Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Restaurant Sued for Serving Meat
Show More
Loading...
Flag TemplarS July 20, 2011 8:57 AM EDT
Okay, this is a curious item from my area:


www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/edison...


A group of Hindu residents can sue an Edison restaurant for money to travel to India, where they say they must purify their souls after eating meat, a state appellate court panel ruled Monday.


I think it's clear there was negligence and possibily emotional damage done, but- a trip to India as a remedy?
Flag Christianlib July 20, 2011 9:33 AM EDT

Can McDonalds be sued if they accidently serve food?

Flag TemplarS July 20, 2011 10:40 AM EDT

If they fried up a piece of beef and served it as a chicken Mcnugget, evidently so...

Flag Christianlib July 20, 2011 10:51 AM EDT

Temp,


My comment indicated that I don't think the stuff they currently serve can actually be classed as "food."


Flag MysticWanderer July 20, 2011 11:10 AM EDT

Looks like a fairly straight forward violation of warranty type action as the restaurant had assured(guaranteed) that the dishes would be vegetarian And they were not.  As to the degree of damages that will, be determined later by the courts but in general plaintiff's attorneys always ask for every dime they can think of.

Flag MMarcoe July 20, 2011 11:13 AM EDT

 


From the article:


The diners said the mix-up has harmed them spiritually and monetarily, and that to cleanse themselves of their sin — even though it was committed unknowingly — they must participate in a purification ritual in India’s Ganges River.


Pradip (Peter) Kothari, president of the Indo-American Cultural Society in Edison, said he was unaware of the lawsuit but said he thought it should have been dismissed.


"This is a hypocrisy of religion and a hypocrisy of the law," said Kothari, who conceded that he does not strictly observe the Hindu religion. "They can go to a temple here and ask God for forgiveness. God is not going to punish you for doing something unknowingly."


I agree with Pradip. They can go to a temple in the US and do their purifying. And speaking as a 20-year vegetarian, I can tell you that eating meat doesn't harm you spiritually or monetarily, as the diners said. These diners are greedy opportunists.


There were a few times when I think I unknowingly ate meat. I just shrugged it off as something that was probably inevitable here and there. I certainly didn't feel spiritually violated.


Greedy bastards.

Flag Erey July 20, 2011 11:22 AM EDT

I think it is a bad prescedent.


I think these hindus want a paid vacation back home to India.  The fact is there are lots of meats here in the US and if you eat out you pretty much eat with meat.  So havent these gentlemen been served food on plates that prior served meat dishes?  I think in India it is much easier to avoid accidentaly eating meat.  However I have known lots of muslims and jews not to mention vegetarians who accidentaly ingested pork.  I dont buy that these need 30 days in India to take care of this.  If this were true and their virtue were so fragile then they would never eat at a restaurant that serves meat, period.  How can they be sure eating vegetarian dishes off of plates that serve meat dishes does not give them polluting residue? 

Flag Christianlib July 20, 2011 11:26 AM EDT

Did you mean bad "precedent"?


 


And, BTW, it isn't a legal precedent until the court case is complete and a judicial ruling made.

Flag Ken July 20, 2011 12:22 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 11:22AM, Erey wrote:

How can they be sure eating vegetarian dishes off of plates that serve meat dishes does not give them polluting residue? 



They probably assume that the plates have been washed. If you find a residue of meat sticking to your plate, you're certainly allowed to make a fuss about it - not because you were in danger of eating meat, but because the restaurant is dirty.

Flag Girlchristian July 20, 2011 12:32 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:22PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 11:22AM, Erey wrote:

How can they be sure eating vegetarian dishes off of plates that serve meat dishes does not give them polluting residue? 



They probably assume that the plates have been washed. If you find a residue of meat sticking to your plate, you're certainly allowed to make a fuss about it - not because you were in danger of eating meat, but because the restaurant is dirty.





Well, we know that peanut residue can remain even after washing, which is why those with severe peanut allergies have to be more careful when ordering. When I was a vegetarian, I knew many vegetarians that wouldn't eat anywhere where there wasn't a "specified" cooking area for the vegetarian meals so that they could be sure their food was not in any way contaminated by meat that was cooked prior.

Flag Christianlib July 20, 2011 12:42 PM EDT

Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."

Flag BDboy July 20, 2011 1:15 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 11:13AM, MMarcoe wrote:


 


From the article:


The diners said the mix-up has harmed them spiritually and monetarily, and that to cleanse themselves of their sin — even though it was committed unknowingly — they must participate in a purification ritual in India’s Ganges River.


