Hunger in India because of Religious beliefs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There is soooooooooo much stupidity in this post it's hard to wrap your head around. First, of course, India of today does not have widespread hunger and famine.

Second, only the cow is sacred in India; you can kill rats, mice, gophers or any other animal. You can even eat 'em!

Third, even if you don't eat a cow it produc ...[text shortened]... wn research in the future before writing (if you did write it) such a moronic post.

First, of course, India of today does not have widespread hunger and famine.

You have not supported this claim. So I'll support mine:
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2105/stories/20040312001504900.htm

Second, only the cow is sacred in India; you can kill rats, mice, gophers or any other animal. You can even eat 'em!

Only some hindu's kill other animals. So you suggest that they eat rats and mice?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Most of North Africa is predominantly Muslim. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Africa.

Most of Africa's famines and serious food shortages have occured in central and southern Africa, however (apart from Ethiopia and Eritrea). North African nations like Egypt and Morocco are indeed mostly Muslim but relatively affluent.

In terms of problems with starvation, the hotspots in recent times have been Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia, and Congo. All of these are predominantly Christian nations except for Mozambique, which is mostly tribal faith.

The Bible also warns of pestilence, in which AIDS can surely be included. Of current African nations burdened by AIDS, the hardest hit are Lesotho, Swaziland, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Three of those nations are predominantly Christian, except for Botswana, which is approximately 50-50 (Christian-tribal faiths).

This info is easily found on the Net, or via TIME almanac.

Therefore, the facts do not support your blanket contention that the faith adhered to by a given nation has something to do with its conditions or fate. You may argue that most Christians are Christian only in name, not practice (as in the case of the African nations cited), but that still does not support your original statements about India, and its conditions relating to its religions. Your logic is faulty.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does India have widespread hunger because of lack of food?

NO.

India does not have a hunger problem because of the lack of food. It has a hunger problem because of religous beliefs which are contrary to the Word of God.

[b]The Hindu religion teaches that people who die are reincarnated in the form of animals; thus it is against their laws to kill ...[text shortened]... bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."[/i]

Nonsense.

1. The Hindu religion does teach that cows are sacred and cannot be slaughtered - but says nothing about other animals. Brahmins, the highest caste in Hinduism, are vegetarians for purity-related reasons. Other castes are not even vegetarian (and even some Brahmins are non-vegetarian).

2. Where did you get your 200M cows figure from?

3. A large proportion (if not the vast majority) of cattle in India are used for econcomically productive purposes - such as producing milk/dairy products, (in some cases) farming etc. You cannot simply stop feeding these.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Go look at the dollar: "In God we trust". They are still receiving the blessing of God, which He promised for a thousand generations to those who trust Him and keep his commandments.

Uh . . . "In God We Trust" was first minted in 1864, more than 80 years after the founding of the US gov't. Nevertheless over those "in god we do not trust" years, real income per capita rose.

Even if the motto on our currency is the reason, how do you explain that real income per capita has been rising in such God-fearing places as China, India, and Indonesia?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The most troubling global famine spots are generally in African nations. Most African nations are predominantly Christian nations, with a lesser degree of tribal and/or Muslim presence.

Most of North Africa is predominantly Muslim. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Africa.[/b]

There's a residue of imperialism in your post. Africa is neither a country nor a nation. It is a continent. Why is every nation in Africa punished for the disobedience of only certain nations in Africa?

We should not forget that food is often used as a weapon in war. He who controls the food supply and distribution in a region controls the enemy. Starving your enemy to death was and still is a formidable weapon of war. Too often natural circumstances are blamed for famine.
In this light we should not forget the "silent" war that is going on in Africa. The imperialists over there are the Muslim fundamentalists who try to increase their influence by waging war and performing genocide. The most pressing instance at this moment is Sudan. It is outrageous that so little is done about it by the international community, the United Nations.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

We should not forget that food is often used as a weapon in war. He who controls the food supply and distribution in a region controls the enemy. Starving your enemy to death was and still is a formidable weapon of war. Too often natural circumstances are blamed for famine.
In this light we should not forget the "silent" war that is going on in Afric ...[text shortened]... outrageous that so little is done about it by the international community, the United Nations.

I agree with you Ivanhoe. There are abundant resources in many of the poorest countries. Usually there is a political component that is messing stuff up.

Originally posted by telerion
I agree with you Ivanhoe. There are abundant resources in many of the poorest countries. Usually there is a political component that is messing stuff up.

If people want more information on this subject they can visit this site:

http://www.ucc.ie/famine/roots/section2/2_4_famine_weapon.htm

"In recent times, several writers on famines have made the suggestion that famine has been used by some governments as a 'weapon of war'. By a 'weapon of war' we mean that just like a gun, or a warship, it is used to kill people. It is used as a means of intimidation, like the threat of an airstrike. Hunger can also be used for propaganda purposes. Famine can be used to convince people of the benefits of supporting one side, as opposed to the hurt and damage that results from supporting the other side. It can be used to force the migration of communities. Two examples follow to explain this in the cases of two areas in sub-Saharan Africa. etc."

http://www.ucc.ie/famine/roots/section2/2_4_famine_weapon.htm