Do Liberals care more about animals than people?

[Helena_K]

Liberals care more about animals than they do about people.

It's starts with a lack of Gods Love. They reject the love that comes from God and they have to fill that gaping hole. Most of the time it is filled with a love for animals/nature. It is a perversion because they accepted the lie and rejected God. This kind of behavior is extremely disordered and a disgrace to our own species. I wish these people had the same amount of stamina for aborted babies as they do for animals... How sad... Do they not realize we are killing off thousands of are own species every single day...!

Who cares about some animals when humans are created in the likeness and image of God with an Immortal Spiritual Soul. Animals are created in the likeness and image of animals with a Mortal Soul when they die they cease to exist.... Animals cannot accept the spirit of God nor can they be in heaven or hell because they don't have an immortal spiritual soul. They cannot ponder the heavens or ask questions like, "Why do I exist?" nor can they be condemned or be saved because they cannot accept what pertains to the spirit of God. Animals cannot come to know God nor can they have a relationship with God because they do not have a Spirit.

Am I alone on this observation?

I find this post both offensive and ignorant as a liberal, Catholic raised, animal lover.

First of all, only 1% of the U.S. population is vegetarian. 1%. And some of those people are vegetarian for health or religious reasons, not concerns for animal welfare. So then you have less than 1% of the population that is a vegetarian for the reason of concern about animals.

So you feel it is okay to define a group (liberals) as loving animals more than humans…even though less than 1% of the entire population is even a vegetarian out of concern for animals! That is very poor logic.

Blaming liberals for PETA is ridiculous, and claiming PETA as an organization is staffed by people who care about animals is ignorant. Do you even understand how extreme PETA is? They think pets should be illegal, for pity’s sakes, and they often endorse things like mass euthanasia of all dogs or cats because they think they would be better off dead than as pets. Defining vegetarians, nevermind a group as large and diverse as “liberals,” by the behavior of a crazy organization like PETA is about as fair as defining Christians by the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I joined PETA briefly in college, and I came to the conclusion that people in PETA, mostly don’t care about animals. They care about getting attention, and about being able to act superior to everyone else. They never undertook any action that actually would help animals, just get them attention. And they were completely morally inconsistent in how they sought attention - so for instance they would hire a celebrity to do an anti fur advertisement, even though that very same celebrity had a line of leather clothing products!

I quickly left PETA for Floridians for Human Farming. This was a group that actually cared about improving conditions for animals, not attention getting. We worked together with animal farmers on ways to improve the conditions animals were raised in.

I am a vegetarian because I love animals. However, I certainly don’t love animals more than people. I don’t even advocate vegetarianism as a general rule. Even though I chose to be a vegetarian, I recognize that as a species, we are omnivorous, and I have no problem with other people eating meat even though I would rather pet pigs than chew them. Although I would approve of laws that caused animals to be better treated while being used for consumption, I would never support a law outlawing meat eating.

In my experience, a person who loves animals more than people is very rare, and usually due to a psychological/mental issue rather than ideology. For instance, someone who is a misanthropic autistic person and connects better with animals than people, or someone who was raised in a disfunctional and/or abusive home who has severe trust issues with people.

Why does the existence of PETA give you right to judge me? I can’t stand them as an organization, and I speak out against them whenever possible, but I can’t help the fact that they exist.

Also, another way bigotry is on display is the assumtion that if you campaign for animal welfare, you must do that * instead of *campaigning for human rights. I volunteer and donate money for causes that help animals, but I volunteer more and give more money to causes that help people. That is true of almost everyone I volunteer with for animal related causes.

I don’t hold you accountable for the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other extremist Christian hate group, because I recognize that they are a tiny group in relation to the overall population of Christians, that they do not represent the mentality of most Christians, and that you, as a Christian, can’t help the fact that they exist.

It is a real shame you do not extend to me the same courtesey.

 

[Helena_K]

Yes. And PETA is basically a leftist/liberal organization.

When I lived in the South, I encountered many racist/hate groups that definied themselves as a conservative or Christian organization.

