|Court Upholds Village's Ban on Cows Down the Street|
BY: DAVID STABA
May 05, NEW YORK (NY TIMES) — To Stephen and Linda Voith, keeping cows at their home on Main Street in Angelica, N.Y., a tiny rural village, is a central facet of their Hindu beliefs. To local officials, though, keeping the Voiths' growing herd outside village limits is a matter of law, not religion.
The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Rochester recently agreed, upholding a lower court ruling that prevented a lawyer for the couple from raising the issue of religious freedom when the village won an injunction against them. In 2003, an acting State Supreme Court justice found the Voiths in violation of a law against keeping livestock on parcels smaller than 10 acres.
"We're being denied our right to practice our religion, because it seems like such a threat to the status quo in this country," Mr. Voith said, calling attention to a dairy farm across the street behind their home.
The village attorney, Raymond W. Bulson, said the law does not single out any religion and described the dispute as a quality-of-life matter.
"You move to a village because you want the amenities," Mr. Bulson said. "If you move there to have those amenities, you don't want a cow next door. I'm sure their religious beliefs are sincere, but that was never an issue."
The dispute began after the Voiths bought a house in 1999 on two and a half acres in Angelica, about 80 miles southeast of Buffalo. They initially boarded their cow, Chintamani, on a neighbor's farm, partly inside the village but exempt from the livestock ordinance because the farm predates the 1986 law.
In 2001, after Chintamani was impregnated by one of the farmer's bulls, the Voiths took her and her offspring to their house and leased a 12-acre field down the street for grazing.
The Voiths and their cows soon became a frequent sight on Main Street and in the village square. Some neighbors complained about odors, while the Voiths said they were harassed for their religious beliefs. At their trial, their lawyer, W. Ross Scott, submitted a picture of a neighbor holding a sign reading, "Are you worshiping animals or God?"
Citing the local law, village officials tried to force the Voiths to comply.
"The Appellate Division said there's no religious argument, and I think that's true," Mr. Bulson said. "That doesn't mean there aren't religious bigots in Angelica. I'm sure there are. But the government never once said to me, 'Get them out because we hate their religion.' "
Their case has been the subject of stories in newspapers in India. Several Hindu groups, including the Hindu American Foundation and the World Hindu Council, filed briefs on behalf of the Voiths.
The couple and Mr. Scott are still considering an appeal, but Mr. Voith said they had no plans to move and would continue boarding Chintamani and four of her offspring on a farm about 15 minutes away.
"We don't take it as a defeat," Mr. Voith said. "We just have to change course and adjust accordingly. If they had never taken this action against us, no one would know we exist here. In a sense, it's given us a place in the history of promulgating Veda culture, or Hindu culture, in the West."
Wow, Dave, this was like a 'dave sha vu,' of the court trial: Their side, their attorney - in your article - gets to speak twice, but OUR ATTORNEY (Ross) is gagged - NO REPLY, no statement to effect that,'case after case is there where courts have ruled that when something is allowed for secular reasons, without a compelling gov't interest, you CANNOT deny it for a religious use - otherwise it becomes religiously motivated behavior or hotility against religion.
THAT (your article's agreeing with the Court that THEIR SIDE CAN SPEAK WHILE VOITH SIDE IS GAGGED, DENIED DUE PROCESS) is why i stated: THE STATUS QUO IN AMERICA CAN'T HANDLE COW PROTECTION WHERE COW SLAUGHTER IS PROMINENT.
So the New York Times is upholding that status quo, and has no choice but to do so, because the economic, political and social interests are at steak, uh, stake, is it not?
Why else on such an important story that mentions our appeal, is our attorney's voice deleted (or did Ross simply tell you how he held up a picture and that was how he wished to be quoted?), and the other side gets to CONVINCE the American people that we have brought a nuisnce to our Village?
