25 November, 2020

Blog

Sri Lanka Monk Self-Immolation Highlights Anti-Muslim Sentiment

By J. S. Tissainayagam

J.S. Tissainayagam

The suicide by a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire in Sri Lanka to protest the slaughter of cattle has been hailed as an act of great self-sacrifice and compared to acts of self-immolation by Tibetan Buddhist monks protesting China’s repression in Tibet. Nothing could be more ill-informed. In fact, it is one more step by Sri Lanka’s chauvinist Sinhala-Buddhists to undermine the Muslim political base.

The monk, Bowatte Indraratne, who had been campaigning against the Muslim halal method of slaughtering animals, was also a politician. He was a former elected member of a local government body representing the extreme Buddhist political party Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). JHU’s leader Champika Ranawaka lost no time in exploiting the incident to advance the party’s agenda. He said the government should bring in legislation to ban the slaughter of cattle, and religious conversion. Christians have come under pressure from Buddhists for proselytising, a charge they deny.

The campaign to stop the slaughter of cattle and instances of violence against Muslims are not isolated events in Sri Lanka. These are steps to politically disempower Muslims are uncannily reminiscent of the way the Sinhala establishment tries to destroy the Tamil power base.

Persecution of Muslims is taking a particularly virulent form today. But in the past too Sinhala leaders viewed Muslims with suspicion, as they did Tamils. The control they exercised was a blend of coercion, political manipulation of Muslim elites and the policy of divide and rule.

Coercion of Muslims by Sinhalese was applied mostly through violence and intimidation. In recent memory are rampaging Sinhala mobs targeting Muslims in Mawanella (2001) and Beruwela (2002). Other disputes occurred over land, like Deegavapi in 1999.

Political manipulation of the Muslim elite compelled them to take decisions detrimental to their community. In 1956, Muslim politician and diplomat Sir Razik Fareed campaigned with Sinhala leaders to deny Tamil as an official language of the State, despite a large majority of Muslims being Tamil speakers.

Adopting a policy of divide-and-rule, Sinhala leaders forced Muslims – especially in the East – to view Tamils as enemies, which led to Tamil-Muslim clashes. The Sinhala-dominated military used Muslim home guards to target Tamil civilians in the East. The rift was magnified by the LTTE expelling the Muslim population in Sri Lanka’s North.

With the military phase of the conflict with the Tamils coming to an end in May 2009, Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists realised they now had the luxury of investing more resources in suppressing Muslims. Further, with President Mahinda Rajapakse intent on consolidating power, extreme nationalism was a good vehicle.

The government has made no secret of its connections to extremist civil society groups. Relations between government officials and the principal vehicle of Buddhist bigotry, the Bodhu Bala Sena (BBS), are so fraternal that Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the hawkish head of the Ministry of Defence and brother of the country’s president, graced an important occasion of the organisation. The BBS plays a similar role as the Shiv Sena does to the pro-Hindu regimes in India.

As mentioned above, the objective of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism is to demolish Muslim political power in Sri Lanka. It is no different from efforts to destroy the Tamil power base in the country from the 1950s. The three examples below demonstrate the similarities.

The BBS has opposed the certification of food as ‘halal’ and Muslim women wearing the hijab. These cultural practices are important markers of Muslim identity. The BBS’s campaign is not only to demolish what distinguishes this group’s identity, but also the power its members derive from that identity. For the Tamils, the primary marker of identity is language. That is why Sinhala nationalism sought to undermine Tamil by denying it official language status and placing obstacles to Tamil-speakers’ access to higher education and State employment.

Second, mosques and Muslim-owned businesses have come under assault. It is important to note the significance of both in the political lives of Muslims. The mosque is a forum for political mobilisation. The strength of metropolitan Muslims in Sri Lanka is their success as a merchant community. And they have used their wealth to buy political power. Therefore attacking mosques and commercial establishments is a way to undermine the Muslim power base. In the case of Tamils, assessing that their political base was territorial concentration in the country’s North and East, Sinhala leaders took to dismantling it by settling large numbers of Sinhalese in those areas.

Finally, let’s look at the government’s use of counterinsurgency laws to stifle freedom of speech and political opinion. On May 2, Azath Salley, a well-known Muslim leader, was arrested (and later released) under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). He was detained for an interview he gave to an Indian magazine where he said that Muslim youth should take to arms. But the reasons appear deeper than that. Salley openly criticised the government for anti-Muslim racism. But more than all else, Sally heads a political party which advocates Tamil-Muslim political dialogue to resolve mutually important issues. This, by definition, excludes government and the Sinhalese.

The government arresting and later releasing Salley is reminiscent of the then government criminalising Tamil parliamentarians who even advocated democratic secession. This legislation – the Sixth Amendment to Sri Lanka’s constitution – suppressed democratic dissent and left armed rebellion as the only option to give effect to Tamil demands.

Therefore, the self-immolation by Bowatte Indraratne protesting cattle slaughter had a sinister motive. It used religion as a weapon to undermine the political base of a minority community in Sri Lanka. If steps are not taken to check this trend, Sri Lanka’s Muslims could be facing a future of persecution and violence.

*J. S. Tissainayagam, a former Sri Lankan political prisoner, was a Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard and Reagan-Fascell Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States. This article is first appeared in Asian Correspondent

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 0
    0

    This may be considered to be a preplanned act by the extremist group Sihala Ravaya, which was intended to create a popular backlash against the muslims in colombo. After the death of the thero the Sihala Ravaya agitated at the funeral parlour for a state funeral in colombo and thereafter when their demands were not met, proceeded to temple trees and even tried to attack a few muslim shops on the way.

    Fortunately their attempts backfired and their blackguardly attempts have been exposed before the world. They are now accused of bringing disrepute to the buddhist religon. The act hass been condemned by many members of the buddhist clergy. However the damage has been done and a new trend of self immolation has been started and it is possible that there will many more adherents of this practice.

    Sri Lanka has a very high rate of suicide and this may spark a new trend to escape worldly problems. Now it is a fashion to climb trees, engage in hunger strikes, obstruct traffic etc., but this is a first for the buddhist clergy who hitherto were a picture of serenity, peace and other worldliness.

    Their involvement in politics, social unrest and mass agitations has drawn a picture of turbulence and worldliness far removed from the familiar samadhi meditational poses of the Buddha. One questions if it would not be better for the Buddhist Clergy to revert to their previous model and role and leave this vulgar behaviour to the thugs and politicians who are available in plenty.

    • 0
      0

      It is indeed. BBS & JHU = Gota/MaRa tried every possible way to create a volatile situation in the country several times. But the Muslims were thoughtful this time, didnt give them a single chance to start a backclash. Now they are coming with new methods using purportedly ‘wanted’ extremists/radicals/fanatics as pawns. Internatioanl intervention is a must since the regime is supporting these extremist groups directly. Champika the ugly racist and his monk memebers openly spread hate speeches every now and then.

      • 0
        0

        If toy want Hate Speeches you need to go to a Book called Q, iN 146 places violence is cited

      • 0
        0

        Rawana,

        Here is information in Support of your post.

        Amarasiri

        [Edited out]

    • 0
      1

      Mr. Tissainayagam,

      Please shed some light on how racists among Tamils and power hungry Tamil political elites have been trying to destroy the Sinhalese political power as well.

      Using 60 million strong base in Tamil Nadu. And electoral leverage in Delhi. Elsewhere too. Like in Toronto.

      13th amendment was forced down the throat of Sri Lanka. By racist Tamils via Delhi.

  • 0
    0

    It is a paradox that a monk who is suppose to renounce everything and following Buddhist precepts, teaching of Lord Buddha is misinterpreting the his so called faith itself. There are also other things discouraged by Buddha like Prostitution and consumption of Alcohol. Why do not Buddhist protest against establishing wine stores and killing of Chicken? Is not it the stupidity of some Buddhist ..?

  • 0
    0

    Not true.

    Slaughter of cattle applies equally to Christians, Buddhists and muslims. who are all hypocritical meat lovers trying to give various lame excuses like ” God made animals for man to use ” ( did God make dinosaurs for man to use ?? ) and “Buddha said it is ok to eat meat if the animals wasn’t killed for me to eat “etc

    Killing of animals is a brutal cruel act whichever way one looks at it. If you want to eat meat to satisfy your carnivorous appetite just do it, but don’t try to justify it.

    The rest of the argument is just political rhetoric where the author tries to connect the “anti-cattle slaughter / meat eating habit” with a hidden political agenda somehow but FAILS TO PROVE HIS POINT.

    • 0
      0

      American Mama dont be a hypocrite when you say about slaughter of cattle for eating, then how about all plants, vegetables etc you eat which are meant only for herbivorous.

      • 0
        0

        I am a professional biologist ( 30 years ). So don’t teach me the similarities between plants and animals.

        • 0
          0

          American Mama you are professional in hate then how come cattle which only eats grass gets fat in its meat you are so dumb in your profession.