That did not lead me to assume that Christians/conservatives are represented by a small group whose activities they neither control nor endorse.

If a group’s members all fit a certain demographic, does that automatically make that demographic responsible for their behavior?

By your logic, fantasy, I as a white person am to blame for and should be thought to be associated with every White Power Neo Nazi group, because hey, they are all populated by white people, and I’m white. Therefor, I must be a Neo Nazi.

 

[Helena_K]

I think what I find most sad about this thread is that people are actually judging people badly for their charity.

It just really hurts my heart that when I volunteer for the MSPCA, apparently that makes some here think not the simple truth, “Oh, that’s nice, she likes animals and enjoys spending time helping them,” but instead, “Oh, she volunteers for the MSPCA, clearly that means she is evil and hates people and has never helped a human in her life.”

Seriously, when you are so prejudiced that you judge someone negatively for no other reason than they volunteer for an animal related organization, it is time to reevaluate your life.

It reminds me of pro choice people who say of pro life Catholics “Oh, you don’t care at all about babies once they are born, only when they are a fetus!” Which completely ignores the massive good works done by Catholics for the poor and for children, and falsely claims that the only child advocacy done by Catholics is in regards to abortion. I would imagine this is not a prejudice you appreciate, so please do not use that same prejudice against others.

I am very surprised at the lack of charity in this thread, considering this claims to be a Catholic website. I can’t remember Jesus ever saying, “And Lo, if someone cares about a cause and volunteers for that cause, the just thing is to assume that person is insane and does not care about anyone or anything that falls outside the parameters of that particular cause. And what is more, it is also just to assume that every other human that shares any arbitrary demographic with that volunteer also should be assumed to not care about anything other than that cause.”

Do you think you are representing your faith well here? Do you think this is what Jesus would do?

 

[Brendan]

I suppose it depends on how they define ‘people’

An example would be a Facebook debate I had with the wife of a friend.

She had posted a case where a person left a dog in a car on a hot day, and opined that the person should be arrested for cruelty.

I commented that perhaps people should also be arrested for cruelty for an abortion, after all, deliberately burning someone to death with saline is just as, if not more, cruel, than leaving the dog in the car, especially since the dog recovered.

Her comment was that was different, as it was just the woman’s body that was affected.

So, from the liberal perpective, they don’t care more for animals than people, they will just define what is a ‘person’ to suit them.

 

[Helena_K]

I suppose it depends on how they define ‘people’

An example would be a Facebook debate I had with the wife of a friend.

She had posted a case where a person left a dog in a car on a hot day, and opined that the person should be arrested for cruelty.

I commented that perhaps people should also be arrested for cruelty for an abortion, after all, deliberately burning someone to death with saline is just as, if not more, cruel, than leaving the dog in the car, especially since the dog recovered.

Her comment was that was different, as it was just the woman’s body that was affected.

So, from the liberal perpective, they don’t care more for animals than people, they will just define what is a ‘person’ to suit them.

Now this type of argument makes more sense, to me at least. There are people who are pro choice but also endorse laws that illegalize animal cruelty.

As a person who is both pro life and pro animal welfare, I don’t have a conflict of conscience in which I have to seek to justify abortion while simultaneously opposing animal cruelty.

I think rather than saying, “anyone who cares about animals must love them more than people and in fact not care about people at all and they are disturbed and disgustomg,” is a very silly question/statement.

However, asking, “how can a person simultaneously be against animal cruelty but in favor of legalized abortion?” is a much more sensible and interesting question.

I also think, Brendan, that you have it exactly right, that for such people, it’s not that they care about animals more than people in a general sense. It’s just that, for whatever reason, they do not classify the unborn as people, and so to them, they do not see a conflict of ethics.

Another thing I found very strange about the OP is the question of “who cares about animals when there are people suffering?” This indicates that one’s heart and soul only has room for a finite amount of compassion, and that it is unreasonable to care about one kind of suffering when there is a “worse” kind of suffering going on. I care about animals because they have emotions, intelligence, and feel pain and fear. Their lack of the kind of relationship with God that people have does not somehow invalidate these feelings. Sure, I feel *worse *for humans who suffer. That doesn’t prevent me from also feeling pity, compassion, and love for animals.