Pradip (Peter) Kothari, president of the Indo-American Cultural Society in Edison, said he was unaware of the lawsuit but said he thought it should have been dismissed.


"This is a hypocrisy of religion and a hypocrisy of the law," said Kothari, who conceded that he does not strictly observe the Hindu religion. "They can go to a temple here and ask God for forgiveness. God is not going to punish you for doing something unknowingly."


I agree with Pradip. They can go to a temple in the US and do their purifying. And speaking as a 20-year vegetarian, I can tell you that eating meat doesn't harm you spiritually or monetarily, as the diners said. These diners are greedy opportunists.


There were a few times when I think I unknowingly ate meat. I just shrugged it off as something that was probably inevitable here and there. I certainly didn't feel spiritually violated.


Greedy bastards.




 


>>>>>>> I agree with Peter Kothari.


Going to the river Ganges is ONE way to purify for sure but NOT the only way. There are cheaper ways to atone for unintentional mistakes.


Guess our Hindu members can chime in.




Flag BDboy July 20, 2011 1:17 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!

Flag Christianlib July 20, 2011 1:22 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!




BD, I didn't indicate I agreed with any of them.  I'm just playing with the irony.


The structural irony of modern society is one of my favorite things to observe and comment on.

Flag Ken July 20, 2011 1:23 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Girlchristian wrote:

When I was a vegetarian, I knew many vegetarians that wouldn't eat anywhere where there wasn't a "specified" cooking area for the vegetarian meals so that they could be sure their food was not in any way contaminated by meat that was cooked prior.



As a vegetarian, I find that it greatly simplifies life not to look too closely into what goes on in a restaurant's kitchen. After all, dining out is supposed to be a relaxing, enjoyable experience, not a research project.

Flag Girlchristian July 20, 2011 1:26 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:23PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Girlchristian wrote:

When I was a vegetarian, I knew many vegetarians that wouldn't eat anywhere where there wasn't a "specified" cooking area for the vegetarian meals so that they could be sure their food was not in any way contaminated by meat that was cooked prior.



As a vegetarian, I find that it greatly simplifies life not to look too closely into what goes on in a restaurant's kitchen. After all, dining out is supposed to be a relaxing, enjoyable experience, not a research project.




I agree. That's also a great philosophy for chinese buffet type restaurants.

Flag Erey July 20, 2011 1:31 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:23PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:32PM, Girlchristian wrote:

When I was a vegetarian, I knew many vegetarians that wouldn't eat anywhere where there wasn't a "specified" cooking area for the vegetarian meals so that they could be sure their food was not in any way contaminated by meat that was cooked prior.



As a vegetarian, I find that it greatly simplifies life not to look too closely into what goes on in a restaurant's kitchen. After all, dining out is supposed to be a relaxing, enjoyable experience, not a research project.




Yes Girl Christian, that was my point.  Residue ya know!  If your virtue is that fragile what about the residue.   


And yes Ken, I agree with you that we can have our ideologies but also practise them with some flexibility, I am happy to eat with people with this kind of attitude and even cook for them. 


 


I have a crazy friend, my oldest friend who did decide to be vegetarian - most vegetarians are not crazy.  My Mom and I were trying to help her because she is friendless and one day we said we would take her out to eat together and my mother was ademate that we take her to a vegetarian restauarant because the last time we took her out to eat at a mainstream restaurant she pummeled the waitress with so many questions about the veracity of the vegetarian menu items that my Mother wanted to crawl into a hole.  She figured taking her to a restaurant or kitchen that serves no meat was the easiest solution.    

Flag TemplarS July 20, 2011 1:53 PM EDT

Just to be clear, what happened here was not residue of meat, or traces of meat coming into contact with their food or plates-


They actually served them meat-filled pastries instead of vegetarian pastries.


I don't know enough about the Hindu concept of impure to comment intelligently; it seems like a trip to India is way over the top- but I would be interested to hear the other side of the story from someone who actually knows.

Flag Erey July 20, 2011 2:05 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:53PM, TemplarS wrote:


Just to be clear, what happened here was not residue of meat, or traces of meat coming into contact with their food or plates-


They actually served them meat-filled pastries instead of vegetarian pastries.


I don't know enough about the Hindu concept of impure to comment intelligently; it seems like a trip to India is way over the top- but I would be interested to hear the other side of the story from someone who actually knows.





Yes, I think you are probably going to find most hindus thinking this is nothing more than opportunistic.  If someone is that suseptible to needing a month long break from work and responsibilities of home to go and cleanse themselves, I doubt they would take chances in a place that serves meat. 


I also agree that the restaurant is negligent and should make some restitution.  Reaonalbe restitution.