          • 0
            0

            Dear RAJO

            Check out LIPID METABOLISM IN HERBIVORES and U will have the answer. I have no time for Biology lessons here.

        • 0
          0

          Even Hitler who killed 6 million jews was a vegetarian. Even R. Premadasa who killed the JVP mercilessly was a vegetarian,

        • 0
          0

          American Mamooo!!! Check his out.Bad for Vegetarians big EGO….

          The Vegetarian Myth – Lierre Keith
          Written by Zoë on August 4, 2011 – 10 Comments
          Categories: Media comments, Research
          http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2011/08/the-vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/

          This could well be the most controversial blog post yet – where do each of us draw the line on eating and/or wearing animals and/or their products. Or, as Lierre Keith suggests, should we be drawing a circle and not a line?

          This is a review of The Vegetarian Myth and the Amazon reviews confirm that it is the marmite of the book world – people love it or hate it. (Hopefully not about to be banned in Denmark however!) I have to confess that I loved it because it raised some huge issues – you don’t get much bigger than how can we feed the human species and neither ‘side’ has an answer to this one – we have way too many people already on this planet for any sustainable option and things are continuing to get worse.

          This review is intended to provide a useful and convenient summary – reading the book for your self is still highly recommended. I will quote Keith verbatim where possible – her writing style is quite beautiful and should be read first hand.

          Gary Taubes has his critics on the internet, but they pale into insignificance compared to those queuing up to attack Lierre Keith. In Chapter 1 she says: “I got hate mail before I’d barely started this book. And no, thank you, I don’t need any more.” There are many similar ‘cute’ comments and humour throughout the book, which I really enjoyed.

          I also enjoyed the feminist passages in the writing, for which Keith has also been attacked. It took me back to my days at Cambridge when I saw an article written by the Student Union president referring to ‘she’ and ‘her’ all the way through. Why does this only apply to women, I wondered? And then, of course – silly me – this article does apply to both genders, but then so does every article talking about ‘he’ and ‘him’ and yet nothing ‘jars’ when we read that. Keith uses the female third personal singular a couple of times – just to keep you on your toes. She also gets (appropriately in my view) angry with those who think it has been OK to trash the planet during their infinitesimally small time as guests here – for their own greed and personal gain. They tend to be male (CEO’s, world leaders, lawyers etc) and they are certainly ‘macho’. Go girl!

          Attacking the vegetarian

          In Chapter 1, Keith notes exactly why her book has attracted the anger and outrage that it has. “’Vegetarian’ isn’t just what you eat or even what you believe, it’s who you are… I’m not just questioning a philosophy or a set of dietary habits. I’m threatening a vegetarian’s sense of self.”

          Keith herself was vegan for 20 years and describes the health complaints that she has been left with, as a result of her dietary choice: from degenerative spine disease (irreversible) to depression and anxiety (much improved since ceasing to be vegan). She still suffers nausea and serious digestive problems and pain, which make it difficult for her to eat in the evening (if she plans on sleeping that night). Keith explains the chosen route was an obvious one made by her and friends when young: “All the friends of my youth were radical, righteous, intense. Vegetarianism was the obvious path, with veganism the high road alongside it.”

          She pleads in the opening chapter: “You don’t have to try this for yourself. You’re allowed to learn from my mistakes… I’m asking you to stay the course, read this book, please. Especially if you have children or want to. I’m not too proud to beg.”

          Keith ends this introduction with the humble statement: “Ultimately I would rather be helpful than right.” I was very little way into the book before I realised she is both.
          The three arguments for (and against) vegetarianism
          (Please note – the terms vegan/vegetarian can be used virtually interchangeably throughout the book – Keith applies the same arguments to both views. One just draws the line in the sand in a different place).

          The book is perfectly structured. There are three arguments that vegetarians make as to why we should all be vegetarian and Keith structures the book in three parts to reflect this:
          1) The moral argument – we should not kill;
          2) The political argument – we can only feed the world if everyone is vegetarian;
          3) The nutritional argument – it is healthier to be vegetarian.

          The only thing that I won’t be able to answer, while writing this review, is how I would have responded reading it, had I still been vegetarian at the time. It would be wonderful if any vegetarians could try this and share their views. I know that there would have been a time when I would have been as angry as many vegetarian and vegan readers of the book have been. I don’t know, however, how I could have countered Keith’s arguments.

          I do know that I never believed that there was a nutritional argument for being vegetarian. I have known enough about nutrition, for long enough, to know that liver, meat and fish are incomparably nutritious. This is why I never considered becoming vegan. I could not think how I could get vitamin A, B12, D, iron, zinc etc in anywhere close to sufficient amounts without supplements and it never felt right to be taking nutrients in a tablet when food could provide them.

          I became vegetarian for the moral argument. I subsequently strengthened my belief by adopting the political argument. The essence of my belief was that I could be healthy enough without eating animals and animals would be better for this decision. I knew that I could not be optimally healthy, but felt that I was making a moral sacrifice in an age when humans were in a position to ‘do the right thing’.

          Keith knocks down all three beliefs as follows:

          The moral argument

          I am covering the arguments in the order that Keith does and I could not believe how quickly Keith changed my views in this first part of the book. Even though the Barry Groves and Sally Fallon Morell presentations at the Weston A Price Foundation conference in March 2010 had ended my 15 year period of being vegetarian, I still believed that there was a clear line in the sand on ‘killing for food’ and that vegetarians were on the right side of the line. Oh boy!

          In a nutshell the moral vegetarian argument is “we should not kill”. Keith’s response is:

          a) There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all, that even a vegan can eat that something has not died for (several living things in fact);

          b) Man is not at the top of a food chain – that is an arrogant view that only ‘man’ could hold. All humans are part of the circle of life. Our bodies end up as food for the soil, just as every other animal that dies (ideally on the prairie) leaves their nutrients and minerals to go back into the soil for new life.

          a) When Keith expanded upon the first point, I was kicking myself within seconds. How could I have been so naive? Keith shared her original vegan view: “I wanted to believe that my life – my physical existence – was possible without killing, without death. It’s not.”

          Before long, the examples came thick and fast and became irrefutable. How many slugs are killed for a lettuce? How many millions of species in a tablespoon of top soil are trashed every second by Cargill? How many rabbits and mice are killed in cultivated fields by industrial size farming equipment? How many fish die, so that rivers can be diverted to irrigate the vegan’s grains? How many wolves and bison have been killed because we turned their homeland into farmland – for grains and plant food? Keith answers the last one: “There were somewhere between 60 and 100 million bison in the United States in 1491. Now there are 350,000 bison and only 12 to 15,000 of those are pure bison that were not cross bred with domestic cattle. The land held between 425,000 and a million wolves; only 10,000 now remain.” “The North American prairie has been reduced to 2% of its original size and the topsoil, once twelve feet deep, can now only be measured in inches.”

          b) Point (b) is so integrally linked to (a) – one of the reasons that no life is possible without death is that the soil upon which life depends relies upon death to return nutrients to the land. Keith explains her first hand experience of trying (and failing) to grow her own food without anything needing to die… (Any vegan that argues that they can grow their own lettuce, with nothing having to die, has to read the whole of this moral section of the book. Keith tried it and then some! The full story is funny and powerful at the same time).

          Organic Gardening magazine soon explained to Keith that the first commandment of organic growing was “feed the soil, not the plant.” She learned that Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium was the “triple Goddess of gardeners.” All three are minerals given back to the land when animals (including humans) die. (Calcium is also a limiting factor for soil – also found in the bones and remains of animals that die and so generously give back their nutrients to the land). We can get nitrogen from fossil fuels, or nitrogen can be given back to the land by the circle of life and death. We are not far from the time (peak oil and all that) when we have the stark choice – use fossil fuels for fertiliser for food or for running the power upon which modern life has come to depend. What do we do when the oil runs out? Manure and carcasses or fossil fuel for fertiliser? – that’s our choice.

          As this part of the book unfolds, Keith hits you with one stark fact after another:
          – “70% of all water from rivers and underground reserves is being spread onto irrigated land that grows one third of the world’s food,” writes Fred Pearce in When the rivers run dry.”
          – “Of China’s 23,000 miles of large rivers, 80 percent don’t support fish anymore.” “Set aside the fossil fuel for the fertilizer and transportation. If you live in Vermont or California and eat vegan brown rice – this is what you’re eating: dead fish and dead birds from a dying river.”
          – “We’re out of topsoil, out of water, out of species, and out of space in the atmosphere for the carbon we can’t seem to stop burning.”

          You come to realise that the ultimate role that we (humans) can play in this universe is to continue to be a part of the universe when we die. Whatever happens to our soul, our body is food for worms, which are food for birds, which are food for cats, which are food for their predators and so on. Humans often look for significance – for a sense of purpose in life. Our purpose is as part of the whole circle of life. All of us have this part to play.