Why wouldn’t one have compassion for a person or animal just because there are either more important or worse things going on in the world? My Mom broke her leg badly and as a result has very limited mobility for several months. I feel badly about this, and ask my mother how I can help her, I don’t say to my mother, “Who cares about your stupid leg, when there are people out there with leukemia!”

It also seems to indicate that the OP values humans only** due to their relation to God, and that humans have no value in their own right. I just don’t agree with that. I think humans have an inherent value independent of their relationship with God. If somehow it were to be proven that there was no God, I would be very sad…but I wouldn’t just murder and eat my husband as a result. I would still have empathy and compassion for my fellow man.

 

[Evania]

I suppose it depends on how they define ‘people’

An example would be a Facebook debate I had with the wife of a friend.

She had posted a case where a person left a dog in a car on a hot day, and opined that the person should be arrested for cruelty.

I commented that perhaps people should also be arrested for cruelty for an abortion, after all, deliberately burning someone to death with saline is just as, if not more, cruel, than leaving the dog in the car, especially since the dog recovered.

Her comment was that was different, as it was just the woman’s body that was affected.

So, from the liberal perpective, they don’t care more for animals than people, they will just define what is a ‘person’ to suit them.

That is an excellent point. I think this post should have been worded differently. It should have asked how some people can value animal lives and yet still dismiss the lives of human beings within the womb. In that sense, yes an animal is valued more than a human being.

 

[mellowcalico]

Absolutely not.

A lot of people will stop for an injured dog on the road but step over homeless people on the way to work.

I think the feeling is that animals are helpless but people should know better or be able to take care of themselves. And animals/pets are sooo cute. Homeless people, all of us sinners, can be sooo ugly.

I understand what you are getting at, but that’s kind of apples to oranges. I mean, yes, I would stop for an injured dog … but I would also stop for an injured homeless person.

I think it’s more of people stopping for the usual vs. the usual in that situation. I mean really, how often to you see an injured dog compared to homeless people? If you live in a city, you see homeless people every day. But I can only ever recall seeing a hurt dog once. I think it’s the same phenomena that makes it so people are terrified of flying and okay with driving (even-though more people die in car accidents). It’s just what is familiar.

That said (and back to the original question), I think there are people out there who do value animal life more than human life. I don’t think you can characterize by saying all liberals are that way. I work with a man who defines himself as liberal and he doesn’t like animals very much–and certainly isn’t into animal rights. But it’s my experience that people who define themselves as liberal are more likely to fall into that way of thinking. But like another poster said, just because someone volunteers for (say) an animal shelter and not a homeless shelter doesn’t mean they hate people or value people less. Maybe it’s just their preference, what they feel comfortable doing, or maybe their skill set makes that a good way for them to give back to society.

 

[Helena_K]

I understand what you are getting at, but that’s kind of apples to oranges. I mean, yes, I would stop for an injured dog … but I would also stop for an injured homeless person.

I think it’s more of people stopping for the usual vs. the usual in that situation. I mean really, how often to you see an injured dog compared to homeless people? If you live in a city, you see homeless people every day. But I can only ever recall seeing a hurt dog once. I think it’s the same phenomena that makes it so people are terrified of flying and okay with driving (even-though more people die in car accidents). It’s just what is familiar.

That said (and back to the original question), I think there are people out there who do value animal life more than human life. I don’t think you can characterize by saying all liberals are that way. I work with a man who defines himself as liberal and he doesn’t like animals very much–and certainly isn’t into animal rights. But it’s my experience that people who define themselves as liberal are more likely to fall into that way of thinking. But like another poster said, just because someone volunteers for (say) an animal shelter and not a homeless shelter doesn’t mean they hate people or value people less. Maybe it’s just their preference, what they feel comfortable doing, or maybe their skill set makes that a good way for them to give back to society.