If I read correctly they pretty much ate the entire pastry, is that right?  I just really think that your average lifelong vegetarian is going to clue in after the first bite.  Especially if it is meat and not broth.  I have worked iwth alot of indians in the past and many of them are lifelong vegetarians.  They all have stories of picking up a bite of food and putting it to their mouth when they felt something smelled not quite right and then they realised they had meat on the fork.  They never put it in their mouths.    These are not people that are going to accidentaly eat an entire pastry with meat in it. 

Flag costrel July 20, 2011 2:48 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 2:05PM, Erey wrote:

Yes, I think you are probably going to find most hindus thinking this is nothing more than opportunistic.  If someone is that suseptible to needing a month long break from work and responsibilities of home to go and cleanse themselves, I doubt they would take chances in a place that serves meat. 


I suppose it may depend on the traditions of the Hindu diners in question. For instance, the Banjara are not strictly vegetarian, but they do not consume any beef. In fact, according to S. G. Deogaonkar and Shailaja S. Deogaonkar in their study The Banjara, if one of the them "kills a cow accidentally he has to go on pilgrimage for six months for purification and should not show his face in the community" (New Delhi: Ashok Kumar Mittal, 1992, p. 25). Perhaps a 3 to 30 day trip to India to purify oneself in the Ganges for accidentally eating meat is not such an opportunistic enterprise as it may at first seem. Most Americans are diasporic peoples, and most Americans belong to religions -- from Hinduism to Catholicism -- whose major religious centers are not in North America. Going on pilgrimage to the Ganges for purification might be similar to Catholics going to Lourdes in France or to the Vatican in Rome for the purposes of healing. Though perhaps the diners are opportunistic in expecting the restaurant to pay for this pilgrimage.

Flag rocketjsquirell July 20, 2011 3:12 PM EDT

The decision merely allows them to go forward with the suit, in which they have specific demands for damages.  No biggy

Flag solfeggio July 20, 2011 8:51 PM EDT

Erey -


Your posts are very sensible. 


Strict vegetarians do not eat in restaurants that serve meat.  Period.  Also, strict vegetarians could certainly tell, if not by the smell of the food being served, but after even one small taste, that the food contained flesh.


If you can't find a restaurant that doesn't serve meat, then you don't eat out.  Period.


The restaurant employees were negligent, of course (although one wonders if their carelessness didn't stem from their feeling that strict vegetarians were nutbars who wouldn't know a samosa with lamb from one without it.)


And having to make a trip to India to be 'purified'?  That's ridiculous, and it only weakens the diners' case.


BTW:  As you say, not all vegetarians are crazy, just as not all meat eaters are crazy. 


 

Flag DotNotInOz July 21, 2011 11:54 AM EDT
I'm not so sure you could tell by the taste of a samosa that it had meat in it. Those I've had contained such small bits of chopped veggies proportionally that one might easily eat more than one without being able to detect immediately that they contained bits of meat.

And Indian restaurants I've patronized are accustomed to dealing with the specific dietary needs of their Hindu customers.

Sounds to me like this one was seriously negligent, but I can't say whether or not a trip to India is necessary or justified.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a great example of the patently ridiculous food restrictions imposed by some religions. Just my unhallowed opinion that I'm quite sure others will regard as shameful. Any deity that can be offended by what people eat isn't worth their veneration as I see it.
Flag TemplarS July 21, 2011 12:14 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 11:54AM, DotNotInOz wrote:


As far as I'm concerned, it's a great example of the patently ridiculous food restrictions imposed by some religions. Just my unhallowed opinion that I'm quite sure others will regard as shameful. Any deity that can be offended by what people eat isn't worth their veneration as I see it.





Jesus:  "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean,
but what comes out of his mouth"

Flag NATAS July 21, 2011 12:30 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!



If I recall correctly the issue about Taco Bell was not that there was not "enough" meat but that the meat that was being used was mixed with "fillers".   


The suit that was filled did not seek monetary damages.  It was a "truth in advertising"  lawsuit.


www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres...


 

Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>> I agree with Peter Kothari.


 


Going to the river Ganges is ONE way to purify for sure but NOT the only way. There are cheaper ways to atone for unintentional mistakes. 



I would also agree with Peter Kothari but those who did eat the meat would disagree.   I suspect that if you asked Hindus some would agree and some would disagree.   


I am curious to know how would a Muslim "purify" himself if the accidently ate pork? 





Flag arielg July 21, 2011 12:49 PM EDT

They obviously  have been in the country long enough to embrace the "sue them, they have money" routine. Or maybe have a lawyer in the family.