          Keith continues, “The native prairie is now 99.8% gone. There is no place left for the buffalo to roam. There’s only corn, wheat and soy.” With all that land cultivated for vegetarian food, which was once home to free roaming animals, there is also no natural process by which the top soil can be rejuvenated. There is only so much that fossil fuel fertiliser can do to repair the damage being done by overworking our scarce land in the name of profit. No wonder (GM) Genetically Modified crops became a necessity – we have to modify crops when we have destroyed the earth to the point that it cannot yield ‘normal’ crops.

          “’You can look a cow in the eye,’ reads an ad for soy burgers. What about a buffalo?” asks Keith. “Five percent of a species is needed to ensure enough diversity for long-term survival, and less than 1 percent of the buffalo are left.”

          Keith concludes: “It is my conviction that growing annual grains is an activity that cannot be redeemed. It requires wholesale extermination of ecosystems – the land has to be cleared of all life.” We use 5.6 billion pounds (weight) of pesticides per year (a statistic I found elsewhere) – pesticides being designed to kill any living thing that also wants to feed on (our) growing food.

          I realised in this part of the book that it comes down to black and white and shades of grey. To the vegan, the world is black and white – “meat is murder.” Keith describes this as “a simple ethical code… but it is the black-and-white thinking of a child.” This is a critical part of the book and one with which I resonated very strongly. I was far more black and white in my 20’s. Things were right and wrong. (Good days and bad days!) This is very child-like thinking. The simple world of a child is right and wrong. The more mature world of the adult has many shades of grey.
          The shades of grey in this killing debate are inescapable – you may draw the line at eating cows, but not dogs; you may draw the line at eating chicken, but not red meat; you may draw the line at eating fish, but not meat; you may draw the line at eating eggs, but not the flesh of animals; you may draw the line by wearing leather shoes, but eating nothing from an animal; you may have a vegan diet and wardrobe – but bison, birds, fish, rabbits, mice and thousands of living creatures in top soil have died for your soya burger and lettuce.

          It’s not that vegans are right and vegetarians are wrong, or vegetarians are right and omnivores are wrong, or omnivores are right and carnivores are wrong – it’s about where we each choose to draw our line. Better still, to return to the arrogant view that ‘man’ thinks he is at the top of a food chain, Keith concluded “I’m not going to draw a line. I’m going to draw a circle.” We are part of the circle of life, just as any other animal is. They and we need to live and die to give back to the land, so that birth and death can continue.

          I remember non-veggies saying to me when I was veggie “If we didn’t eat the animals they wouldn’t be here” and I just couldn’t comprehend the point that they were making. Would that be such a bad thing? Surely the animals would be better off not living if they were just going to be killed for food? (‘Better to have loved/lived and lost, than never to have loved/lived at all’ kind of thing. That’s a massive philosophical argument in itself – we’re all going to die – is it worth being here at all?!) Couldn’t we keep animals and not kill them? I just didn’t think of the practicalities that no farmer keeps ruminants (that’s the collective term for grass grazing animals – cows, sheep, goats etc) as pets. Animals are kept for food and they always have been within communities throughout history. Each settlement would safeguard the delicate balance between the ‘goose and the golden egg’ – to protect any givers of eggs/milk and the time when it comes to eat the giver of these vital foods. I don’t want a world without sheep & lambs, or cows & calves, in the fields. I want natural manure from these grazing animals nourishing the land naturally. I don’t want oil used to mow the grass, which ruminants could have eaten and then more oil used in fertiliser instead of manure. Animals are a vital part of the circle of life, not a line that modern, arrogant, man thinks he can draw on the land. This brings us nicely on to…

          The political argument

          The political vegetarian argument is that we can only feed the world if everyone is vegetarian. Keith quotes Jim Motavalli, who, in turn quotes the British group Vegfam: “a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn or only 2 producing cattle.” The maths behind this is not provided and Keith can’t work out where it could come from, but she notes that any such statistics will always find against cattle because they start from the premise that the cattle is fed grain. Hence, of course land would produce more grain to be eaten as grain than if that grain were fed to cattle and the cattle output were subsequently calculated. What Keith (and every real food person) argues is – we should not be feeding grain to cattle. Not ever. Not in any circumstances. The maths then falls over.

          Keith opens the political argument section with a detailed description of the digestive system of a ruminant. The term ruminant means a cud-chewing animal, characterised by having four stomach compartments – the first being called a rumen. Keith describes how a cow, for example, is entirely reliant upon a magical internal ecosystem comprising bacteria, fungi and multiples of microbial cultures. The cow is feeding on the bacteria and the microbes are living within (feeding upon) the cow – it is the way of life for/in a ruminant. Grains turn the normally neutral rumen (first stomach) acidic, which makes the cow sick and bloated (not dissimilar to the effect that grains have on many humans!) Hence we should not be feeding ruminants grains. Ruminants, by definition, need to chew on cud – grass.
          Joel Salatin (one of the role models of the local sustainable model) then does the maths for his 10-acre farm in Virginia. He produces 3,000 eggs, 1,000 chickens, 80 hens, 2,000lbs of beef, 2,500lbs of pork, 100 turkeys, 50 rabbits and a few inches of topsoil. No fossil fuels needed whatsoever. The chickens get a bit of supplemental grain (they can ‘stomach it’, literally) and everything else eats grass. Keith compares the calories and nutrition from this organic farm vs. the malnutrition, pellagra and fatal disease that the soy, wheat, corn community would end up with. It is incomparable in favour of eating the sustainable (animal) way.

          The arguments against the political vegetarian are numerous:

          a) Agriculture (turning the little arable land that the world has into grain and soy fields) is destroying the planet. It ‘murders’ the top soil and is completely unsustainable, in that nothing is being done to reverse the damage. Instead – food manufacturers are looking to create GM ‘frankenfoods’, which can still grow when all life and health has been removed from the land. As Keith says: “Who cares if more food can be produced by farming when farming is destroying the world?”

          b) Manure and animals living and dying on land is the natural way to fertilise – to replenish the top soil so vital to life. To replace animals in the food chain with soy and grain is to destroy the entire circle of life. This is also completely unsustainable. There is a finite amount of fossil fuel in the world to use for fertilisers. There can be a sufficient amount of manure from the right number of animals occupying the right land space.
          As Keith challenges: “Political vegetarians need to answer this question – what is going to feed your food? Fossil fuel or manure?”

          c) It is nonsense to say that we are feeding grain to cattle, which could be used to feed humans. We are feeding grain to cattle, which they cannot digest, because grain is so cheap and so subsidised, that grain manufacturers have to dump it somewhere. Grain to America is the butter mountain of Europe. If grain production were not so lucrative and well subsidised, there is no way that cattle would be fed grain – they might be left to eat the grass that they are supposed to eat. I say ‘might’ because grain also causes cattle to fatten quickly (as it does humans) and this makes the cattle heavier, quicker and thus makes the animals more lucrative in the process. Win win for Cargill. Lose lose for the ruminants and the earth, which they have not been allowed to renourish.

          d) When we factor in all the water and oil and fossil fuels used to ‘feed’ the land in the way that animals would do naturally, the price of grain is the planet itself. Richard Manning is quoted as saying “A typical farm in 1940 produced two calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil energy used. By 1974 that ratio was 1.1. As of now, it takes more than a calorie of fossil fuel to produce a calorie of fuel for a human – somewhere between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for a calorie of food.” When fertilisers, pesticides, machinery, harvesting, transportation and so on are taken into account, an acre of corn requires about 50 gallons of oil.

          e) What limited land there is in the world suitable for agriculture, America has more than its share. Encouraging the world to eat grains and soy (the USA food pyramid, the USDA dietary guidelines) makes the world dependent on America for its food – the ultimate dependence. Western countries support the giant food producers with subsidies totalling $360 billion. This substantially reduces world prices.

          As Oxfam has observed:

          “Exporters can offer US surpluses for sale at prices around half the cost of production – destroying local agriculture”. US aid is anything but – it is destroying local farmers and communities – making the world dependent on America to eat.
          As Keith says “This is why there are no international aid agencies that suggest vegetarianism as a solution to world hunger: it isn’t one.”

          Gary Taubes once joked “My wife says I blame everything on carbohydrates.”
          In my view, the most serious thing that we need to blame on carbohydrates is that we have exploded the world population to completely unsustainable levels as a direct result of carbohydrates. When communities were based around sustainable, local, lands and foods, the population of the world could only ever be a number that could be sustained.

          Agriculture and grains have enabled an unsustainable explosion in the number of people that we could feed, but this has never been done in a sustainable way. I thought I was a lone voice in thinking this until I read the following in The Vegetarian Myth:
          “Breaking our dependence on the sun and nature’s fertility meant an explosion in grain production and a concomitant expansion in the human population. There are now over 6 billion humans.