I think frequency does play part of it. I live in an urban area. If I stopped to try and help every homeless person I saw, I would not do anything else! I myself would be homeless because I would have no time for a job or living my own life! However, seeing an injured animal is much more rare. You feel like you have the time to help that one animal.

Another, more important point I feel is that you can do more for an injured animal than a homeless person, and know you can help them. If I see an injured animal, I know how to help it. I bring it to the local emergency animal shelter and clinic, and I can put advertisements up looking for the owner, and if they are not found, to look for someone to adopt the animal. I can perhaps take care of the animal temporarily when looking for a new home, as one animal is little burden on myself or my finances.

As for a homeless person, how do I help them? I can point out where the homeless shelters in town are, but I cannot make them go. I can (and sometimes do) offer them food…more often than not they reject it and say they just want money. Even if I do give them food, or a blanket, it does not improve their overall situation. If I give them money I do not know that they will spend it wisely rather than on further self harm. I can’t just bring them home with me, that could put me or my family in danger, and then what about all the other homeless people? Do I bring them all home with me?

The fact that your average person would stop and help an injured animal but not a homeless person in no way indicates the average person cares about the animal more than the homeless. It is the simple fact that helping an injured animal is simple, and you know exactly what to do to help them. Helping a homeless person is far more difficult and complex.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

I think what I find most sad about this thread is that people are actually judging people badly for their charity.

It just really hurts my heart that when I volunteer for the MSPCA, apparently that makes some here think not the simple truth, “Oh, that’s nice, she likes animals and enjoys spending time helping them,” but instead, “Oh, she volunteers for the MSPCA, clearly that means she is evil and hates people and has never helped a human in her life.”

Seriously, when you are so prejudiced that you judge someone negatively for no other reason than they volunteer for an animal related organization, it is time to reevaluate your life.

It reminds me of pro choice people who say of pro life Catholics “Oh, you don’t care at all about babies once they are born, only when they are a fetus!” Which completely ignores the massive good works done by Catholics for the poor and for children, and falsely claims that the only child advocacy done by Catholics is in regards to abortion. I would imagine this is not a prejudice you appreciate, so please do not use that same prejudice against others.

I am very surprised at the lack of charity in this thread, considering this claims to be a Catholic website. I can’t remember Jesus ever saying, “And Lo, if someone cares about a cause and volunteers for that cause, the just thing is to assume that person is insane and does not care about anyone or anything that falls outside the parameters of that particular cause. And what is more, it is also just to assume that every other human that shares any arbitrary demographic with that volunteer also should be assumed to not care about anything other than that cause.”

Do you think you are representing your faith well here? Do you think this is what Jesus would do?

Yes! This! Helena, I agree 100% with you, and you have phrased your arguments perfectly. I too am a pro-life, vegetarian, who is gasp very much a people-person. I think that there is too easily a false dichotomy people make, between liberal = bad and conservative = good or vice versa, and it is not so simple as that. I think that those who assume that because an individual is particularly fond of animals, they cannot harbor kindness towards humans do not realize that for some (like myself), it’s because I am Catholic and because I do love people that I’ve decided to become a vegetarian. I love animals too, but this should not impinge upon my ability to love people.

 

[Helena_K]

I think that those who assume that because an individual is particularly fond of animals, they cannot harbor kindness towards humans do not realize that for some (like myself), it’s because I am Catholic and because I do love people that I’ve decided to become a vegetarian. I love animals too, but this should not impinge upon my ability to love people.

Exactly!

There is also the fact that cruelty towards animals is strongly** linked towards violent behavior towards humans as well. If someone is beating his dog, he’s most likely beating his wife and/or child as well. Lack of animal protection or compassion in a given society is often strongly correlated with there being less human rights and more interpersonal violence as well.

Encouraging compassion is always** a good thing, and leads to compassion being more valued and expressed in all aspects of day to day life.

I also think it is against Church teaching to be completely dismissive of animal welfare. St Francis is one of the most celebrated and well known saints because of his love for animals, and I for one bring my pets to be blessed at my local church every year, and at this event they always stress the importance of love and compassion for our animal friends, who are still part of God’s creation.