Flag Christianlib July 21, 2011 3:41 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 12:49PM, arielg wrote:


They obviously  have been in the country long enough to embrace the "sue them, they have money" routine. Or maybe have a lawyer in the family.




Where was/is Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church.  Sounds like their MO.

Flag Christianlib July 21, 2011 3:42 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 12:30PM, NATAS wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 1:17PM, BDboy wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:42PM, Christianlib wrote:


Not too many months ago, people were wanting to sue Taco Bell for NOT serving enough meat in their "meat."




 


>>>>>>> If they do not like Taco Bell, they can go to other Taco places. Why need to sue the Taco Bell?


Bunch of cry babies!!



If I recall correctly the issue about Taco Bell was not that there was not "enough" meat but that the meat that was being used was mixed with "fillers".   


The suit that was filled did not seek monetary damages.  It was a "truth in advertising"  lawsuit.


www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/25/wheres...




Ahhh, NATAS, don't let specificity get in the way of a good joke.  You didn't REALLY think I was serious in making that comparison, did you?

Flag Wanderingal July 21, 2011 3:52 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 8:57AM, TemplarS wrote:

Okay, this is a curious item from my area:


www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/edison...


A group of Hindu residents can sue an Edison restaurant for money to travel to India, where they say they must purify their souls after eating meat, a state appellate court panel ruled Monday.


I think it's clear there was negligence and possibily emotional damage done, but- a trip to India as a remedy?





Equitable remedies are great!


This cure makes perfect sense in the situation--so much better than cash awards for damages in this Implied Contract case..

Flag Wanderingal July 21, 2011 3:56 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2011 -- 12:22PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 20, 2011 -- 11:22AM, Erey wrote:

How can they be sure eating vegetarian dishes off of plates that serve meat dishes does not give them polluting residue? 



They probably assume that the plates have been washed. If you find a residue of meat sticking to your plate, you're certainly allowed to make a fuss about it - not because you were in danger of eating meat, but because the restaurant is dirty.




Many restaurants perform the equivalent of 'keeping kosher' by having separate dishes/washing etc for their meat versus non-meat servings.




Flag Roodog July 21, 2011 5:09 PM EDT

For now on, Restaurants  will have to post signs similar to the "Peanut Allergy signs" the I had seen at Dairy Queen advising those with peanut allergies that they stand to risk contact with peanuts while eating there.


Restaurants should post:


"This Establishment prepares and serves meat and other animal products. Persons allergic to or otherwise unable eat certain meats and animal products are advised that they may come into contact with these products."

Flag Ken July 21, 2011 5:25 PM EDT

Shouldn't people whose religion requires them to purify themselves in the Ganges after a minor mishap take the basic precaution of living near the Ganges?

Flag Roodog July 21, 2011 5:37 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 5:25PM, Ken wrote:


Shouldn't people whose religion requires them to purify themselves in the Ganges after a minor mishap take the basic precaution of living near the Ganges?





Are you advocating deporting Hindus to India?


Say it ain't so!

Flag Ken July 21, 2011 5:52 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 5:37PM, Roodog wrote:


Jul 21, 2011 -- 5:25PM, Ken wrote:


Shouldn't people whose religion requires them to purify themselves in the Ganges after a minor mishap take the basic precaution of living near the Ganges?





Are you advocating deporting Hindus to India?


Say it ain't so!



No. Plenty of Hindus eat meat, and most of those who don't aren't required to purify themselves in the Ganges if they do. I'm simply saying that those who need to visit the Ganges for any slight defilement shouldn't stray too far from the Ganges. It's absurd to have to go running halfway around the world because there was a little meat in your samosa.

Flag Wanderingal July 21, 2011 6:04 PM EDT

Ken--admit that it is only YOUR personal opinion that this was a "Slight" defilement.

Flag Ken July 21, 2011 6:31 PM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 6:04PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Ken--admit that it is only YOUR personal opinion that this was a "Slight" defilement.



I won't admit anything of the kind. It's not like they committed cannibalism. They didn't even intend to eat the meat.

Flag Maidencreatrix July 21, 2011 6:46 PM EDT

I don't think other people's opinions on what the family should or shouldn't do after accidentally eating meat should really come into play. They took precautions to see that the food they ate lived up to their religious standards, were assured by the restaurant that it did-- and then had that yanked out from under them.


Yes, paying for a trip to India seems like a hefty punishment for what seems to have been an honest mistake, but it is their responsibility to make sure that their customers are actually eating what they think they are eating.


This might be a blessing in disguise for them-- they might establish better business practices before mistakenly serving someone who needs ingredients excluded for medical reasons gets seriously ill as a result of such an accident. 