          Understand: billions of us are only here because of fossil fuel, because we figured out how to transform stored energy into edible energy. As the natural gas and oil get more expensive, and then prohibitively expensive, there will be no way to keep that grain coming. And then? It doesn’t sound like a party I want to attend.”
          The world population is due to reach 9 billion by 2050, about the time that the oceans are forecast to be empty of fish and long past peak oil. Keith estimates that we already have multiples too many people in the world – at least 10 times too many, maybe 100!
          The stark reality is that this is an argument that neither the omnivores nor the vegetarians can win. There is no sustainable way to feed the current population – let alone the level that is forecast within the next 40 years. Grain, soy and agriculture are completely unsustainable, for any population level, as they destroy the planet without replenishing it in any way. Meat, fish and eggs are equally unsustainable, for the current population level, as there is not enough grazing land in the world for enough animals to feed us all and we have polluted and raped the oceans of their bounty. Had we not destroyed pastures for grain, the world population would have grown naturally and sustainably to sustainable levels.

          Toward the end of this part of the book is a blunt message – forget peak oil. “Peak soil was ten thousand years ago, on the day before agriculture began.”

          We then move to…

          The nutritional argument

          Even though I never bought this argument, I’ll cover it for completeness and because it is a very interesting part of the book and because many people do use this as a reason for being vegetarian. Unfortunately, dieticians and many charities (World Cancer Research Fund, British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK) seem to be on hand to encourage this position. The nutritional arguments are as follows:
          a) Humans evolved to eat plants and not animals;
          b) Animal foods contain cholesterol and this will kill us;
          c) Animal foods contain fat and this will kill us;
          d) Vegetarian and vegan foods are healthy;
          e) Animal foods contain fat and this will make us fat.

          Keith devotes over 100 pages to this, Part 3, of the book and the attention that she devotes to each argument is impressive. As an example, I address the ‘what did we evolve to eat’ debate in Chapter 12 of The Obesity Epidemic, but Keith goes into it in far more detail. She goes through three roles of teeth, four actions of the jaw, four digestive processes, nine activities of the stomach, two of the gall bladder and every detail on gut flora, the colon and even the length of the small intestine to compare humans, dogs and sheep. She quotes Dr.s Michael and Mary Eades to provide the conclusion: “In anthropological scientific circles, there’s absolutely no debate about it – every respected authority will confirm that we were hunters. Our meat eating heritage is an inescapable fact.” I concluded the same from anthropological research.

          I also looked, as Keith did, at the possibly of getting sufficient vegetarian food for the 3.5 million years since ‘man’ first walked upright. Notwithstanding the 30,000 years of ice age endured 40,000-10,000 years ago, when no vegetation would have been available, there is simply no evidence that our planet could have yielded sufficient vegetables and fruit for man to have consumed sufficient calories to survive. Grains were not available until the emergence of agriculture. Half the vegetables possibly available to our ancestors would not have been edible without cooking and fire was not discovered until somewhere between 1.5 and 0.5 million years ago. Let alone the seasonality of vegetation and the likelihood that nothing would have been available in certain parts of the world and for many months anywhere else.
          That’s as far as I went. Keith also goes into the enzymes in plants and the toxins that they emit – in an effort not to be consumed and to survive – as any living thing tries to survive. She then picks up the argument – OK – should we have become vegetarian when grains did appear – notwithstanding the fact that we never had them before? She presents a compelling argument that we have simply not evolved to eat grains (this is the mainstream Paleo view) and that they are seriously harmful to human health.

          Lines such as these are punched out on successive pages:

          – “Grains are essentially sugar with enough opioids to make them addictive.”

          – “The diseases that insulin affects directly are the cause of the vast majority of death and disability in the US today. Heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes are all caused by the insulin surges that grain and sugar demand.”

          – “You can call it complex carbohydrates if you want, but it’s sugar.”

          – “According to the USDA, we should be eating a diet that is 60% carbohydrate. Your body will turn that carbohydrate into almost two cups of glucose and each and every molecule has to be reckoned with.”

          – Quoting the Eades again: “The actual amount of carbohydrates required by humans for health is zero.”

          – And my favourite: “you’ve (vegetarians) damaged your digestion, from too many blood sugar highs and lows, and too much adrenaline. It can be fixed, but you’re going to have to eat real protein and fat and not sugars. You need to leave adrenaline for emergencies only; can we agree that breakfast shouldn’t be one?”!

          b) The cholesterol argument has been covered more extensively by Kendrick and Ravnskov (and me in The Obesity Epidemic). Keith mentions a couple of the key points, and nails it beautifully with the following one liner: “One of the main functions of the liver is to make cholesterol, not because your liver wants you dead, but because life isn’t possible without cholesterol.”

          c) The book provides another really nice summary on the position on fat. I go into this in more detail than I’ve seen it elsewhere with my original analysis of the Seven Countries Study and an assassination of the Truswell article, which is a summary of all the evidence relied upon by government authorities telling us that fat is a killer. (I also point out that when our governments talk about fat, they are in fact talking about refined carbohydrates, but that’s another story).

          Keith’s summary is very clever. She explains that fat consumption declined almost 25% in the past 15 years (the book was published in 2009) and, at the same time, type 2 diabetes has increased by a factor of more than ten; cardiovascular disease recorded at time of hospital discharge has increased 25%, the incidence of stroke is rising and cancer “continues its relentless and increasing toll.”

          Keith also covers the fat soluble vitamins, essential fats and other nutrients in real fat vs. the unnatural levels of omega-6 to 3 ratio, as a result of our obsession with cheap vegetable oils. “You tell me what to blame: the saturated fats we’ve always eaten – for four million years – or the industrially manufactured oils that until recently were used in paint.” Quite so!

          d) Sugary cereals, soy (as it is called in the USA – it’s called soya in the UK) and vegetable oil spreads/margarines are promoted as healthy by the food industry. Of course they are – they are phenomenally lucrative. Kellogg’s alone is a $13billion company. They are new products, only introduced to the food chain in little more than the past 100 years in the case of cereals and in nearer 20 years in the case of modern soy and vegetable oil products. Keith states: “The food industry has developed over 100,000 new processed foods since 1990.” That is staggering and surely ‘foods’ should be in inverted commas!

          These ‘foods’ rely as much on knocking real food, as they do on promoting themselves as healthy. Vilify eggs and promote sugary cereal as the alternative. Attack butter and hydrogenated margarine can come to the rescue. Lie about hormones in cow’s milk and everyone will turn to soya in their Starbucks. It is horrific to think that big business can get away with it. As Keith says “Try to comprehend the scale of this: food companies spend $33billion a year in advertising.”

          Keith dedicates a few pages to a horrifying review of the health concerns surrounding soy(a). Quoting Dr Kaayla Daniel (one of the speakers at the March 2011 Weston Price Conference), author of The whole soy story: the dark side of America’s favourite health food the allegations unfold. Soy(a) is delivering hormone doses not dissimilar to the contraceptive pill (in snack size portions of soy – let alone the levels eaten by vegans). Soy(a) is implicated in serious thyroid disturbance (think thyroid, think weight). “Those who ate tofu at least twice a week had accelerated brain aging, diminished cognitive ability, and were more than twice as likely to be clinically diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.” “In fact, the more tofu eaten, the more cognitive impairment and/or brain atrophy.”

          We had a vegan in our online club who said something about ‘you only ever get animal illnesses’ – bird flu and mad cow disease? Keith’s humour appears again when she closes the section on soy(a) with: “According to a vegetarian bumper sticker ‘There’s no such thing as mad tofu disease.’ You might want to rethink that”!
          Food manufacturers must love vegans – virtually all vegan calories must come from food manufacturers. There’s very little that the vegan can get from the local farmer. That alone is reason enough for me to not want to be vegan!

          e) The final argument was very interesting – especially people interested in weight loss. One of the arguments for avoiding animal foods is that fat contains (approximately) 9 calories per gram and carbs approximately 4. Hence many dieters become vegetarian as a convenient way of avoiding higher calorie foods. (The fact that these foods are zero carb doesn’t matter to calorie counters). Keith notes that “Somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of the girls and women seeking treatment for anorexia and bulimia are vegetarian.” Keith says “The overlap in my life is a perfect 100. Everyone I’ve known with an eating disorder has been a vegetarian and that includes two anorexic men who were both vegans.”

          There is an interesting ‘chicken & egg’ argument – the dieter likely chooses to avoid animal foods to avoid calories but, also, vegetarian diets are typically low in tryptophan, which is the precursor of serotonin. Hence vegetarian diets can also cause depression, anxiety and eating disorders. “Veganism, I quip, is one part cult, one part eating disorder. I hear those words and I wish they weren’t true because of what they mean about me.” That’s what Keith said. I could have said the same.