 

[october_baby]

Liberals care more about animals than they do about people.

It's starts with a lack of Gods Love. They reject the love that comes from God and they have to fill that gaping hole. Most of the time it is filled with a love for animals/nature. It is a perversion because they accepted the lie and rejected God. This kind of behavior is extremely disordered and a disgrace to our own species. I wish these people had the same amount of stamina for aborted babies as they do for animals... How sad... Do they not realize we are killing off thousands of are own species every single day...!

Who cares about some animals when humans are created in the likeness and image of God with an Immortal Spiritual Soul. Animals are created in the likeness and image of animals with a Mortal Soul when they die they cease to exist.... Animals cannot accept the spirit of God nor can they be in heaven or hell because they don't have an immortal spiritual soul. They cannot ponder the heavens or ask questions like, "Why do I exist?" nor can they be condemned or be saved because they cannot accept what pertains to the spirit of God. Animals cannot come to know God nor can they have a relationship with God because they do not have a Spirit.

Am I alone on this observation?

Couldn’t have put it better!

 

[october_baby]

I find this post both offensive and ignorant as a liberal, Catholic raised, animal lover.

First of all, only 1% of the U.S. population is vegetarian. 1%. And some of those people are vegetarian for health or religious reasons, not concerns for animal welfare. So then you have less than 1% of the population that is a vegetarian for the reason of concern about animals.

So you feel it is okay to define a group (liberals) as loving animals more than humans…even though less than 1% of the entire population is even a vegetarian out of concern for animals! That is very poor logic.

Blaming liberals for PETA is ridiculous, and claiming PETA as an organization is staffed by people who care about animals is ignorant. Do you even understand how extreme PETA is? They think pets should be illegal, for pity’s sakes, and they often endorse things like mass euthanasia of all dogs or cats because they think they would be better off dead than as pets. Defining vegetarians, nevermind a group as large and diverse as “liberals,” by the behavior of a crazy organization like PETA is about as fair as defining Christians by the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I joined PETA briefly in college, and I came to the conclusion that people in PETA, mostly don’t care about animals. They care about getting attention, and about being able to act superior to everyone else. They never undertook any action that actually would help animals, just get them attention. And they were completely morally inconsistent in how they sought attention - so for instance they would hire a celebrity to do an anti fur advertisement, even though that very same celebrity had a line of leather clothing products!

I quickly left PETA for Floridians for Human Farming. This was a group that actually cared about improving conditions for animals, not attention getting. We worked together with animal farmers on ways to improve the conditions animals were raised in.

I am a vegetarian because I love animals. However, I certainly don’t love animals more than people. I don’t even advocate vegetarianism as a general rule. Even though I chose to be a vegetarian, I recognize that as a species, we are omnivorous, and I have no problem with other people eating meat even though I would rather pet pigs than chew them. Although I would approve of laws that caused animals to be better treated while being used for consumption, I would never support a law outlawing meat eating.

In my experience, a person who loves animals more than people is very rare, and usually due to a psychological/mental issue rather than ideology. For instance, someone who is a misanthropic autistic person and connects better with animals than people, or someone who was raised in a disfunctional and/or abusive home who has severe trust issues with people.

Why does the existence of PETA give you right to judge me? I can’t stand them as an organization, and I speak out against them whenever possible, but I can’t help the fact that they exist.

Also, another way bigotry is on display is the assumtion that if you campaign for animal welfare, you must do that * instead of *campaigning for human rights. I volunteer and donate money for causes that help animals, but I volunteer more and give more money to causes that help people. That is true of almost everyone I volunteer with for animal related causes.

I don’t hold you accountable for the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church or any other extremist Christian hate group, because I recognize that they are a tiny group in relation to the overall population of Christians, that they do not represent the mentality of most Christians, and that you, as a Christian, can’t help the fact that they exist.

It is a real shame you do not extend to me the same courtesey.

Have you even seen PETA’s commericals lately?