Flag Ken July 22, 2011 11:54 AM EDT

Jul 21, 2011 -- 6:46PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


I don't think other people's opinions on what the family should or shouldn't do after accidentally eating meat should really come into play.



Of course they should. In law, the standard is always what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 12:10 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, Ken wrote:


Jul 21, 2011 -- 6:46PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


I don't think other people's opinions on what the family should or shouldn't do after accidentally eating meat should really come into play.



Of course they should. In law, the standard is always what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.





You're misrepresenting the standard.


It is always modified to fit the circumstances. In this instant case it was be what a reasonable HINDU would expect/do.


A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. In this case you're trying to make the legal standard fit YOUR own ideas.....



Flag Christianlib July 22, 2011 12:35 PM EDT

An aside.  Have you read much lately about the state of the Ganges?  I'm not sure a dip in THAT water purifies anything.  Much the opposite, in fact.

Flag Ken July 22, 2011 12:44 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:10PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, Ken wrote:


Jul 21, 2011 -- 6:46PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


I don't think other people's opinions on what the family should or shouldn't do after accidentally eating meat should really come into play.



Of course they should. In law, the standard is always what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.



You're misrepresenting the standard.


It is always modified to fit the circumstances. In this instant case it was be what a reasonable HINDU would expect/do.



Exactly. And that is not what a reasonable Hindu would do.

Flag farragut July 22, 2011 12:57 PM EDT

Best thing for those poor, defiled people is to let a couple days pass, and enjoy a good bowel movement. I'm sure they've already done that.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:15 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:35PM, Christianlib wrote:


An aside.  Have you read much lately about the state of the Ganges?  I'm not sure a dip in THAT water purifies anything.  Much the opposite, in fact.





The purifying qualities of Mother Ganges are spiritual, not physical.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:17 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:44PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:10PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 11:54AM, Ken wrote:


Jul 21, 2011 -- 6:46PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


I don't think other people's opinions on what the family should or shouldn't do after accidentally eating meat should really come into play.



Of course they should. In law, the standard is always what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.



You're misrepresenting the standard.


It is always modified to fit the circumstances. In this instant case it was be what a reasonable HINDU would expect/do.



Exactly. And that is not what a reasonable Hindu would do.





Ken--again--you're using YOUR ideas about Hinduism--not the ideas of HIndus.


YOur posts have proved that clearly.


BTTW--looking at some of your constructions (as well as comments about legal standards) makes me wonder if you're in a country OTHER than the US.

Flag Christianlib July 22, 2011 1:19 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:15PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:35PM, Christianlib wrote:


An aside.  Have you read much lately about the state of the Ganges?  I'm not sure a dip in THAT water purifies anything.  Much the opposite, in fact.





The purifying qualities of Mother Ganges are spiritual, not physical.




Yeah, I understand that.  But still........

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:21 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:57PM, farragut wrote:


Best thing for those poor, defiled people is to let a couple days pass, and enjoy a good bowel movement. I'm sure they've already done that.





I know you're probably trying to make a "joke" but this situation is about spiritual defilement--not physical.


I'm not sure it's kosher to make jokes about the religious beliefs of others--especially about a set of practices and beliefs that is over 6000 years old.....

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:22 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:19PM, Christianlib wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:15PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 12:35PM, Christianlib wrote:


An aside.  Have you read much lately about the state of the Ganges?  I'm not sure a dip in THAT water purifies anything.  Much the opposite, in fact.





The purifying qualities of Mother Ganges are spiritual, not physical.




Yeah, I understand that.  But still........





CL--well I don't see much difference between what you're referring to and the Christian idea of "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"........


And to get scientific about it--we grow our food crops in the enriched soil which is the result of millions (countless ) of decomposing human and animal corpses.....


Those who have gone before us nourish us now.


Not much difference really at all.

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 1:27 PM EDT
You totally bewildered me there, WGal.

What does the "ashes to ashes" passage have to do with the discussion at hand other than reflecting the Christian belief that the body will decay after death while the soul continues to exist?
Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:35 PM EDT

Dot--hi--sorry if I was confusing. I was referring to CL's "objection" that the Ganges is really "dirty" because the ashes of the dead are put into it.


As I said--it isn't really such an "exotic" or ""foreign" idea when compared with a similar Christian attitude.


 


BTW--the idea of going to the Ganges for purification isn't very "Exotic" either. Christians have been going on PILGRIMAGES to their "holy" places for hundreds of years for spiritual benefits.


Think about how many people try to go to Israel--IE--the "Holy Land" for the spiritual benefits they feel they will derive from being there.


