Holy Cow!

[Cort Haus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6918618.stm

Shambo the "sacred" bullock at the centre of a controversial three-month legal fight has been slaughtered, it has been confirmed.

The six-year-old Friesian, who tested positive for bovine TB, was moved from a Carmarthenshire multi-faith community on Thursday amid scenes of protests.

....

Secretary General Ramesh Kallidai said he wanted "to check how agricultural law can cater to the needs of sacred animals in Hindu temples in Britain".

Skanda Vale community leader Brother Alex said that, now Shambo had been taken away from them, a "nightmare" was just beginning for the Welsh assembly.

"Ignorant people have chosen to desecrate our temple and have chosen to destroy life unnecessarily," he said.

More religious nutters claiming that their beliefs are above the law.

[MOBIUS]

It makes me sad that these idiots should contaminate Wales with their beliefs - the former Soviet Union had the right idea when it banned all religion.

[TheStinger]

Should have gone in with the riot police on horses

[lord of the mark]

im sure calling them nutters, and calling for a ban on all religion, will help them to enter into calm discussions with other Britons, and will help them to learn about the superior, tolerant, rational nature of western civilization.

[Cort Haus]

I'm not calling them nutters to their face, as I doubt the people involved post here. While some people might call for various bans on personal freedoms, including religion, I'm not one of those.

I certainly support the right to refer to someone a nutter if they think their religion puts them above the law, and entitles them to flout public safety. Why should such recklessness be 'tolerated'? Should I 'tolerate' demands to impose sharia law, or oppose it?

[MOBIUS]

No, hopefully they will rise up against us so we can kill them all.

Don't worry, we'll be doing them a favour and sending them to their stupid afterlives...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I'm not calling them nutters to their face, as I doubt the people involved post here. While some people might call for various bans on personal freedoms, including religion, I'm not one of those.

I certainly support the right to refer to someone a nutter if they think their religion puts them above the law, and entitles them to flout public safety. Why should such recklessness be 'tolerated'? Should I 'tolerate' demands to impose sharia law, or oppose it?

Of course you have a right to call them nutters. By the same token someone would have a free speech right to call you a nutter in public (not here of course, this is a privately owned site).

I dont see that they put themselves above the law - i scanned the article, and its seems they went to law. As for recklessness, well thats a matter of opinion. We dont shoot human TB carriers, despite the larger danger to society. In their value system, they want the same protection for cows. Now, I disagree with their value system, and I think we can make a rational case for ours (see, Im not "PC") and I think it was appropriate they lost their case. But I don't think their holding to an incorrect value system makes them "nutters".

And I dont see them calling for sharia, either.

[MOBIUS]

They went to the law.

The law said kill the bull.

They said no.

They are nutters.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course you have a right to call them nutters. By the same token someone would have a free speech right

He's not talking about legal rights, lotm. He's talking about the moral right to use it in polite conversation.

[Japher]

If the judge were wise he would of (or have) cut the cow and half and he would then kill one half and let the other half live... it's a win win~!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
They went to the law.

The law said kill the bull.

They said no.

they engaged in peaceful protest, IIUC. Thats one of the things that makes western society great, the right to assemble peacefully and protest. Some of us went to war 230 years ago to retain that right. I was hoping it was still a well established right in the mother country as well.

[Kuciwalker]

I dont see that they put themselves above the law - i scanned the article, and its seems they went to law.

They went to law for a religious exception. There's no difference.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Japher
If the judge were wise he would of (or have) cut the cow and half and he would then kill one half and let the other half live... it's a win win~!

Quite right, it's in the Bible after all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Of course you have a right to call them nutters. By the same token someone would have a free speech right

He's not talking about legal rights, lotm. He's talking about the moral right to use it in polite conversation.

We all have different standards of civility, and Im not particularly interested in a long discussion of the ethical aspects of maintaining a civil conversation. Personally, I think 'nutters' is not appropriate as a reference to someone who is clearly sane, but has different values, whether those values are right or wrong.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

I dont see that they put themselves above the law - i scanned the article, and its seems they went to law.

They went to law for a religious exception. There's no difference.

So was everyone who supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act interested in putting themselves above the law?