Do you think the love and value people have for Animals transends any paticular faith or lack of it?

Question

Animals are more than just a posession, the courts even say people's pets are part of thier family units.

Many people would not leave there homes to be evacuated during Katrina because they refused to leave thier pets, which triggered a government policy to have a plan of action for people's animals during a natural disaster.

Nothing triggers the human heart so passionately then the pain and hurt inflicted to a innocent child or animals..

Do you agree?

Answer 1

I actually agree 100 percent with this post :)

Animals are treasures, equals, and gifts.

Answer 2

People can be equally passionate about many things they hold dear, including ancestral homes. And no, not all cultures feel as strongly about animals as ours does. There are also a few cultures that don't necessarily feel as strongly about protecting children from harm as we do. Even in Western society this emphasis on child and animal protection only goes back a relatively short time.

So, sorry, I think it's a matter of socialization, not "human nature," especially where animal welfare is concerned. But, I'm glad to have grown up in a culture that so highly values children and animals.

Answer 3

Pets help you be in the now. Love is happening all the time and the animal is always naturally in the moment. When you are feeling Love for the animal, you have come into the moment, your natural state, without the mind in the way. The Love you feel is what you are and what the animal is also. God IS Love!

Answer 4

I don't think it has anything to do with a particular faith. People who have pets realize that those animals are not too terribly much different than the humans in the family. Animals have personalities and feelings the same as we do.
So, yes, I agree with you.

Answer 5

I agree with your last statement. I'm an animal lover all the way. Anyone that would hurt an animal or a child deserves the full letter of the law.

atheist

Answer 6

I partially agree. I think that feeling of love and protectiveness toward innocents transcends religion, but is not universal.

I think that religion does not guarantee that a person will be kind to animals, but many religious people do love animals and find cruelty of any kind abhorrent.

It is also perfectly possible to be an atheist or agnostic and have a deep love and respect for animals. It is not impossible or even difficult to be a moral and kind person without being religious, given a good upbringing and environment.

The love and value for animals, however, is by no means universal. Religious and non-religious people alike have committed some awful acts of cruelty. I suspect that many of the bigwigs in the American meat industry - a source of great suffering - would describe themselves as religious, and see no contradiction.

Religion may even be used to justify cruelty - some may feel that "God made Earth for Man, and animals are ours to use as we please." Such people believe that morality only applies to dealings between human beings (and they may define "human" in a way that is convenient for them - see slavery!) This idea of man's "dominion" over Nature is found in many religions, and is termed "anthropocentrism." One can, of course, be non-religious and still be anthropocentric.

There is also a cultural angle. The recent dog fighting scandal has revealed the depth of Americans' feelings toward dogs, for instance, but in other countries it is not considered immoral. It's easy to think that one's own experiences are universal, but in reality there are huge differences in beliefs about this sort of thing from culture to culture. That's not necessarily a bad thing, either.

I think a lot of times people want to impose their own beliefs and morals on other cultures - this is the worst kind of arrogance. For instance, many dog-lovers would support an initiative for the US to force other countries to outlaw dogfighting, because they believe in their heart of hearts that it is wrong. Yet some cultures believe just as strongly that eating meat is wrong - does that give them the right to impose mandatory vegetarianism on Americans? SImilarly, many 'Netters try to provoke outrage that some cultures eat dogs and cats* but our habit of eating cows and pigs is considered just as disgusting to some observers.

* Allegations that dogs/cats used for meat are treated inhumanely are a separate issue, but again - throwing stones, glass houses, etc.

Answer 7

Your point about animals and children is well taken.
This is why there should be some kind of protection for children against indoctrination by religion.
The bringing of a child, whose mind is wide open to persuasion, to evangelical establishments is tantamount to mental abuse. You are closing this beautiful, open mind to critical thinking and seriously damaging the child in the process.
Have you seen the move Jesus camp? It was one of very few movies that have made me cry with shame.

Answer 8

I agree 200%. However, the faith bit is out. I am an Atheist.

Answer 9

No, I value my house more than I do my dog.

I like my dog, and my dog likes me, but we don't talk, or share meaningful experiences, and so I don't really view her as being particularly valuable.

I am a rather emotionally cold person, however, so my views have more to do with that than they would my belief system.

Answer 10

I absolutely agree. I'm a dog owner, and my recent vet bill should atest to the fact that he is part of MY family!

Now I'm bracing myself for your followup, Crimmson!