How come my voice has been deleted now TWICE in your two stories, stating how nearly every witness against us in court, lives next-door to either beef cows, dairy goats, billy goats, OR ALL THREE, and none of those neighbors has EVER complained about odors and the INconvenience of having large farm animals (raised for meat) next door, running freely at times in the Village, etc? And that the Angelkica Business Distrit is ADJACENT to the UNFENCED county fairgrounds, where the threat of rampaging far animals is there two weeks out of every year?
This Dave sha vu is recurring, too, because we see that NYTs leads the way in disinformation based on the status quo of keeping people thinking that 66.6 lbs of beef per year comes karma-free.
But,as i've also strained to tell you and others, 'violence to animals breeds violence to people,' just see your paper's homicide and violence section. Sheesh! Page after page of masked gunmen running down busy streets and murdering people in broad daylight, bus drivers killing their wife, mother-in-law, suicide; man killing his daughter, ad infinitum AND EVERY DAY OF THE NYTs STATUS QUO (OF SUPPORTING THESE ATROCITIES TO THE POOR ANIMALS) NEWSPAPER YEAR . . .
Oh, well, it's probably just a slip up by the editor?
Freedumb (animals) of press
Why also did i not get quoted (or either of the two attorneys) saying that several residents with LESS THAN TEN ACRES land have been granted permits to keep farm animals including goats, and that the very same people who testified against us in court, were the very same people who signed the permits of their other neighbors to keep farm animals BY PERMIT ON LESS THAN TEN ACRES.
Gee, Dave, i wonder how the readers of the illuinati times would react if they herd all these cows, uh, facts. They might not be cowed by ignorance, and stop reading your ignorance-inducing paper.
Imagine: Voiths [sacred] cows are truly a nuisance, but the same people for whom those cows (as well as Voith's daughter's goat, that was also tossed out for violating the ordinance) are troublesome, live quite happily next door or across the street from goats with permits, goats and cows on one-acre farm field (granfathered in) next door, goats on same, cows across the street on 20 acres, and etc.
Or if you reported the facts -- as they appear in the Trial Transcript, that Cairns beef farm is allowed BY LAW to keep cows and goats as he sees fit FOR THE PAST 30-YEARS ON EITHER HIS ONE-ACRE PARCEL RIGHT NEXT-DOOR TO VOITHS, OR HIS 20-ACRE PARCEL WHICH IS ENTIRELY WITHIN THE VILLAGE (another wrongly stated fact by your story); but the Voiths on the other hand are not allowed to keep animals for religious reasons on their 12 acre and 2.5 acre lots.
What would your readers say then?
More suicides, double murders and killing of children if they read these things?
Maybe they'd stop eating cows and become more peaceful and God-conscious.
But then they would become interested in reading the illuminati times, is it not, Dave?
Yeah, i think that's rright, i mean, correct, too.
04, 2006 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: NYTimes.com: Court Upholds Village's Ban on the Cows Down the Street
another point is that your brave new world newspaper sticks this story in NY Region, tho in the story is mention of how the story is making it into Indian newspapers. And Voiths (American/Christian=born) are supported by Indian-born Hindus; and that Voiths are historically promulgating Vedic Culture.
So it's "NY Region"???!
It's truly an International story, and even has ellicited vitriolic attacks on the very Hindu Org supporting by a virulent leader of some fanatic band of Christians; who has called upon "civil society in USA" to not allow our cows unless and until the Hindus grant the so-called Christians right to Conversion in India.
This story, which i forwarded you, and many other facets shows this to be a truly unusual story in the international arena, yet because of its spiritual nature, NYTs does it's best to avoid the issues and continue trying to sweep the whole thing out of sight: "Sacred Cow or PEST"
Why not do a truthful story depicting how historically 'Christians' so-called think that cow-killing and eating is part of their religion, and the proof of the pudding is how so-called Christians from both America and India are front-line attackers of both Hindus and our humble selves for promulgating cow protection?
The NYTs is on Trial here, Dave, and if they don't amend their evil ways, history will truly expose all.