I see no difference at all.


 


 

Flag Girlchristian July 22, 2011 1:37 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:35PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Dot--hi--sorry if I was confusing. I was referring to CL's "objection" that the Ganges is really "dirty" because the ashes of the dead are put into it.


As I said--it isn't really such an "exotic" or ""foreign" idea when compared with a similar Christian attitude.


 


BTW--the idea of going to the Ganges for purification isn't very "Exotic" either. Christians have been going on PILGRIMAGES to their "holy" places for hundreds of years for spiritual benefits.


Think about how many people try to go to Israel--IE--the "Holy Land" for the spiritual benefits they feel they will derive from being there.


I see no difference at all.


 


 




Going to the Ganges for purification is great. Expecting a restaurant to cover the costs of your trip to do so is ridiculous and greedy.

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 1:40 PM EDT
Furthermore, I don't see any valid comparison between soil that has been enriched by decomposition--the end of that process--and the belief that a Hindu will be purified by bathing in or drinking water of the Ganges River.  

We don't eat that enriched soil but instead eat plants grown in it, an entirely different matter. 
Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 1:49 PM EDT
Ummm...but it's not merely ashes of the dead that go into the Ganges. Recently deceased bodies of both people and animals are ritually released into its waters as well as cremated remains.  

No, I don't see anything defensible about the sanctity of the Ganges, often cited as the most polluted river in the world.  

www.wordfocus.com/word-ganges.html

I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider bathing in or drinking that water!
Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 1:54 PM EDT

Hindus from all over the world make pilgrimage to Mother Ganges--to bathe in it.


I don't think non-Hindus can judge this to be "unreasonable" since it is so pervasive in the general Hindu belief system--any more than a Hindu could judge the urge of many Christians to visit Israel/the Holy Land for some undemonstrable "spiritual" benefits.


(BTW--I have a master's degree in Comparative Religions and Cultures so my info comes form having studied world religions for many years.)

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 2:04 PM EDT
Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution.

Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent
Flag Ken July 22, 2011 2:07 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Ken--again--you're using YOUR ideas about Hinduism--not the ideas of HIndus.


No, I'm using the ideas of Hindus.




Flag Ken July 22, 2011 2:09 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:54PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Hindus from all over the world make pilgrimage to Mother Ganges--to bathe in it.



However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 2:14 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:04PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution. Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent





Dot--hi.


Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 2:17 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 1:54PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Hindus from all over the world make pilgrimage to Mother Ganges--to bathe in it.



However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.




That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


(May I take your non-answer to my Q about your being in a country other than the US--and therefore having references to a different legal system--as an implied yes?)

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 2:41 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:14PM, Wanderingal wrote:

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:04PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution. 

Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent





Dot--hi.


Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)


The reasons for each pilgrimage are dramatically different, WG. 

The Hindus filing this lawsuit assert that they are religiously obliged to go to the Ganges for spiritual purification to right a misdeed--having eaten a forbidden food. 

Christians don't travel to their Holy Land for such reasons. There is no sect of Christianity that mandates a trip to the Holy Land in order to be forgiven or spiritually cleansed for a transgression. In fact, most Christians would regard having unintentionally and unknowingly eaten a taboo food as nothing wrong. Sin is only the result of willful intent.

A good many Christians, in fact, would regard a belief that one must go to the Holy Land to be forgiven as both idolatrous and denying the power of God to forgive when asked. 

Hence, there is no equivalence. 

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 2:49 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:41PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:14PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:04PM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Just because it's a pervasive Hindu belief doesn't make it rational in view of the river's extreme degree of pollution.  Christians traveling to the sites of their Holy Land on pilgrimage is not equivalent





Dot--hi.


Why do you think that they are not equivalent? This could be a very interesting discussion. :)



The reasons for each pilgrimage are dramatically different, WG.  The Hindus filing this lawsuit assert that they are religiously obliged to go to the Ganges for spiritual purification to right a misdeed--having eaten a forbidden food.  Christians don't travel to their Holy Land for such reasons. There is no sect of Christianity that mandates a trip to the Holy Land in order to be forgiven or spiritually cleansed for a transgression. In fact, most Christians would regard having unintentionally and unknowingly eaten a taboo food as nothing wrong. Sin is only the result of willful intent. A good many Christians, in fact, would regard a belief that one must go to the Holy Land to be forgiven as both idolatrous and denying the power of God to forgive when asked.  Hence, there is no equivalence. 





Hi Dot--thanks for your reply.


I'd like to take some time to think about how to phrase my response so I'll be back later to do that.


I hope your day is going well.

