I have been noting this more recently and it seems to be a trend, at least with people I converse with on the regular. The really religious types aren’t animal people or downright dont like them. The more chill or agnostic types seem to be more apt to love animals.
I could go on my theory of this but I’m interested to see if anyone thinks this is a trend.
It’s not that they don’t like animals. It’s that they don’t view animals as equal to humans. They believe that god made them superior to animals, so what happens to animals doesn’t really matter.
I basically came here to say this. Especially these days basically all good pet owners think of them as their children or at least living beings with rights. And abrahamic religions (I know less about others) view humans as being god’s special creatures who have dominion over all others. Same reason there’s often more child abuse in religious homes.
I guess I could have phrased this exact question with “the environment” and probably got the same answers. (Bad) religious people think it’s all “theirs” so they can do whatever they want and pollute all they want as “god” will take care of the earth no matter what.
I don’t think an animal’s life is of equal value to a human’s. I don’t think that’s a strictly religious view point either. Should they have shot harambe to save that kid, or was that action equivalent to murder?
Typical creature that values it’s own species over all others. I really despise this mentality. Anyway have a great day.
Should they have shot harambe or let it rip the kid in half? Is it your position that all organisms are of equal value?
Congratulations on the false dichotomies.
What are the other options ? This is a binary discussion. A human life is of more impact and relevance than an animal’s. Therefore it’s value is higher. I have a ton of animals, farm and pet, I LOVE my animals. I’d put my girl’s life above all of them in a second.
For your first question: there is no certainty that Harambe would have “ripped the kid in half”.
For your second, you could value some species more than your own and others less, there’s no reason all species must be equally valuable (let alone individuals) Although the idea of thinking about things that way at all is a little gross to me.
Is it genuinely your belief that the kid would have been fine? Or even any 100% safe solution outside of what happened? What was done ensured the safety of the human child, as it should have. You’re misusing false dichotomy. The user I was responding to stated
“Typical creature that values it’s own species over all others.”
The all or nothing aspect I gave is a direct response to the one they gave. The implication being the user does not value human life over all other life. I do, which is why this started and is ending as a binary conversation. Secondary to that, whats better than what in a tier list is completely irrelevant to the conversation.
You’re using too much logic for an emotional thread, lol.
The people who are “animals over humans!!!” or equate them don’t love nor care for anybody besides themselves in earnest. They’ll stay in their little corner with their pets, shaking in fear just thinking about deep human connections until the day they die. 🤷♂️
According to one religious person I’ve talked to, animals don’t have “souls” so they’re not worth anything. I argued there’s no difference, many animals have emotions and awareness, just like us. His reply was they we are smarter than animals.
I asked what about dumb people then, because there’s considerable overlap between the dumbest people and the smartest animals. Like at what “IQ” do you obtain a soul? That’s about when he tried changing the subject.
It depends on what religion you look at you have religions with literal sacred animals, religions where all life is sacred, religions where the prophet didn’t like dogs so dogs are explicitly shunned, religions where just cloven hooves animals are forbidden etc. it’s kind of all over the place, my church is dog friendly and I’ve brought him with me before.
I do think there is a subset of Christianity that believes that 1) animals exist to serve man 2) animals don’t have souls so that would mean animal welfare isn’t really a priority. It’s also important to maintain that animals don’t have souls explicitly to justify caring less about them, if they had eternal souls it would be a lot harder to feel ok exploiting them.
So yes, I do think some religions do have an undercurrent of denying animal welfare for the benefit of animal exploitation because they believe that is the god given purpose of animals, to be exploited by man.
But “Sacred animals” AFAIK doesn’t mean all animals, but very specific one. Like you shouldn’t eat cows, but eating pigs is fine. So it isn’t against religious people general morales to avoid killing animals.
But maybe you know of a religion where all animals are sacred.
Of course. The Bible taught people that this planet is ours, and that animals are under us.
Ehh not quite. That’s Dominion. The other interpretation Stewardship, is that Earth is God’s dominion not ours and we are caretakers, not its owners.
