You know what I find ridiculous about this worship of cow? It doesn't make any logical sense. I've met several Hindus in the US that eat goat, pig, chicken and other animals yet they won't touch beef. I asked them what makes beef different and they claim it's because the cow provides milk and is like a mother. Okay, well so do goats (goat milk and cheese) and chickens provide eggs. So if we're discussing utility, several animals that are slaughtered offer just as much if not more utility than a cow does.
Now Hindus may question why Muslims and Jews refrain from eating pig and for that you have to consider that pig meat typically contains taenia solium (tapeworm) and modern slaughterhouses still have trouble ensuring pork is free of it and that's why it is always recommended that pig meat is thoroughly cooked, so the eggs and worms are sterilized (yuck!). So if you go back 1400+ years ago, it makes sense they prohibited pig meat considering how dangerous it probably was to eat since they weren't lucky enough to have drugs like Albendazole or Praziquantel to cure infections like we do today. Pigs are also viewed as dirty animals because they essentially eat anything, from meat to their own feces.
Now if every Hindu took the more logical approach that ANY slaughter and consumption of animal is wrong because you're taking a life, that would make a little more sense. However, I've seen some that take that stand but it is also taken to extremes (Jains) who won't even touch products made from eggs.
So essentially, if Hindus can't even agree on what is allowed or prohibited in their religion and many of them have their own interpretations of their teachings, why should others who are not Hindu be expected to follow these tenants let alone understand them? Muslims and Jews are very clear about the reason to refrain from consuming pig but Hindus aren't with regards to cow and other animals.
One of the Pakistani Member had asked me the same question in another thread, and I was wondering why muslims were not asking such question. So here is the answer to all the questions of the BEEF and your answer in this link and the LOGIC behind.
95% of beef traders are Hindus, says former chief justice of Delhi high court
Dear MaarKhoor thanks for asking me the question. One of my muslim friend also asked me the same question, why hindus eat goat, and buffaloes, because they also give the milk. Before explaining let me tell you I am a Hindu, but don't believe in the gods that you might think of the gods of the typical Hindu or 33 crore gods.
There is a misconception of Hindu -- Hindu is not a religion, rather it is a way of life and actually you should called the religion of Mine as the
Sanatan Dharma Whose base and culture is from the Vedas. And I am against eating any meat not only Beef, but I will not discuss mine concept today.
India is a vast country with a great variety of castes and creeds. There is no Hindu "religion". Unlike the Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam there is no one founder, sacred book and rules of conduct including procedure for conversion and excommunication applicable to Hindu society as a whole. The
Varna system is a theoretical concept which is not always implemented fully in practice. For instance, Brahmins are to be teachers and priests and are not expected to own property and power according to the
Chaturvarnya theory, but they have been land-owners on a big scale, political councillors, military commanders, money lenders etc. in many periods of history in several parts of the country. Similarly, the tribal ruling chieftains in South India were promoted to the Kshatriya
Varna. The Nayars of Kerala are classified as Sudras, but some of them were kings and governors, and a large number of them served in battle as warriors.
Varna was different from
Jati. While there were only four Varnas, there were hundreds of Jatis with their status and occupations differing from place to place and time to time.
Many of the Brahmin pundits of Kashmir are meat eaters, and the Brahmins of Bengal have a great liking for fish which they call Ganga pushpa. They cook the head of the fish too, and serve it as the most important item for the chief guest in the house.
However, an objection to beef prevailed in many Indian families, probably because the cow was a lovable domestic animal, highly valued by agriculturists and pastoralists who used not only milk and milk products but also the cow's urine and cow dung for their medicinal value. The bullocks were used in carts which formed the most important form of transport in rural India. The common men, women and children cherished the cow and bull close to their heart. Moreover, it was a quiet and inexpensive asset in a land of vast open grasslands and streams. Krishna, the most popular deity in the villages, had the cow and the flute as his favourite symbols. Indra's
Kamadhenu was the incarnation of wish fulfilment in Puranic literature. All this created a sentimental aversion for beef eating, which was not shared by the urbanised Muslim warriors of West Asia who invaded India.
Lord Krishna, one of the most popular deities in India, made it clear in the Bhagavad Gita
Let us go through some of the mantras in the Vedas which unambiguously says a big "no" to killing animals for food.
- Yasmintsarvaani bhutaanyaatmaivaabhuudvijaanatah
- Tatra ko mohah kah shokah ekatvamanupasyatah
- - Yajurveda 40.7
"Those who see all beings as souls do not feel infatuation or anguish at their sight, for they experience oneness with them."
- Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam
- Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau
- maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha
- - Atharvaveda 6.140.2
"O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you eat gram and you eat sesame. These are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers."
Another mantra in Atharvaveda says, "It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents. Do not kill our cows, horses and people."
Vedas, the most ancient scriptures readable to present-day man, never promote animal slaughter. The problem lies with spreading awareness on Vedas and the inability to interpret the gem of knowledge in the correct sense owing to the lethargy of Indians.
The fundamentals of Hindu culture lie in the Vedas. But, the Hindus were tuned to toe the lines of Semitic theory under the aegis of the British.
So The argument is as follows:
“What I eat is my choice. Who is any government or moral police to dictate what I eat or do not eat? Will they ban spinach and lauki also tomorrow if I am offended? This is communal politics of right-winged Hindu fanatics and must be opposed.”On surface, it appears so reasonable and logical. But let us scratch the surface and explore how valid is this movement against Beef Ban.
1. No one has any problem with what you eat and what you do not. You are free to eat even from the commode in democracy.
But the ban is not on eating. It is on killing of cattle.
Now people like me have several objections to killing of cow (and cattle in general). If you can create beef in
laboratory without killing my mother, I have absolutely no issues with you.
2. It is true that even if there were no rational basis behind cattle-worship in Indian culture, still beef ban is justified on purely respect for sentiments of vast majority. But thankfully truth is that foundations of Indian culture are very rational and scientific. It is not out of jingoism that we consider India as lighthouse for entire world. It is because Indian culture stands on foundation of reason and science.
3. Ban on slaughter of cattle is
clearly documented as a Directive Principle of State Policy in Part IV of Indian Constitution. It has been clearly stated that
” it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in
making laws.” (Para 37)
Para 48 states that: “The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
4. If one demands permission to kill cow and cattle because of his “personal freedom to eat whatever he or she wants”, then they should first raise their voice against following:
– Ban on killing of national and endangered animals and birds in most civilized countries of world. (In India, you cannot poach lions and tigers. In USA, killing bald and golden eagle in banned through a Special Act. Just possessing feathers lead to heavy penalty. Killing will give you long prison time and hefty fine.)
– Ban on defacing and damaging heritage and protected buildings. Why certain buildings be considered so special after all? Why “freedom-lovers” do not have freedom to choose what buildings they decide to consider special?
– Ban on insulting and desecration of national symbols like flag.
– Ban on sale and carrying of unlicensed arms and weapon.
– Ban on roaming naked and having sex in public.
– Ban on mutual cannibalism with consent.
– Ban on sale and consumption of narcotics.
and so on….
The same gang of “liberals” who are crying foul on beef ban have never ever shown any solidarity with above or any other related aspect of personal freedom.
No one dared to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons on their own walls and tweets to show solidarity with “freedom of speech”.
Minorities have to be protected at any cost, but they must understand to respect the majority. While permitting freedom of faith and worship for all groups, nobody must be allowed to criticise in public another person's religion and culture.
.