Flag NATAS July 22, 2011 2:52 PM EDT

One thing I like about hanging out in Bnet is that I learn new things about other religions and more importantly about what what other humans belief about not only their religion but about the religions of others.  


My curiosity was piqued about "purification rituals" so I went to wikipedia and found:


www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/edison...


I also went to the Hindusim forum to ask them what they thought about the subject of this thread:


community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/5...


As for Pilrimages: 


 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage

Flag Ken July 22, 2011 3:51 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:

However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.



That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.


(May I take your non-answer to my Q about your being in a country other than the US--and therefore having references to a different legal system--as an implied yes?)



No, you may not.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 4:17 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 3:51PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:

However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.



That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.


 





Whether it is "mandatory" or not is not-applicable in the instant case since the theory of the instant case reference harm and with the apportioning of damages is null concerning the concept of "mandatory."

Flag farragut July 22, 2011 5:04 PM EDT

I'm sure that they can produce no convincing evidence that they were harmed. And, further, no rational diety would judge that they had sinned, since they did not voluntarily choose to eat the forbidden food.


The vendor owes them the cost of the feast that they apparently enjoyed too well to ask about until they had devoured it.


I have no patience for this religious foolishness.

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 5:19 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 5:04PM, farragut wrote:


I'm sure that they can produce no convincing evidence that they were harmed.


You might want to look at lines of cases that involve religious beliefs.
That's what experts are for.....


 And, further, no rational diety would judge that they had sinned, since they did not voluntarily choose to eat the forbidden food


The concept of "rational deities" has no bearing in the.LEGAL issues and theories involved in this kind of harm.


 


The vendor owes them the cost of the feast that they apparently enjoyed too well to ask about until they had devoured it.


You're complegtely ignoring the legal issues concerning harm.


I have no patience for this religious foolishness.





In other words the legal concepts mean nothing and your personal ideas about religion are paramount.


Thank goodness that isn't the way our legal system works in the US.


 

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 5:38 PM EDT
However, Farragut, the story doesn't say that they ate all the samosas and then complained they contained meat.

Instead, some of the group had eaten at least a portion of theirs when others noticed that the samosas contained meat.

It's not unreasonable to be upset that the restaurant had assured them these were vegetarian samosas.

The case may hinge upon whether serving them meat-filled samosas was deliberate, a misunderstanding of what they wanted or simply an unfortunate error.
Flag Ken July 22, 2011 5:38 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 4:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 3:51PM, Ken wrote:

If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.




Whether it is "mandatory" or not is not-applicable in the instant case since the theory of the instant case reference harm and with the apportioning of damages is null concerning the concept of "mandatory."



If it's not mandatory it means that they don't have to go to India to be purified and nobody has to pay for them to go. And the next time you respond to me, please have the courtesy to do so in English, not in some sort of puke-making legalese. 

Flag Wanderingal July 22, 2011 6:00 PM EDT

From the cure they're requesting it sounds as though the plaintiffs are praying for relief in Equity Court.

Flag DotNotInOz July 22, 2011 6:05 PM EDT
Oh, I'd say the plaintiffs are doing what most such do--asking for the moon in hopes of getting some settlement they consider acceptable.
Flag farragut July 22, 2011 8:17 PM EDT

Thank the Founding Fathers our legal system is not yet beholden to religious foolishness.

Flag Maidencreatrix July 22, 2011 11:31 PM EDT

Jul 22, 2011 -- 3:51PM, Ken wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:17PM, Wanderingal wrote:


Jul 22, 2011 -- 2:09PM, Ken wrote:

However, pilgrimages aren't mandatory in Hinduism.



That's a non-issue.


They're not mandatory in Christianity either.


If a pilgrimage to the Ganges isn't mandatory, then the people who ate the naughty samosas aren't obliged to go there and the restaurant isn't obliged to send them there.






According to the article, some of the stricter groups are obliged:


"If you follow the scriptures, it’s definitely a huge cost," said Mehul Thakkar, a spokesman for the Yogi Divine Society in Lake Hiawatha, a nonprofit socio-religious organization that adheres to the principles of the Swaminarayan faith of Hinduism. "If they are very strict about it, there definitely is a fee involved."


You could maybe argue there should be a limit to how much a company can be legally obliged to pay for non-physical damage... I don't pretend to be an expert on the legal precedent for religious reparations. 


I honestly don't want to be in a kind of world where everyone sues at the drop of a hat to make a quick buck, I really don't. Frivolous lawsuits are bad for everybody... but it really does seem like the restaurant was exhibiting some very irresponsible business practices. According to the article, the restaurant assured them the dish was vegetarian, going so far as to tell them that they didn't even serve pastries with meat at all-- clearly a lie. Probably more a shut-the-customer-up-so-I-can-get-on-with-my-work kind of lie rather than a malicious one, but still... you're asking for trouble when you run your business like that.

