaps there will come a time when our being speciest will run counter against our survival. Altruism seems like the best way to go to me, even if all you care about is species benefit and survival (it is too late, or rather too early, to put it in the context of this particular case, but in general, and over a longer period of time. We need to start thinking in this direction now).
Definition of a sentinent being? What is it? And how is it stretched out of shape here? To me, how it works out in practicality is that a sentinent being should be able to protect itself against us. If it can't, it is not. We, as rational human beings, need to go beyond Darwinism (surival of the fittest), otherwise we are as sentinent as a cow, or corn, and as dogmatic and supremist as the religious.
One of these days
Murder may become a sacrament. Right now killing humans who are viewed as not 'in group' makes you a hero while killing humans who are viewed as 'in group' makes you a murderer. I think as the population expands past the resources necessary to maintain said population that that may change.
As to sentience: The mirror test is a good one. If you realize that the creature in the mirror is you and not another of your species then I think you can be said to be sentient.
Cows don't pass this test.
Mirror test
I used to ride motorcycles. I can’t tell you how often I was literally invisible to car and truck drivers. In broad daylight, with my headlight on, on a bright red bike, I’d see a car come up to a side intersection and turn right out in front of me. If the test of sentience was the “I see the motorcycle test,” they would have been sent off to the Soylent Green burger factory.
For years, I used to curse at them for being soooo stupid as to endanger my life by not LOOKING. But it wasn’t because they were bestially stupid, it was because a pattern-recognition feature of the human brain had in some drivers not been programmed with the visual aspect of motorcycles. Personally, I believe this is the same reason you see so many dead animals on the roads: Most people literally can’t see them on the roadside until they’ve actually started to dash – or waddle or amble or crawl – across.
In terms of the different perceptive mechanisms, and the different evolutionary mandates programmed into each species’ brains, the mirror test strikes me as tabloid science, something as silly in its own way as asking a girl in a bar “Hey baby, whut’s yer sign?” – as if the moment of her birth meant anything at all about anything at all, all these years later. As silly as me betting my life that every other driver on the road would be fully aware of me on my motorcycle.
Seems to me that anything that can feel pain has to be self-aware, to some degree. Anything that can make a choice between several options is probably self-aware. Anything that can demonstrate a preference, or communicate some new piece of information, is showing some degree of self-awareness.
If you’re a 500-pound grizzly walking along the trail, and you see a 900-pound grizzly coming the other way, it would seem to demonstrate self-awareness if you turned aside and ran away at top speed. You’d be demonstrating awareness of your comparative size, awareness of the danger of possible pain or death, awareness that there was this other option you could choose in place of ambling straight onward.
Having lived with dogs, I can tell you that dogs (the big ones, anyway, the ones with brains big enough to BE dogs, and not the twisted little yappy-toys) are self-aware, probably as much as you and I are. I’ve seen dogs make decisions, express clear preferences, demonstrate definite and deliberate communications.
The first time my dog told me “no” – which was really the first time I was receptive enough to pay attention and NOTICE – it just about blew the top of my head off.
We were out hiking, and when I took the right fork of the trail, he lay down on his chest and stared after me. I noticed him back there finally, and turned around, tried to coax him to follow. In earlier years, I would have just gone back and grabbed his collar and dragged him after me. This time, I paid attention. And I suddenly realized that this thing on the trail wasn’t just a fur-covered ambulatory entertainment device with engaging little mechanical quirks that fired off at random, but a self-contained Self that, in this moment, WANTED something other than what I wanted.
He’d said “No, I don’t want to go that way.”
There was SOMEBODY in that furry head, and he was communicating something to me. Something deliberate and clear and expressive of a personal preference. And he’d been “saying” things like this right along, but I’d been too dismissively dumb to notice.
Koko the gorilla and Alex the parrot get lots of press for the fact that they "talk," but some guy doing equally amazing work with dogs would get comparatively little press, because his animals only "communicate."
Having been around dogs, cats, horses and cattle, I know that a lot of what they do is communication – deliberate messages sent out to other dogs or cats or horses, or to their human handlers and friends. If you only viewed them in terms of talking or understanding some human LANGUAGE, they're limited as hell. But if you really look at them in terms of COMMUNICATION, they're "talking" all the time.