          Note on all 3 arguments
          We need to make it clear that real foodies abhor factory farming every bit as much as vegans and vegetarians. We want it abolished. It is heinous – unhealthy for the animal and the human. It fails all three arguments. There is no moral argument for keeping animals in factory farms – their role is to graze freely on grass and to feed the soil with their manure and digestion. There is no political argument for factory farms – feeding grain to ruminants, who cannot digest it, is a terrible use of the world’s resources and is inevitably less efficient than feeding grain to humans (notwithstanding the harm that this could also do). There is no nutritional benefit in eating an animal that has never seen grass, let alone grazed freely on it. Much of the arguments made by vegans and vegetarians use the extreme examples of factory farming to make their case. We hate that too. Where we differ is on the value – morally, politically and nutritionally – of animals living freely and providing food for others in the circle of life, as they always have done.

          The summary

          The summary chapter in the book is a tour de force. Exquisitely written, it builds on a theme “what do I have for breakfast?” and all the things that we should think about to answer this question. We may not want to face the facts, but Keith sees this as no excuse to stay in denial. If delivered as a speech, you could see that no one in the audience would be sat down at the end. I have never seen such rousing prose.

          The questions to be asked of vegetarians become these:

          1) Moral – what do you think that you eat for which nothing has died? (I can understand that you may draw your line at not eating animals, but animals died for your food nonetheless. Please stop telling children “meat is murder” when bison, wolves, buffalo and rabbits died for your grains, as did the soil alongside).

          2) Political – how can the agriculture that has destroyed, and continues to destroy, the planet be a sustainable way to feed the world? Without ruminants performing biological functions of soil, plants soon die as the soil structure is destroyed. Are you OK that your food is made from oil, not soil? What will feed your food when the fossil fuel runs out? (Let us work together to abolish the factory farming that we both abhor, and let us work together on the only sustainable way to feed the world – dramatically curtailing the world’s population).

          3) Nutritional – (particularly for vegans) pick any non-animal food and let me pick any animal food and let’s compare vitamins and minerals. Where do you get retinol? B12? D? K2? Iron? and zinc? – to name just the most obvious nutrients provided by animal foods (some of those, exclusively so). What do you think we have eaten since time began? What did we eat during the 30,000 years of ice age? If there is any nutritional argument for being vegan, why would supplements be life critical? (not least, B12).

          I sincerely hope that no one is vegetarian for nutritional reasons alone i.e. that the animal arguments are of no matter to them – they simply think that it is best to avoid real meat and fish and maybe eggs and dairy. If anyone is, they should be the easiest to return to healthy eating. If people choose not to eat animals, because of animals, then the question

    • 0
      0

      Mamow, how you can eat meat, without someone killing An animal? LOBSTER! You are telling you don’t kill, but let someone kill, you will eat. You also said this is what Buddha said! What a funny Philosophy is this, putting others in trouble! You do not kill because it is sin, but you will let others to kill and make them to do a sin. What a selfish Buddha!

      “BUDDHA SAID IT IS OK TO EAT IF THE ANIMA WAS NOT KILLED FOR ME TO EAT”

      So, indirectly Buddha also says someone to kill which is according to you, a brutal act. This is another shit like monkey, donkey circle.

      Your philosophy is to eat meat without killing it. This is impossible, even Buddha can not do this!

      • 0
        0

        Poor DODU

        That’s exactly my Point !!

        As I said everyone ( including Buddhists ) is making excuses like “God said it’s OK to eat meat ” or “Buddha said it’s OK to
        meat ” because they are carnivorous SOBs who want to kill and eat animals.

        Goes to prove my point that Buddhists, Muslims and Christians and even some Hindus are all hypocritical, bloodthirsty meat-eaters who talk about “compassion ” and “religion” but practice something else.

        You are badly in need of an IQ makeover :)

        • 0
          0

          IMamow, I am sure my IQ is much more better than yours. . Your reply shows that you are a bum fellow. What I said was abuot Buddhism. Not about any other religion. The wonderful invention of Buddhism is do no kill nut eat. You guys are telling it is a non-violent religion? If you can’t read and understand a comment, better be silent. In your own words, “this is simply very childish argument with lots of lies and fake reasoning. What a waste of time?”

          • 0
            0

            Our same old LEELAakkama thamai this American Mama, Leela wolf is in Uncle Sam’s sheep skin.
            He selects suitable names, he is a ‘Mama’ ha ha ha. You know the ‘mama’ I mean Dodu, right?

          • 0
            0

            Poor DODU

            But you were out of point in the first place when U talked about Buddhism and meat eating when I was talking about something else ( ie : Meat eating tendency of carnivorous humans irrespective of religion ).

            You are a “koheda yanne , Malle pol ” case

            What U need badly is an IQ injection :)

            • 0
              0

              Mamow, you thing fools, Idiots here are taking to the relevant subject here. You are abusing others and others are abusing you. I am doing the same here.

              You better take a non-violence injection from Buddha.

            • 0
              0

              mamow, you think….

          • 0
            0

            Poor poor DODU

            Looks like my comment : ie ” childish reasoning with false information What a waste of time ” that I wrote in reply to one of your inane posts about Buddha is STILL RANKLING YOU.

            Get over it, Will YA ??

            • 0
              0

              I still challanged you. Buddha preached violence in Nirwana Sutra.

              When you all are trying to show others here Buddha preached non- violence, I exposed the fact quoting Sutras from nirvana Sutra.

              When you all are trying to put the blame on Islam I wrote the facts quoting from the history that it is corrupted monks and the violence of Buddhism they’d led to the destruction of Buddhism!

              When you all are trying to pose Buddhism as a pure Philosophy, I exposed quoting from the history, that it was copied from Brahminism and Jainism.

              These are all known facts to the world over. You fellows are trying to butter some laymen here by telling lies. That is all.

        • 0
          0

          American Mamaata Pissu. She has to kill even bacteria by using soap on her body and antiseptic flushed in her toilet bowl. If killing is bad thing, then it has to apply equally for all that has life, insects, animals, bacteria, vertebrates and invertebrates, mammals, carnivores, herbivores you name it. You cannot apply it selectively, then who is to decide what is good and bad. In Islam all animals that are made lawful as food are declared, and what is not is also decreed by God, by what is Halal, Makruh and Haram. Therefore the question of what is suitable to eat is clearly defined. Whereas the Buddhist teachings are thoroughly confusing, and unclear on what is acceptable in theory and n practice, and each clergy member has his own theory based on choice to justify his own likes and dislikes.

          • 0
            0

            Were you listening when God discussed meat eating with the prophet ??

      • 0
        0

        Buddha insisted to eat a dead animal and not a “killed” animal! Get it? Eat the naturally dead animals if you want!

      • 0
        0

        @ Dodu,

        Muhammed did not eat pork but he had no problem chopping off the heads of unarmed prisoners. Many Muslims today are following this example, such as the guy in London. It would have been better for Muhammed to eat pork and show some mercy to the prisoners. Buddha understood that not everyone can control themselves, which is why he did not say to avoid eating pork or beef. 2000 years later, no Buddhists are chopping off heads. So Buddha did something right. :)

        • 0
          0

          Lester, tell the whole story behind the six tusked elephant

        • 0
          0

          mohamed never was a coward or chop prisioners any time!if u not ready to read real history(not religion) no way to appreciate truth
          london event -no islamic value,wrong way to show his opposition to his country’s plight

        • 0
          0

          Lester, Buddha ate Pork and died. That is what Theravada Buddhism believe! So, Buddhists in Canbodia, Korea, Thailand… eat Pork, Dog Meat, Crow Meat…. Buddhists in China eat pork, snake, worm, cockroaches…
          Buddhists in Sri Lanka eat Pork, beef…..

          So, pork is a holy meat for Buddhists, because it is believed to be the last meat of Buddha!

          Buddha ate meat without killing. Buddhists here also wants to eat without killing. I wonder how are they going to eat without killing. Even Buddha cannot explain this Technology!

          Buddha preached about chopping of heads and 2500 years ago and Ashoka followed it, Brahmins repeated it on Buddhists! Buddhists are still Chopping heads. They are not only chopping, they also burning alive ( Sri Lanka and Burma). The genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka, killing of Muslims in Burma and Thailand, Chopping of own citizens by The Great Buddhist Pol Pot are few of them.

          If you go to Cambodia or Korea you can eat dog meat as toasted by [Edited out]. They will kill for you!. You can eat it.