This story is not going away, so why not try to convince the Editor of our story to try once to be fair, unbiased, unperejudiced against cow protectionists, and reveal that cow protection is universal and every body owes a debt to the cow and bull for their service rendered to human society.
Why can NYTs not ONCE EVEN put forward the reality, and how obviously the appeal of Vedic Cultural cow protection has taken on an international position, because years ago NONE OF US knew anything about it; yet we Americans are very attracted to it and promulgating it with our every breath. We have not renounced Christianity, so how can cow-eating continue to be said to be a Christian act?
I think where your Editors wish the story to be is in THE OBIT section, is it not?
But they should take note that their wish will not bear fruit, so why not start to tell the truth and show how international this story is AND WHY.
Quote the Hindu supporters even. Is that too dangerous because then there would be this strain (imagined) of two religions? Or is the reason they don't do that (quote Hindu supporters) because then YOUR writers would have to suspend their own innate bigotry for a moment, and stop making jokews about sacred cows and appreciate another DOMINANT WORLD CULTURE - three times more people not eating cows (Hindu) in India than eat them here in America.
So if your editors didn't think talking about these issues would bode well because of the religious friction it might cause, then highlight for your readers how a biilion people adhere to this religious culture. They, then, could see that they are the ones in the minority. Perhaps then they could see that there's something valid in not eating cows.
And if your editors thought that such portrayal would then stir up anti-Hindu sentiment, like, "Oh, yeah, those dumb Hindus, let cows run around while they are starving,' your editors could show how Americans spend $40 billion per year on their dogs, yet 16 percent of Americans go hungry every night, and if Americans would spend those $40 billions for helping their fellow man it would be a good thing; and if their hunger remained, they could be urged to eat their dogs, or others could donate their dog for that purpose.
Not that we would advocte dog-killing and eating, but just that if your Editors thought that people would be prejudiced, or themselves be in that mindset, there are all these tools available to dispel those cultural-chauvanistic and stereotypical mindsets, knowhatimean, Dave . .
So, let's get with the program for the next story because it's not DEAD yet, dude, is that al right?
But do it for bringing peace and not dissension, then it will help your paper break out of the ILLUMINATI mold that most thinking americans can perceive that it's in (and that it created also).
But start with, 'You know, people, you may eat 66.6 lb of beef year;y (whoah, there's that mark of the illuminati beast!!), but did you ever stop to consider that the cow (that you are chomping down at mickey Ds) gave you more milk to sustain your [violent] existence than did your own mother; and hey, Americans, why not just think theoretically at least for a moment, that that 'sacred cow' propaganda stuff isn't all that accurate, because when you stop and think of gratitude, hey, you wouldn't go and plug your own mom and eat HER, would you?'
Of course, a poll could also be supplied towards the end of the story, showing the percentage of people who WOULD plug their mom, or who already did (this # would go up quite a bit for respondents fromsay the Rikers Island area); or who even ate their mom. Other questions could be asked also, and then another poll could later follow, asking the readers if they feel that their own violent tendencies were attributable to their complicity in the killing of so many animals on factory farms to satisfy their unwarranted lust for beef anf etc.
You get the picture, right Dave?
Dave sha view of karma can be reduced by inducing people to consider the truth, and not remain inanimalistic ignorance.
Your for the universal Cows,
and the title of the next NYTs (NOT Illuminati Times) Voth/Hindu cow story, could be:
WORSHIPPING MAN'S [VERY] BEST FRIEND IN THE LAND OF THE SACRED DOG
Yeah, and we can supply your editor all the factoids to keep it scientific/universal, as opposed to stereotypical mainstream American ignor-ance/Christian dogma and all that pejorative stuuf, ok?
Here's a sampling of such facts:
$40-bill per year on dogs and cats (but the lion's, i mean, Doberman's, share is for the [American& pampered] Holy freaking Dog
1-billion of that is just for Paris Hiltons chiauwawa (just kidding - am I?!)