 

[Helena_K]

Couldn’t have put it better!

So let me ask you a question, since you are pro animal torture because abortion exists…is this like a revenge thing? Do you think that cats are somehow responsible for abortion, and that’s why it’s disturbing and disgusting to be against animal cruelty?

I cannot believe that there are so many people on this website actually cheerleading animal cruelty for no other reason than abortion exists. Look, abortion upsets me too, but if anything it inspires me to be kinder to those I can, people and animals alike. It doesn’t make me so angry that I just want to start torturing animals…what on earth does that help? Do you not understand that animals feel pain? What do you achieve by torturing an animal? Why does the thought bring you pleasure to the point that you think not torturing animals is disgraceful and disturbed?

I notice you have St Francis in your signature…why? St Francis loved animals, that makes him disturbing and disgraceful to you. Apparently, only people who love animal cruelty are worthy in your eyes. Or is it a different St Francis you are quoting?

I also hope you understand that you endorsing cruelty to animals may lead to your first fear…a dead baby. When you teach your children it is okay to harm animals, it teaches them that it is okay to be physically abusive to something smaller and more vulnerable to them. This sort of lesson often transfers over to human interaction. Your promotion of animal cruelty could one day lead to a child you raise shaking or beating a baby to death.

When you promote cruelty of ANY kind, the problem is that that cruelty rarely stays specific to a particular group (or in this case, species). That cruelty tends to grow and grow. Maybe a child you raise won’t have your views on abortion, but they will adopt your views that hey, who cares about animals, abortion exists, so beat, starve, neglect, abuse animals til the cows come home, and if you think that’s wrong…well, you’re a disturbing disgrace! And then maybe that appetite for violence you raise in them will spread to beyond their treatment of animals to treatment of people.

 

[Helena_K]

Have you even seen PETA’s commericals lately?

Any PETA commercials I’ve seen lately have been those moronic “I’d rather be naked than wear fur” ones.

Is it PETA more that abortion that gives you pleasure in animal cruelty and makes you think being against animal cruelty is disturbing? You do realize it’s not the animals fault that a bunch of silly crazy people chose to represent them, right? It makes no sense to take your anger against PETA on animals.

What about when an animal screams, or cries? Does that give you pause at all, or do you just think, “hey, animal, this is revenge for all those dead babies I can’t save or PETA being super annoying and offensive. You must suffer…even though you have absolutely nothing to do with abortion and didn’t form PETA!”

 

[Helena_K]

Another question, since you believe that if a being does not have a relationship with God, it is okay to torture and murder that being…does that mean that you are okay with cruelty towards atheists, Hindus, Buddhists…anyone who doesn’t believe in the Judeo/Christian God? And if not, is it because they still have the *chance *to form a relationship with God?

Honestly, it makes me afraid of you if you were to ever lose your faith. it always greatly disturbs me when I see fellow Christians proudly proclaiming that the only reason they don’t rape, torture, murder, etc is because God exists. I just don’t understand that mentality. What that indicates to me is that you desire** to torture and murder people, but you just keep yourself from doing so because you don’t want to offend God. I mean, I have absolutely no desire to harm anyone. Even if I were to lose my faith, I can’t imagine just thinking, “Okay, I don’t believe in God any more, so now, it’s murdering time!”

By the way, the little smiley face you added after endorsing animal cruelty is truly disturbing. I hope you realize animal cruelty in most forms is illegal. You might love torturing animals till the cows come home, but you should be aware that this is frowned upon by civilized society, and you can be jailed for your actions.

I have to say that I judge this website poorly for allowing this thread to exist. This is clearly advocating illegal activities. Catholic Answers Forum: Many forms of animal cruelty are AGAINST THE LAW. People putting smiley faces and rejoicing in the idea of animal cruelty is something I never, ever would have dreamed I would see on a catholic website. I don’t know what kinds of churches people here were raised in, but it obviously was a VERY different Catholic upbringing than what I was exposed to.

But, you know, abortions exist and PETA makes really annoying commercials, so obviously that makes it all okay.