          • 0
            0

            Dodu tell Lester, Saudi Arabian Oil Company ( ARAMCO ) is taking over the Sapugaskanda refinery soon. Why not get some mobs abd get those Saudi chased out? They are taking over Sri Lanka budhism…. likewise, Kuwait is funding for Roads, Dubai funding for Motor trade and Telecommunications… dramatically this will go to Muslims hands soon as Sinhala become wasting time looking at other job while not doing anything, while others they do their Jobs and get you busy while take over your Seat soon… ahahahahah get BBS homosexuals and get rid of them, However, Your comments are the best… keep it up

          • 0
            0

            Dear Dodu, your comments are the real facts that these animal dont understand as Helena Blawasky, Henry Olcott has come to this country made them to open the mind telling them they are ARIANs and then Hitler followed and killed 65 million people create worldwar 11. Hitler was Budhist… search in YouTube. Also the Yoga is another lies with Meditations which foolish drinking white people are drunkards so they follow with Nude Yoga. Budhism teach violence heavily in Vietnam, Cambodia. etc and all this Bird Flue and this flue that flu all coming from China, and Vietnam like areas and not from Arabia.. so people whom follow eat anything…. a Pulse in the body of any creatures they will eat. Imagine that God has created human, world , heaven, then he create Pigs to eat the shit, the he realize still soil balanced, so he created peasants like Sinhalese. :)

        • 0
          0

          Lester, Saudi Arabian Oil Company ( ARAMCO ) is taking over the Sapugaskanda refinery soon. Why not get some mobs abd get those Saudi chased out? They are taking over Sri Lanka budhism…. likewise, Kuwait is funding for Roads, Duabi funding for Motor trade and Telecomminucations… dramtically this will go to Muslims hands soon as Sinhala become wasting time looking at other job while not doing anything, while others they do their Jobs and get you busy while take over your Seat soom… ahahahahah get BBS [Edited out] and get rid of them,

    • 0
      0

      THE BUDDHAS LAST MEAL WAS PORK.THE BUDDHA NEVER BANNED MEAT EATING,
      IF NOT HOW ARE THE GALABODAWATTES LIKE SUMO WRESTLERS.
      DEFINITELY NOT VEGETARIANS.

      THIS SELF -IMMOLATION WAS A PLANNED SHOW FOR THIS YEARS VESAK

      • 0
        0

        Dont you know DARA SINGH, a Panjabi wrestler and a 100% vegetarian?

    • 0
      0

      Dear American Mama,
      In spite of all this, there is a news item that this Buddhist monk was invloved in fraud – in millions.

      • 0
        0

        Dear American Mama,
        The news item states that when Johnson Seveviratne was Minister of Power & Energy, this Buddhist monk had collected a sum of Rs.2 million from people to get employment and also a further sum of Rs.1 million for getting employment as teachers and swindled the entire money. The Minister has lodged a complaint with the Police but no action was taken. In 2012 it is this Buddhist monk who staged an attack on the Church at Weraketiya and in 2013 it is the same monk who staged an attack on a Mosque in 2013. Further, there was a warrant issued against the Buddhist monk three days before the incident of self immolation.
        What was most surprising the video clip shows that a person in white has set fire on him.
        The question is whether there was a plot to conceal all these unpleasant incidents. Another issue is – Why should the Christians and Muslims be targetted when they also have similar freedom of worship in a democratic country.

      • 0
        0

        Aney don’t spread lies; you think Sinhala peoples are bad? We are always fighting someone noe, because all the peoples are against us, we are as innocent, please no this!

    • 0
      0

      Mama American,

      Can you teach the eskimos (living in polar regions) how to live by eating only plants! Do you have any practical theory please ?

      • 0
        0

        You missed the point. As a Biologist I understand that humans are omnivores and are by nature carnivorous. I was just trying to explain the fact that they try to give “religious excuses ” to explain away their carnivorous nature which naturally takes away compassion and kindness to others.

        If you are asking me, Eskimos should get the hell out of the polar region. It is not suitable for human habitation anyway.

        If the native Indians could migrate to North America from Mongolia why cant the Eskimos migrate to a more favorable climate.

        • 0
          0

          American Mama why dont you emigrate to Hell

          • 0
            0

            That applies only if HELL really exists :)

    • 0
      0

      “Killing of animals is a brutal cruel act whichever way one looks at it”
      Then Why You People Kill Every Animals Have Life There is No Big Life or Small Life Even a Chicken, Goat, Ant is also have life. Even You Cant Kill Haalmesso, What is Big Sin Killing 1 Cattle for 50 People or Killing 50 Haalmesso for 1 Person?
      Even You Cant Respirate Because Your Killing So Many Bacteria in The Air…
      How About Egg…
      Even You Cant Cut Trees (Vegetables), They Also Have Life….
      So We Have to Drink Rain Water and Eat Sand….

      Killing People is Right? Make War With Them Is Correct? Make Racism Is Correct?
      “Buddha said it is ok to eat meat if the animals wasn’t killed for me to eat “
      Nice Quote So If You Want to Eat Meat You Can Hire Someone to Kill It!!!

      • 0
        0

        How about cannibalism?? Is that OK too. After alll if it is ok to eat animals what is wrong in eating humans. We are animals too.

        U are talking to wrong person if U want to prove that plants and animals are similar.

        U missed the point about Buddha saying “it is OK to eat animals ..etc.” I was trying to point out that , that was the excuse used by Buddhists to justify eating meat

      • 0
        0

        Hi All you Friends, waste time again and again. Buddha said clearly about killing of any living being intentionally “Is Wrong”. True there are many getting killed when we walk, wash etc. Cant help that, we dont intend to kill. Also Bacteria, Fungus etc are not lives with a mind, they dont feel pain.

    • 0
      0

      “If you want to eat meat to satisfy your carnivorous appetite just do it, but don’t try to justify it.”,/em>

      Justification of something will be unnecessary if there is no criticism. So if you do not want justifications, do not criticize. I might as well tell you that if you wish to be a vegetarian, go ahead without criticizing those who do not share your wish. If you believe something is worthy of criticism, by all means criticize; but don’t tell those you criticize not to defend themselves.

      • 0
        0

        Wrong logic.

        That’s like saying “if Hitler wants to kill Jews & justifies it by saying that they are exploiting the Germans ” we should not point out /criticize that BOTH the justification and the act are wrong.

        1. Hitler has to prove that the justification ” Jews are exploiting Germans ” is true.

        2. Then Hitler has to prove that the solution for (1), which is to “kill the jews,” is right.

        Therefore criticism of both the justification and the act is called for.

      • 0
        0

        Mr Blacker

        You missed the point.

        1. I said do not justify “meat eating using religious excuses.”

        2. I did not say do not defend your point of view.

        Those are 2 different things.

  • 0
    0

    @American Mama
    Human’s were not around at the time of the dinosaurs, else we would have eaten them too. See prehistoric man’s hunting of the woolly mammoth to extinction.

    • 0
      0

      Exactly my point. So God had other uses for animals too :)

      • 0
        0

        Well, no one is hunting pigs or cattle to extinction, are they? There is no moral argument for or against eating meat. It requires no justification. Whether God had other uses for animals or not is irrelevant.

        • 0
          0

          Mr Blacker

          There IS a moral argument against killing any animal ( and I am talking about all animals – not only cattle ).

          1. Humans are also animals.

          2. Animals feel pain & fear death just like us.

          3. If we fear PAIN and DEATH, why cause the same to others.

          4. Why is cannibalism NOT OK ?? Because we fear death and pain.

          4. As they say “Do unto others as U would to yourself” U may say that this applies only to humans but that is just “self serving” and “self interest” at work based on a theory that humans consider themselves more important than animals. I would like to remind you that humans are not the most successful species on planet earth from a biological point of view

          As a Biologist I understand that carnivores survive on meat.
          My main criticism is not about eating meat ( which will never stop I guess) but using GOD and Buddha and other religious excuses for indulging in a savage act that nature has forced on us.

          • 0
            0

            well david blacker, what american mama says isn’t wrong. what i understand him to be meaning is “if we want to eat meat, so be it. if we want to talk about the ethics involved lets talk about it from a purely ethics perspective. lets not bring in the God / religion issues into that. it’s not gonna take us anywhere. not all interpretations of any faith except for jainism is originally against meat consumption.”

          • 0
            0

            btw nice to see blacker again. i thought white vans were already dispatched to the doorsteps of those commenting with their real names here :D missed blacker, dr. narendran and dayan for a few days.

  • 0
    0

    What do you expect… The Auther is a convicted terrost supporter proved in a court of law. !

  • 0
    0

    from what i see at the beginning of this clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8VJ2G4B5wQ
    the fire was lit by a person other than this monk.

    from other information regarding this monks disciplinary records, past conducts and convictions, my theory is that this monk was sort of coerced to take part in this drama as a sort of punishment and was failed at being saved or eventually let to die for the benefit of somebody elses agenda.

    sometimes it is also important to make sure that he was dead and the remains were burned or buried to cast aside further doubts.

  • 0
    0

    Sri Lanka Monk Self-Immolation Highlights Anti-Muslim Sentiment…..So what about it ?? You enjoy your meat from where ever you are.

    American mama – may……. you just ended with hitting the nail right on its head.

  • 0
    0

    J S Tissanaiyagam,

    “The suicide by a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire in Sri Lanka to protest the slaughter of cattle has been hailed as an act of great self-sacrifice and compared to acts of self-immolation by Tibetan Buddhist monks protesting China’s repression in Tibet. Nothing could be more ill-informed. In fact, it is one more step by Sri Lanka’s chauvinist Sinhala-Buddhists to undermine the Muslim political base.”

    You are right on.

    The so called Jatika Hela Urumaya is behind this.