Oh I’d say this is definitely just anecdotal to you personally. Lots of animal shelters are owned, operated and funded by religious organizations.
that also seems anecdotal… I personally never heard of a single one (oh, anecdotal too) and in all cities I’ve lived I knew of shelters and rescuers because I’m one (and I currently take care of 34 cats and 4 dogs), and I must agree with OP, I know a lot of rescuers that have a religion (like, that vague belief in the god their parents talked about) but none that are overtly religious (wear symbols, attend temples, etc)
edit: Homeless shelters and nursing homes though, plenty of religious institutions behind them.
Ton are a google search away. Dalo Acres Animal Sanctuary UT, St. Francis Animal Sanctuary MI, Keeping the Faith Animal Shelter PA. There’s a ton of em.
The question isn’t whether they are not animal friendly, but whether they are less animal friendly. There may be a ton of them but if there are six tons of non-religious shelters, there’s a difference.
I didn’t take organizations into account,
They are run by people. I think if you have a generally negative perception of a certain type of person, you’ll start attributing negative behaviors to all of them, even if its only been your limited experience.
I know a fair number of religious people, They don’t seem to be any more or less cruel than non-religious people.
As a vegan, the most annoying people are religious people (specially abrahamic believers) and their unbreakable logic: ‘If God didn’t want us to eat meat, why did he give them to us’ Imo that reflects their attitude towards animals: they don’t see them as a living beings, but rather as things to be used.
I think it’s more to do with religious people coming from rural backgrounds.
Eating meat was a celebratory thing when I was still living in rural Turkey, so at first veganism seemed like “a spoiled western thing”
In my mind it was grouped next to those ragebait videos of 14 year olds yelling at their mom for getting the wrong iphone model.
Animal cruelty argument didn’t work great either because, “I only eat halal certified anyway.”
Content warning : Religion. Skip if you don't want to learn what "halal food" is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_lawsNote: It sounds decent, especially for early 7th century Arabia standards, but no multi-billion industry is following regulations that make them less profit to 100%.
What DID convince me near instantly was someone showing how the meat industry is all exploitative and corrupt.
They waste workers, water, and animal lives on purpose because it’s more profitable than proper logistics. Fucking cruel looking into it, crazy they aren’t being universally boycotted already.
In good faith I am asking why vegans don’t consider vegetables to be living things.
They are living, not sentient tho.
I think this is because many religions convince their followers that they are the center of the uni, and that the sun, mountains, animals, and birds were all created to serve them. In contrast, non-religious people are much more likely to see the bigger picture, that they are simply part of nature.
Also, some religions like Islam for example, treat dogs as something to be avoided. For example, there’s a Hadith that says: “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture”! So that is the case with Islam, since I come from a Muslim background.
Many are told that they are above animals and that they are there to be used by us.
The really religious types
What country/culture/religion are you asking about?
I should have clarified that. I was referring to western Christianity, mega church goers etc.
Sometimes my posts aren’t thought through before I post !
My VERY religious stepdaughter somehow sends out a ‘bite me now’ signal to cats.
She was also just going to essentially dump her cat on the street when she left the country a couple years.
So yeah, she sucks.
EDIT: to clarify, I took in that cat who is a bit of a butthead, but doesn’t deserve to die for it.
Yes. Omish people treat animals like fucking garbage.
Amish?
Yes
Guess I’m going against the grain here, but in my experiences, no not really.
At least here in Aus I’ve never noticed any correlation between animal friendliness and religion. My family for example is very religious (I’m not), and quite conservative (I’m definitely not lol), but they care for animals better than they care for other people.
What I have noticed is more fear from other cultures. For example, I have an Indian neighbour who never grew up around dogs, especially big dogs. When I first picked up my German Shepherd as an 8 week old pup, they were scared shitless of him! Scared of a cute little fur ball, with paws too big for his body just flailing around bumping into things, literally one of the cutest things I’ve ever seen!
Not dismissing the question on religion being linked to animal friendliness, but maybe region and cultural factors are also playing a role here?
Muslim hate dogs cause their pedophile prophet didn’t like them
