Court Rules Against Christian Who Left His Pets’ Healthcare to God

I don’t do pets. I dislike animals. Especially cats (I’m horribly allergic). And supposedly “cute” dogs, too:

Even I would agree, though, they have a right to be cared for properly.

In Texas, they have animal cruelty laws that say (among other things) if you don’t take care of your pet, you’ll be subject to punishment/penalties. Just the way it should be. That includes taking your pet to the vet when it needs treatment.

Who in the world would be opposed to anything like that?

The same Christians that don’t take their children to the doctor because they believe God will fix everything. No, really. They think prayer is going to cure the pets’ problems.

That’s what Charles Myers believes:

On April 10, 2009, Myers went to the animal shelter in Fort Worth to reclaim some animals. An animal cruelty investigator subsequently conducted a follow-up investigation of Myers’s home to determine if it was safe for the animals to return there. The investigator had warned Myers on prior occasions that state law required him to provide adequate shelter, food, and water and that it is unlawful to tether animals on a chain. The investigator reiterated these warnings on the day of the investigation and gave Myers a handwritten notice of violations that the investigator observed. When the investigator returned to Myers’s home the following day, she observed that the condition of a dog that needed treatment had worsened, so she took pictures, obtained a warrant, and seized the dog the following day. A detective with the Fort Worth Police Department who spoke to Myers about the animal cruelty allegations testified that Myers admitted that he was the caretaker of the dog in question, he had failed to provide adequate care, and he did not feel the need to provide veterinary care to his animals. The detective used this information to obtain and have issued an arrest warrant, and a police officer arrested Myers a month later. A jury convicted Myers of animal cruelty and assessed a fine of $2,000, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly.

Myers argued that veterinary care “violate[d] the Christian command to trust God’s power to heal.” He sued. He lost. He appealed. And now, he’s lost again. On Thursday, the appeals court upheld the lower court’s ruling.

A lawyer can correct me if I’m wrong, but the ruling seems to say that Myers argued the penalty punished him for his religious beliefs… but he wasn’t arguing that the animal cruelty laws were themselves unconstitutional, which is what the court wanted to hear. They’re dismissing the case for that reason while avoiding making a judgment call about his religious beliefs.

A witness’s recitation of Biblical scriptures and an appellant’s contention that they support his religious beliefs is not sufficient to preserve for appeal the issue of the constitutionality of a statute…

Myers urged the jury to consider his religious beliefs, but he never argued to the court or requested a ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. Nor did Myers’s motion for new trial challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Consequently, Myers failed to preserve this point for our review.Accordingly, we overrule Myers’s sole point, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Whatever the reason is, for now, animals are safe from the hands of Christians in Texas who think god will somehow fix everything and who refuse to take their pets to professionals because of that.

It’s an irresponsible and, yes, cruel move. Vets have far more power to heal than any god ever did.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • cabalavatar

    How  can you fully dislike animals? You’re an animal; all of your friends are animals. Indeed, I’ll bet that you love and deeply care about numerous animals.

  • http://onefuriousllama.com/ One Furious Llama

    Always a shame when secular authorities need to step in and sort out a religionut’s issues.

    God works in mysterious ways… I just don’t get why he works through secular systems so often.

     He does seem to be giving an awful lot of good info to atheist scientists don’t you think?

  • Anonymous

    Caring about animals doesn’t necessarily mean you have to like them… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTsWjbjQ8E

    Let’s just embrace the many ways we can like animals ;)

  • Chrissy Jones

    I wish I could like this a million more times.

  • Conspirator

    So for once this is a story of multiple people in Texas resolving an issue between government and religion correctly.  That’s not something you hear about too often down here.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X26EM3YHIEM7Y7XL6L2ZSIYM4U Dietra

    We had a neighbor like this when I was growing up. Poor dog’s eye was infected to the point that it was destroyed. My mother went over to complain and the man told her it was god’s business. She blew up at him. A few days later, the dog “disappeared” and found a new family on the other side of town. It was just a coincidence that my mom worked with one of the new owners.  Honest.