    The are really, Jatika HARAK Urumaya, another curse of Lanka.

    1. If Muslims were not there, they would be picking on Christians, as they have been doing.

    2. If Christians and Muslims were not they, they would be picking on Tamils.

    If Tamils were not there They would be picking on Jains

    If Jains were not there they Would be picking on Hindus

    If Indus were not there they would be picking on Veddahs

    If Veddahs were not there they would be picking on Yakkas and Nagas.

    If they go by the cattle, the J Harak U, Harakas, should go after Hindu India for slaughtering their kind.

    The number of cattle slaughtered worldwide.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=cattle&graph=total-slaughter
    Rank Country Total Slaughter (1000 HEAD)
    1 India 42,100.00 (Country of Buddha;s Birth, Hindu)
    2 China 40,900.00 (“Buddhist” Country)
    3 Brazil 40,300.00
    4 United States 32,612.00
    5 EU-27 27,300.00
    6 Argentina 12,400.00
    7 Australia 8,100.00
    8 Russian Federation 6,800.00
    9 Mexico 6,300.00
    10 Colombia 4,300.00
    11 New Zealand 4,146.00
    12 Canada 2,985.00
    13 Ukraine 2,390.00
    14 Uruguay 2,230.00
    15 Venezuela 1,550.00
    16 Egypt 1,340.00 ( Muslim)
    17 Belarus 1,205.00
    18 Japan 1,155.00 (“Buddhist”)
    19 Korea, Republic Of 938.00
    Year of Estimate: 2013

    Source: United States Department of Agriculture

    • 0
      0

      I have different figures of Beef production & consumption & pl. note that when it comes to consumption, India has 1300 million population & china has 1300 million population, whereas USA has only 300 million population

      No.01 – Source -wikipedia.org/wiki/Beef

      Beef production (1000 MT )

      Rank Country year 2010

      1 United States 11,789
      2 Brazil 9,300
      3 EU-27 7,920
      4 China 5,550
      5 Argentina 2,800
      6 India 2,760
      7 Australia 2,075
      8 Mexico 1,735
      9 Russia 1,260
      10 Pakistan 1,250

      No 2-
      Source -U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012

      (Beef consumption In thousands of metric tons – year 2010 )

      United States 12,040
      EU 8,185
      Brazil 7,592
      China 5,589
      Russia 2,307
      Argentina 2,305
      Mexico 1,944
      India 1,930
      Pakistan 1,491
      Japan 1,224
      Canada 999
      Other Countries 10,938

      World 56,544

  • 0
    0

    J S Tiss,

    “The suicide by a Buddhist monk who set himself on fire in Sri Lanka to protest the slaughter of cattle has been hailed as an act of great self-sacrifice and compared to acts of self-immolation by Tibetan Buddhist monks protesting China’s repression in Tibet. Nothing could be more ill-informed. In fact, it is one more step by Sri Lanka’s chauvinist Sinhala-Buddhists to undermine the Muslim political base.”

    You are right on.

    The so called Jatika Hela Urumaya is behind this.

    The are really, Jatika HARAK Urumaya, another curse of Lanka.

    1. If Muslims were not there, they would be picking on Christians, as they have been doing.

    2. If Christians and Muslims were not they, they would be picking on Tamils.

    If Tamils were not there They would be picking on Jains

    If Jains were not there they Would be picking on Hindus

    If Indus were not there they would be picking on Veddahs

    If Veddahs were not there they would be picking on Yakkas and Nagas.

    The number of cattle slaughtered worldwide.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=cattle&graph=total-slaughter
    Rank Country Total Slaughter (1000 HEAD)
    1 India 42,100.00 (Country of Buddha;s Birth, Hindu)
    2 China 40,900.00 (“Buddhist” Country)
    3 Brazil 40,300.00
    4 United States 32,612.00
    5 EU-27 27,300.00
    6 Argentina 12,400.00
    7 Australia 8,100.00
    8 Russian Federation 6,800.00
    9 Mexico 6,300.00
    10 Colombia 4,300.00
    11 New Zealand 4,146.00
    12 Canada 2,985.00
    13 Ukraine 2,390.00
    14 Uruguay 2,230.00
    15 Venezuela 1,550.00
    16 Egypt 1,340.00 ( Muslim)
    17 Belarus 1,205.00
    18 Japan 1,155.00 (“Buddhist”)
    19 Korea, Republic Of 938.00
    Year of Estimate: 2013
    Source: United States Department of Agriculture

  • 0
    0

    @American Mama

    You are an idiot. Check what the Buddha and the Bible say about the consumption of meat.

    http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Deuteronomy-Chapter-14/

    http://submission.org/halal_meat.html

    [Quran 2:173] He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than God. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

    • 0
      0

      Dear Dunce

      No one really knows what the Buddha actually said. it is an oral tradition, remember ??

      As for the other religions ” it is what the prophet said ” NOT what “God said”

      Were you there when God said what he said to the prophet ??

    • 0
      0

      @ Idiotic American Mama,

      Omnivores like myself will continue eat beef, chicken, pork, vegetables etc. and nothing you bleeding heart vegetables (sorry I meant vegetarians) say or do is going to stop us. :)

      http://www.statistics.gov.lk/agriculture/Livestock/slaughterstatistcs.html

      …for those hypocrites who blame Muslims for all the meat consumption in this country, take a look at the stats given above. You people still think Muslims ate all the cattle in all those regions? :)

      • 0
        0

        Dear Dunce

        Do I care ?? I already know that humans are meat eating savages ( ie carnivores) All I said is no need to give “religious” excuses. Just do it.

        You are a real “dunce,” aint ya ??

        • 0
          0

          As an American Grandmother, I find your arrogance and name calling very disturbing. There is much to be understood from all cultures and people. To feign intellect to use as power over, you defy your ability to be reasoned with in a truly peaceful exchange. To return to fight, again and again, is sad to me. Find some parking meters downtown and check them for offenders. Have some real fun.

      • 0
        0

        so all beaf eaten in colombo in 2011 incurred a transport charge added to teh cost! do you have some stats that would tell us if there was a decline in demand due that?

      • 0
        0

        discovery: there is an inverse correlation between cattle slaughter and goat and sheep slaughter!!

        would have been great if you also provided with the fish suffocation stats to illuminate us with the lives lost per plate of bath.

  • 0
    0

    See Tamils, Christians and Muslims are saints.

    Sinhala – buddhists are out castes because they are fighting back.

    • 0
      0

      JimSofty,

      All infected with the Religion Myth Virus.

      Nirvana, Nibbana, Sansara, Hell, Limbo, Purgatory, Heaven, Rebirth,Saints, etc., all are brainwashed into their version of the Virus.

      The difference with the Sinhala Buddhism is that they have mixed up Sinhala with Buddhism, and came up with Sinhala Buddhist Racism.

      This has nothing to do with the True Buddhism of Lord Buddha. Check Ven, Dalai Lama out.

      The original Author of this Myrrh was Monk Mahanama. He also added a few other Myths like Vijaya’s grandfather being a Lion and Buddha was born in LANKA etc, in addition to demonizing the natives and their beliefs.

      DeJa Vu… Myths are being perpetuated…for own self interest.

      One Monk from Jatika Harak Urumaya, burned himself, because Cattle, Harakas, are being slaughtered, and India kills most of the Cattle and then China.

      The Monk should have burned himself at New Delhi or at Beijing, instead of at Kandy on Wesak Day.

      DeJa Vu….. A Haraka is born Every minute.

    • 0
      0

      no. because some of them are being hypocrites by both eating cattles and then blaming it on the others:)

      • 0
        0

        also because they are hypocritical about goats, sheep, swine, chicken and fishes because they weren’t friends in the past. it’s sad that some animal couldn’t make friends with some sinhala buddhists.

    • 0
      0

      Yes Jim, Only Minorities have rights in Sri Lanka!!

      One to indulge in sel – immolation is a something with a such a strong feeling can do. So he did it and why this author want to take credit out of it and say it was done against muslims? or Christians? There have been instances where Bhuddhists took to streets and even violence used against other religions, but this incidence is the most innocent someone can sacrifice. No harm to anybody. I now suspect this writer.

      In Sri Lanka both Muslims and Cristians trying to convert Buddhists and Hindus to their side using money and tricks. This is a dirty practice. Hindus, buddhists not doing this.) Since muslims and Christians are inorities and minor religions, major religion should just keep quiet? Minorities are very special and they can do anything?

  • 0
    0

    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy
    https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

  • 0
    0

    The very title of the article betrays the hidden and malicious intent of the writer, himself supposed to be a convicted ex-terrorist supporter. I do hope that our readership public is wise to the designs of such opportunists who try to make political and communal capital out of nothing and stir-up hornets nests for us, Muslims and Sinhalese. We are aware that the age-old cordiality between our two communities cannot be sullied by the single act of a misguided monk or the fanatical outbursts of some hate-preacher like Anjem Chaudhary Bakri Omar. [Edited out] So far, voices of reason from both our sides have down-played this unfortunate incident and are working towards fostering community bridge-building. The writer however seems to be aching with pain at the state of affairs between the two communities and is perhaps vying for the award of another eminent Fellowship from some prestigious Institute on this account.He would be well advised to look a little further away in his quest for a raison-de-etre for his bogus concerns are bare and there for all to see.

