a rift between science and hinduism

This is perhaps an example of a conflict between science and religion, in albeit a more unusual manner.

In the UK, a six year old bull who goes by the name of Shambo, has tested positive to bovine tuberculosis (or BT). Going by 'the rules', the solution appears simple enough - slaughter the animal. However! Shambo resides in a monastery as he is considered to be a sacred animal (in Hinduism).

Why do I think this is a conflict between science & religion?

Because the scientific facts provide a diagnosis, that the bull is carrier of BT. Yet from the religious perspective, this scientific evidence doesn't really bother them - BT or no BT, Shambo is still a sacred bull, and therefore should not be murdered.

I've just run a search on Wikipedia, to better understand the importance of the bovine in Hindu religious beliefs, and this is the paragraph that I took in, it may or may not be entirely complete or correct:

"In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society, and it is part of Hindu tradition to avoid the consumption of beef." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow)

And so a dilemma occurs, because you have two conflicting perspectives.
1. Who in their right mind would destroy a sacred being. If this sacred bull was a human being who was diagnosed with a serious illness, the first recommendation would not be to 'put them out of their misery' and kill them. You would analyse the symptoms and do whatever is possible to try and cure the human. As a human life is precious, so this cow's life is precious to us also.

2. It's just another farm animal. Animals are subject to diseases, and infected animals pose a threat to fellow animals as well as humans. This cow is a ruminating health hazard as it has tested positive to a disease. There are hundreds upon thousands of cows in the world today. Pick another and let it be your sacred cow - we want to do away with this one.

Perhaps we should also include a third perspective, that of the in-between, the fence-sitter who understands the health risks posed by the animal, and yet respects the religious beliefs of the people who are willing to do all they can to prevent the slaughter of Shambo.

Or a fourth, who may ask

"But Shambo is a BULL. Isn't is the COW who is the sacred being?"

and

"Why is the word 'sacred' so similar to 'scared'?

The answers to these questions, I do not know.


A response to the article "Legal setback for sacred bull"