  • fuzzybunnyslipperz

    Yet, if this was a child the authority would be treading lightly around this guy’s religious views.   Oh yes its cruelty to do this to an animal, but to let a sick child die because ‘god’ was supposed to fix them, oh we have to preserve the parents’ freedom of religion.  Makes me sick.

  • Joshua Zelinsky

    This seems like the correct decision. Even if he had made a specific Constitutional claim, under standard precedents, laws can restrict religious activity if it serves a compelling state interest and the law is neutral with respect to religion. This seems to be the case. It wasn’t aimed at any particular religion or the like. This person’s religion just happens to run afoul of it. I can’t imagine what counsel would have told this fellow that he had any chance of winning.

    This does however bring up a side issue. Why do we distinguish between the animals we keep as pets and work animals and those in the wild? If there’s a moral obligation to alleviate suffering why don’t we do it for all the animals not just the domestic ones? Is there any decent argument against doing so other than amount of effort involved? 

  • Drew M.

    Sorry, I couldn’t read past the picture. Freaking hilarious!

  • Mikel I Hensley@gmail.com

    Sounds like he just doesn’t believe animals have any right to medical treatment, and used religious belief as an excuse not to pay for it. It’s just a dog, after all. :(

  • Rich Wilson

    I once had a cat follow me home.
    25 miles.
    In my car.
    Honestly have no idea how he got in.
    Swear to God.

    (and yes, I checked back with the neighbors, and the humans at the cat’s previous residence loudly expressed their pleasure at him having ‘run away’)

  • Rich Wilson

    I once had a cat follow me home.
    25 miles.
    In my car.
    Honestly have no idea how he got in.
    Swear to God.

    (and yes, I checked back with the neighbors, and the humans at the cat’s previous residence loudly expressed their pleasure at him having ‘run away’)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AOMN4MUSSQLV25RPOCO6TSGTO4 Jonathan

    I can see a few. One is an issue of responsibility. Here, the Owner has a deliberate responsibility to take care of his pets. Wild animals… who’s the owner? Who’s the one who’s supposed to be required to take care of them?

    Second is preservation of the environment. It’s a well-balanced system, and if we try to go into a ‘wild’ environment and feed all the animals that are starving and heal all the ones that are sick, in doing so we’ll pretty much destroy the environment they live in and domesticate them.  Lose sight of the forest for the trees, so to speak.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AOMN4MUSSQLV25RPOCO6TSGTO4 Jonathan

    I can see a few. One is an issue of responsibility. Here, the Owner has a deliberate responsibility to take care of his pets. Wild animals… who’s the owner? Who’s the one who’s supposed to be required to take care of them?

    Second is preservation of the environment. It’s a well-balanced system, and if we try to go into a ‘wild’ environment and feed all the animals that are starving and heal all the ones that are sick, in doing so we’ll pretty much destroy the environment they live in and domesticate them.  Lose sight of the forest for the trees, so to speak.

  • Rich Wilson

    I wonder to what extent we should subvert God’s will.  Should bandage cuts?  Or eat?  Or drink?  Shouldn’t we just sit there and let God decide what’s best for us?

  • http://www.eurovisionamerica.com/ Michael Gordon

    I’m almost a lawyer as I took the North Carolina Bar Examination and I’m waiting for my results. But I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

    Generally, neutral laws of general applicability that have an effect on religious practices are constitutionally acceptable. See Employment Div. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). The main exception to that rule is the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which says that the law can’t be enacted with religious animus. (Sorry for any typos or lack of links; I’m typing this on my phone.)

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    It’s often said that the test of
    a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members. Animals surely fall into that category.It’s no accident that the most religious country in the world (Saudi Arabia) is also one of the most horrendous when it comes to ignoring or outright trampling the rights of the helpless, both human and animal.What I saw first-hand while living and working there turned my stomach. Religion did nothing to reduce the suffering I saw, and, in fact was most likely used to justify much of the pain I witnessed.  