    • 0
      0

      Given his experiences it is hard to expect J.S.T. to write without bias. Which make his hypothesis suspect.

      There is a perception among the rural Sinhala poor that the Muslim community is punching above their weight class. One may argue on the intensity of that feeling yet it is undeniable that it is there.

      That being said, most discerning Sinhala people are aware that there are elements in the government are trying to gain political advantage by trying to exploiting that feeling.

      This latest gambit was dead on arrival due to the backlash within the Sinhala community with regards to the uncouth methods of the BBS. The ties built over the centuries between the Sinhala and Muslim communities are too strong to broken over the actions of a few irresponsible monks and their acolytes.

      Nothing here that a few apologies, a plate of Biriyani and cup of tea cannot solve.

      • 0
        0

        I agree. It seems to me that the writer can barely conceal his relish at the prospect of a conflict between the Sinhalese and Moslems. He tries hard to disparage this act of self immolation calling it an “anti Moslem racist” act rather than one of compassion for the cattle being slaughtered. A typical suicide that does not have the respecability of an act of conviction like the LTTE suicide bombings or Tibetan self immolations.

        However if there is an inconsistancy here it is how the preachers of non-violence of whom this priest is presumably one, consistantly supported the military action in 2009 in which many thousands of their countrymen were slaughtered. None were so moved as to speak out in public leave alone immolate themselves opposite the Maligawa, and most of them egged the army on to finish it off militarily regardless of the human casualties.

  • 0
    0

    The monk died for the sake of Cows which are holy animals for Hindus/Buddhists. Christian/Muslim converts think killing and eating the COW is an act of fighting Hindus and Buddhists.

    Tissanayakam is a LTTE supporter and LTTE is controlled by the Catholic Church. Can he explain why LTTE chased the Muslims from their homes?

    The dead Thero nowhere said it is against the Muslims or Catholics. The author must know 99.9999% Hindu Tamil population will support a ban on cow slaughter in Sri Lanka!

    • 0
      0

      Some facts….

      LTTE was controlled by the Catholic Church is very likely.

      Portuguese tried to make Lanka a Catholic Island, and LTTE was another chance. Buddhists. Hindus and Muslims did not matter, and were sinners who are refusing to be save from Sins through Jesus.

      India, the Heading Hindu State and the Birthplace of Buddhism, is #1, is cattle slaughtering.

      The number of cattle slaughtered worldwide.

      http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=cattle&graph=total-slaughter
      Rank Country Total Slaughter (1000 HEAD)
      1 India 42,100.00 (Country of Buddha;s Birth, Hindu)
      2 China 40,900.00 (“Buddhist” Country)
      3 Brazil 40,300.00
      4 United States 32,612.00
      5 EU-27 27,300.00
      6 Argentina 12,400.00
      7 Australia 8,100.00
      8 Russian Federation 6,800.00
      9 Mexico 6,300.00
      10 Colombia 4,300.00

      Source US Dept of Agriculture

      • 0
        0

        US Information department was saying they killed all the Viet Congs in Vietnam!

    • 0
      0

      Sivanatham, your name itself smells. Eating cattle meat is bad but you can its dung as Vibuthi holy ash nonesense

      • 0
        0

        I hope you allow six years old Ayesha to have sex with 58 years old mohameds in your home!

  • 0
    0

    I will not comment on the author’s statements regarding the successive Sri Lankan governments’ motivations regarding political agendas.

    However, I get the impression that the writer is keen to form an alliance with Muslims (ie he himself is probably a Hindu Tamil)against the majority Sinhala population, as opposed to an independent endeavour to claim Tamil rights.

  • 0
    0

    people, look at it from above, is this an animal rights issue or a political issue of relegious issue ? its so eveident that a bunch of power hungry morons in the guise of relegious monks are striving hard to gain political positions to feast on all reachable luxuries, right ?

    How come buddha chose a peacefull way of life to solve many issues in life and his followers seem to be a taking detour on the path of violence, hatred and chaos.

  • 0
    0

    If all Buddhists stop eating meat then the amount of cattle that will be slaughtered will be minimal. But do you think they will stop? I doubt it very much. We are such hypocrites why is it that we are shouting only one aspect of Buddhism how come no one is talking about booze. Sri Lankans are among the highest consumers of liquor in the world. Go and see the amount of people queuing near taverns just before a poya day or before new year etc. And we very well know that these are not Muslims but Buddhist since Qur’an prohibits them from drinking. How come no one is killing him self in order to stop liquor being sold?

    Just to save a cow you kill yourself! How very STUPID!

    • 0
      0

      True about Liquor, As long as no harm to others its ok. Fun loving people drink. What is wrong is over the limit.

      When u say about buddhists easting beef, you are no way near truth. Only maybe 5% Buddhist eat Beef (True 40% Eat Chicken, 60% Eat Fish)

  • 0
    0

    Self immolation incident in which the young monk sacrificed his life should have been a great plan. I have watched the Video and instantly what came to my mind was why the others around the monk was onlooking the monk pouring a gallon of gasoline on him – getting prepared to burn himself. Where had been moral courage of the ones looked at the incident closely ?

  • 0
    0

    How about PIG ?

  • 0
    0

    How about Goat ?

    • 0
      0

      How about the hundreds of babies being aborted everyday?

  • 0
    0

    timed near Vesak too!

  • 0
    0

    Please write instead of posting links – CT

  • 0
    0

    Tissanayagam:

    I am pretty sure, you are not HINDU and even if you are HINDU, you are not a SAIVITE -HINDU which consider COW as sacred.

    Anyway, Let us say that you are HINDU, as your grand grand fathers WOULD HAVE BEEN and in order to protect their religion, they would protest other tamils who kill cattle.

    What is the sinister motive you see there ?

    Rajanayagam you are one person who used Sinhala hospitality to gang up with LTTE and supported LTTE. when your game plan went wrong you ran away FROM THE COUNTRY.

    NOW YOU WRITE THIS CRAP.

    • 0
      0

      True, I thought this writer a professional, Now clearly shows an agenda behind.

  • 0
    0

    First, would a buddhist supply Gasoline to a buddhist Monk to set him on fire ?

    • 0
      0

      “First, would a buddhist supply Gasoline to a buddhist Monk to set him on fire ?”

      Yes,

      One Buddhist did. PEACELOVER Posted the following

      PLEASE WATCH THIS CAREFULLY ..IF U CAN WATCH IT IN SLOW MOTION …..

      WHO IS THE MAN WHO SET THIS BIKKU FIRE WITH HIS LEFT HAND ?…..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y8VJ2G4B5wQ

    • 0
      0

      Buddhist do kill Buddhists . Christians kill Christians and Muslims kill Muslims.

  • 0
    0

    “The Auther is a convicted terrost supporter proved in a court of law. !”

    You mean the author was convicted in a Kangaroo court. Only people that excape that court are Drug dealers, murderers and wife & child abusers.

    Get a life you idiot.

  • 0
    0

    How does one protect Buddhism if people chose to covert. Economic or otherwise?

    History and common sense have shown that any assault on minorities only makes the minorities stronger.

    Will Buddhists be duped into accepting a sever assault on their civil liberties by adopting an anti-conversion Bill?

  • 0
    0

    The writer’s opinion is very biased. This man is not an indenpendent objective thinking man.

    He is all out to destroy the immage of Sri Lanka and Buddhisam as he was convicted by a Sri Lankan court.

  • 0
    0

    J.S. Tissainayagam is a LTTE terrorist supporter who used his pen to write absolute untruths against the Government and never mentioned the atrocities committed by his terrorist supporters and paymasters.
    He is making an effort to exploit this ignorant Buddhist priest’s actions to suit his own agenda.

  • 0
    0

    Tissanayam got into trouble for distorting truth… and it is suggested he does not attempt to do the same….

    cattle slaughter and the manner it happens should be something that any decent human being would be appalled about…

    Have any of you commentators seen the manner in which the cow is tied and pulled and cut while he is alive…. an animal is dumb.. he cannot talk… how can he defend himself…. must we kill an animal just to eat meat?

    THIS IS WHAT THE MONK WAS AGAINST…. dont bring unnecessary things in between… just to evade the main issue

  • 0
    0

    [Edited out] now coming under the Muslim banner to go against the Singhalese people ,these [Edited out] can sacrifice anything for their agenda, Hindu man supporting of killing cows, what a joke, now his LTTE flag has gone now he try to take Muslims for ride

    he is trying to write crap article like this to provocate Muslims and go against the Sinhalese and show it to west SL now against the Muslims and try to achieve the LTTE Diaspora agenda

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.