$33-billion ONLY for collecion plates at churches and synagogues
Here, your Editor can 'digress' a moment and explain that G-O-D worship has been overtaken by D-O-G worship, which truly puts dogs in the sacred status that many Americans would swear by: 'Our dog IS our God, and we bow at the doggy altar with our egos . . .'
Let's see, now, where was i? Oh, yeah, then,
$40-billion per year Beef Industry (Here your Editor could weigh the two corresponding figures, ie. 40 bil spent on dogs/40 bil beef industry and come up with some cogent theories for your enlightened readership - or induce them via contests to creatively express the karmic (or dogmic, or dogMAC, that's when they realize that it's easier to kill and eat dogs than cows, or they want to supply good recipes for when they decide that it's now hypocritical for them to assail the Hindus for remaining hungry while their cows eat ALL the lush grasses, while their fellow Americans are starving while they themselves are putting their beloved canines in luxury penthouse suites and even feeding them cows . . .
Ok, then that's the next cat-a gory: dog food:
$11-bil per year, much of it cow byproducts
Actually, another point that could be made is that instead of spending $40 bil on either dogs or eating cows, these Yankee Doodles could spend that $40 billion on protecting cows and studying ways to make the environement safe, free from violence. They could cite the fact that since Columbine animal cruelty cases have been prosecuted more severely, since it was discovered that violence to animals leads to violence within human society, thus killers and torturers of dogs especially and other pets, have been regularly -- since Columbine -- getting felony sentences of up to seven years in prison and more for their maltreatment of ttheir beloved canine family member pets.
So then the story is that spending $40 billion to save and protect and honor cows would spread goodness and tranquility in (VIOLENT) American society, since kindness to animals engenders kindness amongst humans, the converse to the adage that violence to poor animals leads to violence within human society. Later, studies could be done showing that 'kindness' to dogs in many cases is another form of violence to animals, and thus to people, since cows are slaughtered in horrible killing fields (slaughterhouses) to feed dogs, so that so-called kindness to dogs is also cruelty to other species, which then, by definition, breeds violence within human society.
There are many more bona fide points to consider, but that will have to do for now; more later.
(I'm being cruel to myself for sleep-deprivation, good night!
Sorry, Dave, i tried really hard to sign off, but your story just set soemthing off in me, and so far the off switch reamins elusive.
OK, so here's my lasting point:
So the NYTs has to make money. Selling papers is one main way, and advertising is another.
So when they put in all those fancy restaurant adverts, that's making money; but it's also creating violence by attracting people to go eat slaughtered animals, and violence and cruelty to poor animals -- as stated by numerous authorities, such as judges, DA's, Prosecutors, social scientisits, Unversity scholars, etc, leads to violence between hman beings.
So, then, when you put all those 'man kills fiance and her mo-in-law, then jumps off Veranzanno Bridge (and while flying toward the Channel, sees a man shooting another on the highway as a car is being stolen on the roadside and drug deals are taking place on all sides . . .) -kind of articles, this type of story sells papers. And thepeople buying those papers then see adverts for the local deli, to go eat NY Steak and Cheese, which he does; then goes home drunk, and his wife yells at him for being abusive to the kids and then he gets fed up and runs her through with the steak knife he pilfered from the new deli next door, and then the neighbors start hollerin' because the kids are screaming because their stepfather just butchered their mom, and then the police, responding already to a druggang slaying in the alleyway out back, they, uh . .
So, just see, Dave, there's that ole dave zsha vu again, dang!
The Illuminati Times cannot really support the essence of our cow story, because look how it's tied into both the promotion of animal slaughter, but also the victimization of the human sector. Your paper sells well when there are many 'nice' gruesome stories of mayhem; and you earn money big time from all those beef/dairy/leather apparel, et al industry adverts riding on the back of slaughtered cows and other animals. The readers read the advertt and then are attracted to engaging in acts (ie. eating at the restaurant or at home, dead animals) tied into the killing, torturing and dismembering of innocent animals. Then many of them, after being victimized by your newspaper to engage in these unbeneficial animal cruelty/violent activities, become actually violent to others, themselves, etc. Thus some of them then become the subject of stories in your newspaper; and then the whole cycle is self-perpetuating. NYTS 'benefits' from both sides: cruelty to animals by human beings, and cruelty and violence between human beings.