Flag DotNotInOz July 23, 2011 6:14 AM EDT
Yes, well, suing for an expenses-paid trip to bathe in and drink from the world's most polluted river simply isn't sensible. Ranks with fundamentalist Christians who insist that technically someone who's been saved but willfully commits murder will nevertheless go to heaven.

As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous.

However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.
Flag Roodog July 23, 2011 10:30 AM EDT

Jul 23, 2011 -- 6:14AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

Yes, well, suing for an expenses-paid trip to bathe in and drink from the world's most polluted river simply isn't sensible. Ranks with fundamentalist Christians who insist that technically someone who's been saved but willfully commits murder will nevertheless go to heaven. As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous. However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.




Huh?


St John wrote that no murderer will inherit the kingdom of heaven.


That is a sin that will have to be repented of and forgiven.

Flag DotNotInOz July 23, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
St. John or not, I've been assured that being saved guarantees a slot in heaven.

Perhaps that was these individuals' misunderstanding, but I've heard that from more than one fundamentalist.
Flag Maidencreatrix July 24, 2011 2:06 PM EDT

Jul 23, 2011 -- 6:14AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous.  However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.



Been thinking about this alot, actually. I also don't like the idea of government intervention where people's personal lives are concerned-- in fact, I think what bothers me is the idea of the government getting to decide which religious beliefs are "reasonable" and which are "unreasonable" in legal cases. It's a very murky issue since pretty much everyone's religious beliefs are going to sound weird to someone.


What I'm worried about, essentially, is that the group might be facing more scrutiny than they would if their religion wasn't a minority in the U.S.


What is the general sentiment here on putting a cap on the amount you can ask for religious reparations at all, regardless of denomination? That would come with its own host of controversies but at least could be applied equally to Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc...

Flag Ken July 24, 2011 2:28 PM EDT

Jul 24, 2011 -- 2:06PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


Jul 23, 2011 -- 6:14AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

As I said, I'm with Ken: No reasonable Hindu would consider doing something so hazardous.  However, it's not commonly the business of governments to protect adults from the consequences of their misplaced beliefs.



Been thinking about this alot, actually. I also don't like the idea of government intervention where people's personal lives are concerned-- in fact, I think what bothers me is the idea of the government getting to decide which religious beliefs are "reasonable" and which are "unreasonable" in legal cases. It's a very murky issue since pretty much everyone's religious beliefs are going to sound weird to someone.


The weirdness isn't the issue. The issue is whether somebody has to pay you a large sum of money to allow you to indulge your weirdness.

Flag NATAS July 24, 2011 3:01 PM EDT

I just looked at the Hindu forum and the answers to the question I asked about the subject of this thread pretty much agrees with the posts that regard this as a frivolous lawsuit that does not have merit.  One poster said that it was not neccessary to go India to be purified.  He said that in Hindu Temples there is water that is from the Ganges and that "purification" can be performed by sprinkling this water on the people.  


I doubt that this will come to trial.  I doubt even more that if it did and the people filing the lawsuit won that they would get the damages they requested.  


However "weirder" things have happened in jury trials.  

Flag farragut July 24, 2011 3:02 PM EDT

Perhaps they could have a 55 gallon drum of Ganges water shipped over to Edison, and when they are done with it, it could be poured into the Atlantic, purifying the entire eastern seabord. I would happily contribute to the cost.

Flag DotNotInOz July 24, 2011 3:04 PM EDT
Should the restaurant pay these people some reasonable amount since they were assured the samosas were vegetarian? Perhaps.

I expect that these individuals' attorney will be hardpressed to prove that any actual harm other than their feeling betrayed occurred.

After all, this could have been an unfortunate error.
Flag Maidencreatrix July 24, 2011 3:27 PM EDT

Hence, my follow up question: 


 


Jul 24, 2011 -- 2:06PM, Maidencreatrix wrote:


What is the general sentiment here on putting a cap on the amount you can ask for religious reparations at all, regardless of denomination? That would come with its own host of controversies but at least could be applied equally to Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc...





Flag DotNotInOz July 24, 2011 3:44 PM EDT
Pointless, I'd say, since I'd bet that this case and a good many like it are dismissed as ridiculous wastes of the court's time.

As has been mentioned, virtually every religious sect that stays active has far more easily acquired remedies than a trip halfway around the world.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 2 guests
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook