The Welsh Assembly condemned to death Shambo, a six-year-old Friesian bull after he tested positive for tuberculosis. In the middle of this month, however, a judge ruled against the decision to kill the animal after the Hindu monks sought judicial review of the decision to slaughter Shambo. The bull, which lives at the Hindu Skanda Vale Community, is a sacred animal to the Hindu residents (as are all cattle).
The Welsh Assembly responded to the judge's decision by appealing immediately to resolve what they consider to be serious health issues. There has been a consistent rule that cattle that test positive for bovine TB must be slaughtered to prevent further infections.
This is a true case of church versus state, but in a way with which we are not familiar in America. As in our justice system, the public good must be balanced with the policy decision to determine the appropriate outcome. The European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right to exhibitions of religious belief. This would presumably include keeping alive an animal considered to be sacred by a religion. The court was then faced with deciding between public health regulation (1981 Animal Health Act or The Tuberculosis (Wales) Order 2006) and the convention's guarantee.
On Thursday morning, more than 100 Hindus prayed outside of Shambo's home while police lead the bull away from the monastery to be put down. Upon the announcement of the bull's death, one of the monks said that the officials had "committed the most violent and ignorant act of desecration of our temple and destroyed an innocent life."
This violation of a religious belief likely protected other cattle, deer, and possibly even humans from TB infection. The director of the National Secular Society claimed that the Hindus were "putting religious dogma before the welfare of the community."
Shambo is gone, but this is not likely the last we will see of this issue.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Having recognized our differences, I would have to err on the side of ensuring the health and safety of as many people/animals as possible. After that, then certainly all consideration would be given to religious customs.
The animal had bovine TB. If it was in an ordinary herd it would have been put down immediately. Religious beliefs should not come into the equation.
I do believe that all religions should be allowed to practice - so long as the public weal is not compromised. In this case, it was.
For instance, the religious belief by the Jehovah Witness community of refusing blood transfusions. Some years back a child of some members was in danger of death. The parents refused the use of a transfusion during a surgery. It caught the attention of the news media and legal authorities stepped in. I don't recall the outcome.
It will be interesting to watch as the story of Shambo evolves.
The same is true of the Jehovah's Witnesses allowing their children to die for want of a blood transfusion. The child is too young to share those beliefs and thus it's the responsibility of the civil authorities to protect the child's life. This belief, by the way, is based on a blatant misinterpretation of a single bible passage. Personally I believe adults should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves, even if they seem stupid or criminal to us, but they should not be allowed to do so in life-threatening situations involving children.
Interesting article, Lauren.
//You don't have to look at religion to see people becoming fanatic about the mistreatment of animals. . . .And everytime someone mistreats a cute kitten, the mob shows its claws and it makes national news.//
Mario,
"Fanatic"? Where is your humanity? These most recent incidents do highlight how incensed we can become over mistreatment of animals [which I think is a good thing], but don't mind mass slaughter of human beings; indeed, even promote same. There's a disconnect somewhere which I suspect has more to do with politics -- or the politics of religion -- than religion itself.
Perhaps we can only find our gentler, kinder selves through creatures more innocent, helpless and [seemingly and so obviously] so different from ourselves. It's sad that we can look at human beings and declare them the enemy and then 'fight to the death.' I'm glad we can rise up en masse about 'something'.
I grew up on a farm and it was not uncommon to share the tragedy of the loss of an entire herd from foot and mouth or other disease. Speaking of politics and the good of the common weal, I watched testimony before congress re the laxness of security and screening procedures re mad cow. Such a complicated world.
Most of you seem to be saying "it's only this one animal", but in the religious worldview there's no such thing. One's beliefs may be stated globally (in the society/cultural sense), but they are practiced locally (on a one-on-one basis). If those beliefs do not apply to this one cow, how can they be said to apply to ALL cows? And conversely, if one's beliefs protect ALL cows, why wouldn't they apply to this one cow?
Same with the Christian edict to love one's fellow people.
Remember, this was not a Hindu country. The UK is not going to tailor its public health laws to accommodate someone's religious beliefs at the potential cost of an epidemic. It is as simple as that.
//The UK is not going to tailor its public health laws to accommodate someone's religious beliefs at the potential cost of an epidemic.//
Apparently not; yet it's also apparent that the Hindu's don't see it quite so cut and dried; hence, as LA R noted, a case of conflict between church and state. Such conflicts will increase as societies become more culturally, racially and ethnically diverse.
This country does try to take all shades of religious opinion into account. A reason, perhaps, why we have so many disaffected islamists who are citizens of our country and who feel alienated towards the rest of their countrymen and women...
I've noticed in other countries that people live according to their religious beliefs and in America we find a religion that fits out personal beliefs and lifestyle.
Also, please remember that in countries that do observe this religious divide that you describe, there are frequently excesses such as shooting an unarmed woman in the head (Afghanistan), murdering tens of thousands of villagers (Darfur), burning women to death (India), and the list goes on and on.
In terms of the cow, the decision was clear. Public health takes precedence over religious beliefs. Keeping the animal away from the herd isn't the issue. I don't know if he could have cross-infected humans, other animals, etc. The smart and humane thing to do was to put the animal down. Dying "naturally" is pretty ugly with tuberculosis.
Apparently not; yet it's also apparent that the Hindu's don't see it quite so cut and dried;"
I would suggest to the Hindus. If you don't like the law in the UK go back to India.
I also agree with Israel S.
There are going to be, and have been conflicts concerning Muslem's here in the US, One I remember was some woman wanting to wear traditional Muslem clothing. Same comment. You want it your religioous way - go back to where you came from.
Mr GEORGE everyone should be free to practice his or her religion without harming the sentiments of other people, whether in any country. PS: Ofcourse it has to be a secular country. i don't agree with ur belief
// conflicts concerning Muslem's here in the US, One I remember was some woman wanting to wear traditional Muslem clothing. Same comment. You want it your religioous way - go back to where you came from. //
every community has their own sentiments and culture to follow. In Malaysia a newspaper was banned for showing an image of Jesus Christ smoking, mind you a non-christian majority country. Instead of sending them back, there are always better options. Hinduism is restricted to a certain region but what of christianity as in the above case, so which country should they go back to? Israel?
I would like to emphasasise again that i support UK govt decision but comments expressed here by some people shows little intolerance.