I wrote a story I believe to be balanced. The fact that it did not include lengthy passages of religious dogma does not make it biased -- stories in newspapers about Christian issues rarely contain extended passages from the Bible or whole chunks of sermons, either.
There was, in fact, a quote from Mr. Ross in the story I filed. As unfair as you may think it is, there is not an infinite amount of space available in any paper, and the editor probably trimmed it for that reason. Whatever you choose to believe about how the Times or any other paper works, I don't edit the stories or write the headlines. Mr. Scott's quote may have also been to keep both of your quotes in the story, given spacial limitations. If you'll notice, you had the first and last words in the piece. You'll also note that your situation has now had three full-length stories in the paper you disparage for not giving proper due to your plight, as well as a shorter piece when you moved to Pennsylvania in 2003.
The purpose of stories like this are to describe the situation to the rest of the world, or at least the portion that reads the Times, not to try to rectify it or influence its outcome on way or another. That has nothing to do with conspiracy theories to promulgate any particular belief system or economic practice. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise.
OK, then, here's my response:
Four stories from NYTs (NON-conspiratorily, of course!), all have allowed their side to disparage the very sublime process of cow protection by allowing their side (NUMEROUS TIMES in the Laurie Bennett story of May 28th, 2003) to bring up 'manure,flies and smells' in depicting our cows, with sans respnse from Linda or me or from the expert witness, and other witnesses, whom we insisted Ms. Bennett contact; factually, also, Ms. Bennett herself, came to our farm and stated that "it smells sweet, like hay." But when Ms. Bennett quoted the [night] Mayor, Mr. Bigot himslef, Peter Johnnson, there was no 'alleged' smells, flies and manure, but it stated as an absolute fact. The Mayor would be considered by your readers or general lay persons, to be THEIR SIDE'S EXPERT WITNESS, since he's the top local gov't official. So, you have the top official being quoted in the top newspaper as though statement [NOT ALLEGED] is a fact, or even a fact of evidence. On this issue also, Ms. Bennet was informed that the Trial Judge, Nenno, had "found no nuisnce, and dismiss[ed] that part of the complaint."
Therefore, THERE WAS ZERO VALIDITY TO CLAIMS OF 'MANURE, FLIES, SMELLS by the judge in this case, and if THAT fact had been mentioned in Ms Bennett's article, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE BALANCED ARTICLE.
It's things like this that cause us to state that the news people are supporting the court's and government's attack on our religious liberties, by skewing important facts. THIS IS NOT UNBIASED OR INNOCENT REPORTING. Not by a large stretch!
Bhagavad-gita As It Is states quite sicentifically that "as the great men act, the common men follow," therefore since the NYTs, the 'greatest' of them all, made 'statements of fact' such as the above, numerous other papers picked up on this not-so-subtle (not-so-conspiratorial? at least from the cultural chauvanistic/smear Hinduism/sacred cow-propaganda mode or standpoint of the Western chauvanistic paradigm), and consequently since 2003, the standard, even with the Associated Press, has been to leave out the word ALLEGED, and continue the smear, by repeatedly saying, as though it were an absolute and established, unassailable fact, 'the manure, smells and flies."
Regardless of your argument, this is an insidous smear of a beneficient process and in a single stroke is intended to prejudice readers' minds which are already prejudiced against 'holy cows' from the chauvanistic western propaganda paradigm we all grew up with. As soon as you say smells manure flies, it instantly prejudices readers' minds about ANYthing our side is then 'fairly' allowed to say in your artilcle or any other article. Is this what you mean by 'the purpose of the stories in NYTs is to describe the situation not influence its outcome?' "rectify???"