I have a hard time escaping the idea that these communications show they’re self-aware. And yet all would fail the mirror test.
mirror mirror
From what I have read although the mirror test is used as a test for sentience it is not terribly reliable, because some species do not rely on sight to identify individuals (the mirror test tests only whether an individual can recognize itself by sight, which although it shows some level of self awareness if I were to challenge you to identify yourself by smell you might not do so well). The mirror test is part of a basic self-awareness test. What is self awareness? My philosophy teacher said we have it but other animals don't because we can question our own existence, but by extension does that mean humans who never question their existence are not sentient? Ultimately this test is difficult to pull off just because we can't pop in our babelfish translator and say "Yo, duck, for what purpose do you exist?". Perhaps the sign of human sentience is that they think a simple statement like "I am me" is somehow earthshaking (certainly my philosophy teacher seemed to think so, but I couldn't understand why).
The test that I've most often heard of as the best test of sentience is the abstract test, can an animal pass a test that requires it to understand some abstract idea. One variant is the meat and string test (which crows passed) in which meat is attached to one string, a useless hunk of stone to another and the animal is tested to see if it can correctly gage which string is the correct one to pull in order to get the food. Another variant (used on chimps) places a banana out of reach and places boxes of varying size within the enclosure, to test if the chimps realize that they can stack the boxes then climb them to reach the banana. Another test of sentience might be all those squirrel proof bird feeders on the market (many of which don't work). If the fact that we can build such contraptions is proof that we are sentient, what is the fact that squirrels can often defeat them?
That is a very self-ish
That is a very self-ish test! It works for us.
What if a real sentience lies in seeing the creator in mirror, or the singularity, or the plurality, or the..
Not exactly
Creator? What creator? I've never seen 'the creator' in a mirror or anywhere else for that matter. As far as I know human beings are the only ones with the religious impulse so my test is more inclusive than yours. Mine would include the common chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, dolphin, elephant, and humans. Yours would include only humans and only religious humans at that. Now who is really being selfish?
Not really
I have no test to offer, that is.
Peeking in
Did you know that Shambo has a web cam? As of this moment, he seems to be still moving around in his stall, though the page also says:
Very odd.
No respect
Blanket respect for religion is a bunch of crap and the taboo against criticizing religion is one I would like to see broken in my lifetime. I try respecting ALL PEOPLE (even the religious) until they give me reason not to respect them. These monks have no respect for the health of others in their community, therefore are not worthy of my respect.
Catholic churches getting away with providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. If any other institution openly disobeyed the law, they would be raided by law enforcement. Apparently churches are above the law her in this country.
If it were Hindu monks protecting a hefer, the gov't wouldn't think twice about disregarding their religious principles. Same with a Muslim offenders. However, if it were a Xian or Jew protesting their religious freedoms, the gov't would back down.
Without...
...getting into your questions too much, there has been a lot of case law in the US concerning such matters. In the past I think that the US Courts have done a reasonably good job of balancing religious freedom and public interest. That's about where I fall on the matter, with my libertarian inclinations: do what you want, so long as it doesn't present a threat to others.
That said, I'm surprised a bit about this location. Our last vacation to Wales a year ago, we based ourselves there in Carmarthenshire for over a week, and I don't think I heard anything about these monks. Lovely area.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
or are they simply being
small-minded, arrogant, selfish, unreasonable, irrational religious fanatics?
Yes.
At what point do we stop "respecting religion" to uphold the law and protect human beings?
At the point "respecting religion" interferes.
Didn't we run into this kind of thing in Alabama with the ten commandments and judge whats-his-name? I know it wasn't a living creature, but didn't the xtians defend that icon with the same fervor? Would that be a parallel?
Ear tags
Why are there tags in the ears of this representation of a supposed deity? Putting those things in is a bloody mess. And probably hurts like a bitch.
A couple of notes
With regard to the government's considering all the issues involved, see this written statement from the Welsh Assembly Government. It looks to me like they did, indeed, consider a great variety of issues including freedoms vs. public safety.
This afternoon, the authorities there announced that, after post mortem examination, they can confirm that Shambo did, indeed, have bovine TB. According to an article on the BBC:
Apparently other animals have already had tests which show some possibility of infection. Took too long to go through all the rigmarole, now more are at risk . . .
American parallels
The parallel I think of here in America are the religious fanatics who refuse to allow their children to receive routine medical care to save their lives, but instead allow them to die while trying to heal them through prayer. If you want to be a martyr to your irrational religious beliefs, thats your problem, but to deny medical care to a child is unforgiveable and should be prohibited by law.
I'm hungry
I could use a good beef hamburger.