DEFRA pursues a policy of religious discrimination
It transpires that the RSPCA has apologised to a Hindu temple for killing its sacred cow. It did so on ‘welfare grounds’, but this protocol is to be reassessed. Yet it is only to be reassessed when they deal with the welfare of animals ‘at organisations which have a non-violent ethos’.
The RSPCA is developing a policy in which the animals of monotheists (including Sikhs?) must be euthanised to alleviate suffering, but those of the karmic religions are to be left to continue in their suffering, for the suffering of these animals is intrinsic to samsara and necessary for the attainment of mokshe, while the suffering of the animals of the monotheists is pointless, for they cannot attain salvation.
Perhaps the RSPCA should consider Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, or consider that King Solomon referred to the spirit (Heb: ‘ruach’) of animals (Ps 150:6).
The new DEFRA policy emanates from the dispute with Bhatkivedanta Manor Temple in Watford. When its sacred cow, Gangotri, was injured, she began to suffer from pressure sores because she could no longer stand. The Hindus believe this suffering to be the result of Gangotri’s karma – ie, she gets what she deserves. The RSPCA thought this a load of tosh and distinctly inhumane, so they administered a lethal injection to Gangotri, thereby ending her suffering.
This angered Hindus nationwide and provoked protests outside the RSPCA headquarters (non-violent, of course).
The RSPCA have duly apologised to Bhatkivedanta Manor Temple, saying they ‘recognised the hurt caused to the sentiments of these communities, and wishing to build a progressive relationship, apologised unreservedly for causing hurt and offence’.
One rule for Hindus; another for Christians?
By way of compensation, the RSPCA purchased a new, pregnant cow for the Temple.
Henceforth, DEFRA’s new protocol will guide animal welfare at all farms and organisations in the UK which have a ‘non-violent ethos’.
So, the animals of Christian farmers will no longer be treated in the same manner as those in Hindu temples.
Who is the theologian at DEFRA discerning and expounding this ‘non-violent’ ethos? Who is determining the orthodoxy? Who is establishing adherence?
Who is assessing the implications of the formal recognition of ahimsa in a Government department?
Are Jews, Christians and Muslims being branded faiths with a violent ethos?
There is evidently now one law for Jews, Christians and Muslims, and another law for Hindus, Sikhs (?) and Buddhists. Yet there is supposed to be equality under the law.
It is self-evident that some religions have more rights than others, and that some animals are more equal than others.
The next time there is an outbreak of foot and mouth, scrapie or ‘mad cow disease’, Cranmer exhorts all farmers who wish to save their animals simply to profess the Hindu faith. Your animals shall thereby be exempt from slaughter, and your own ‘good’ karma multiplied a thousand-fold.