If Laurie Bennet's article had used the word ALLEGED and also allowed us our first time to 'testify' against these baseless, well-crafted, misleading propaganda, and especially had explained that the judge FOUND NO NUISNACE (which includes, manure, smells and flies), then THAT would have been 'fair and balanced reporting.'
And as i mentioned to you, Ms. Bennett, and several other journalists, OUR SIDE WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO EVEN SPEAK TO THESE ISSUES IN THE COURT OF NNNO, AND TO NOT ONLY NOT BRING IN OUR FIRST NEW YORK STATE DAIRY INSPECTOR-WITNESS, RAY SCHEESSLY, as well as several other witnesses to fully dispell, with immense evidence (health dept. documentation,etc.) but that several of our witnesses, with help from their first witness, beef farmer Cairns, would have demonstrated that all the ALLEGED smells, manure and flies, were a daily/yearly occurrence at Cairns commercial agri-business enterprise, bordering all these (lying, perjuring) gov't-witnesses; and as i had graphically illustrated to you when we went to the upper portion of our lot on January 11, 2006, when you and photographer Mike Groll accompanied Linda and me up to the upper portion of our land where we housed the cows: when we moved into 152 W. Main street, we found that Billy goats (smelling terribly) in mating season were situated on Cairns' one-acre lot that borders four Main Street properties, one of them being the Wards, two of Prosecution's most virulent witnesses. For 30 years the Wards' adjacent land has housed these very smelly creatures, yet her statements and allusions to these things were most prominent in court and also in Ms. Bennett's artilce; and especially also in your first article.
In neither of the three "feature stories" by NYTs, has it once been mentioned that Justice Nenno FOUND NO NUISANCE, yet the injunction was granted anyway (and "it has nothing to do with religion!")
But your articles ALL give the impression (from Mayor Johson's statements of 'flies manure smells' on down to Wards, Pelletier, etc) that the Injunction was granted because we, OUR COWS ONLY, interfered with the "quality-of-life" of the residents of this village.
But if the public had been properly apprised of the actual facts via NYTs, ie. that there was no nuisnce found by the judge, and that the same complaining witnesses have lived for 30 years nextdoor to very smelly animals, manure pits of a large herd of beef cows, and dead carcasses from the beef farm, etc; and if the unsuspecting public had been informed that we were wrongly denied a permit when the Village Board denied it for "unspecified health and safety reasons" since not only did the Health Dept. declare there were none (no violations of health or safety to the public at our farmette), but especially THE JUDGE DISMISSED THAT PART OF THE COMPLAINT, then it would seem to the public like a religious discrimination case, or a case of religiously-motivated hostility by government.If we applied for a permit and were denied it for no good or valid reason at all, then what else is the explanation than religiously-motivated discrimination; especially when it could be disclosed that other neighbors had been granted permits for farm animals on parcels of fewer than 10 acres.
Judge Nenno himself was in the best position to properly adjudicate the law. If he found no nuisnce then he could have logically next asked the Mayor (a witness), 'why, then, if we found no nuisnce as per ALL of your [false] testimony, were Voiths denied a permit? What criteria do you use in determining who can receive a permit and who can't? And who have you granted them to? And what are their religious backrounds.
In this manner the judge could have himself determined religious discrimination and hostitlity from public officials and NOT granted the injunction.
But he was himself the most biased of all, because his whole plan was to entice our attorney into motioning for dismissal by his pre-planned legerdemaine, ie. so he could 'legally' shut down our case/evidence/testimony, grant our attorney that one thing, ie. 'no nuisnce part of the suit, and then arbitrarily invoke the injunction.
That point is further evidence of NON balanced reporting by NYTs - the fact that all this took place and none of it made it into the news, though our attorney talked about this egregious action to the press at length, AND ESPECIALLY THE WHOLE DESCRIPTION OF THESE ILLEGAL ASSAULTS ON OUR RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES ARE DESCRIBED THREADBARE ON OUR WEBSITE, nomoreinjustice.org
There's more i can tell, but time for bed!