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    It’s often said that the test of
    a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members. Animals surely fall into that category.It’s no accident that the most religious country in the world (Saudi Arabia) is also one of the most horrendous when it comes to ignoring or outright trampling the rights of the helpless, both human and animal.What I saw first-hand while living and working there turned my stomach. Religion did nothing to reduce the suffering I saw, and, in fact was most likely used to justify much of the pain I witnessed.  

  • http://thegodlessmonster.com/ The Godless Monster

    It’s often said that the test of
    a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members. Animals surely fall into that category.It’s no accident that the most religious country in the world (Saudi Arabia) is also one of the most horrendous when it comes to ignoring or outright trampling the rights of the helpless, both human and animal.What I saw first-hand while living and working there turned my stomach. Religion did nothing to reduce the suffering I saw, and, in fact was most likely used to justify much of the pain I witnessed.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/AnonymousBoy Larry Meredith

    I’ve had cats all my life and we never take them to the vet. Too expensive. We’re poor.

  • http://profiles.google.com/statueofmike Michael S

    Those are interesting points.
    It is easy to argue against allowing someone to ritually abuse their animal. The animal can’t practice that religion, so it is easy to see where the bounds of religious freedom end. Why does it seem so hard to understand children are just as incapable of following as an animal?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Susan-Robinson/100000118176967 Susan Robinson

    If you don’t have close friendships with animals, you are missing out on one of the absolute best things in life!

  • http://profiles.google.com/statueofmike Michael S

    Yeah, I like your attitude! After all, keeping yourself out of harm’s way could be seriously cramping God’s style! Who’s up for freeway tag?

  • Drew M.

     People tell me the same thing about children and it is presumptuous and insulting as hell. It’s also flat-out wrong.

  • Jdatty

    The friendly atheists does not like animals?

    First, the title “the Friendly Atheists” has long been inaccurate, as Mehta has actually admitted.

    Second, any one who does not like animals has something wrong with them.  Emotionally.

    Really.

    Get some help Mehta. 

    You are starting to show the hate at the core of your being.

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    True. Studies have shown that satisfaction in life goes down after having children (and tends to go back up when the kids are out of the house and taking care of themselves). My wife and I are trying to have kids, but when I consider the changes in my life I had to make just to properly take care of the new dog in the house which I’m not always happy about, I can only assume its going to be worse if/when we succeed in breeding.

    I still intend to breed though. I’ll just hope its worth it.

  • Michael Appleman

    When you take in an animal you are consciously taking on the responsibility of caring for it. 

  • http://happycat.pip.verisignlabs.com/ Chris aka Happy Cat

    Righteous Patheos troll is trolling. 

  • Drew M.

    I wish you two the best of luck! I didn’t mean to say that having children is wrong, but rather the assumption that people who don’t are somehow missing out.

    I just really get irked when people like Susan assume that because they get joy out of something, that everyone else must.

  • P. J. Reed

    That’s a shame; the very least you could do is get them spayed/neutered and get vaccinations for them.  There are some pretty cheap clinics out there, and if you can’t afford them once a year, then you probably really shouldn’t be spending money on fancy things like computers and internet access…

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    Thank you. But just so we’re clear, I was actually agreeing with you, and trying to provide some evidence to counteract that assumption, along with an example. Perhaps I poorly phrased it, but I’m essentially resigned to enjoying parts of my life less after kids, and being stressed a lot. In other words, being less satisfied.  :)  

    As for the dog in my life, well, he’s interfered in less than satisfying ways as well. If any animal can cast spells, then Oberon clearly cast “Charm Person” on me. 

  • Drew M.

    Isn’t it adorable though? Can we keep it?

  • rhodent

    Agreed.  If you’re too poor to take proper care of a pet, you’re too poor to have one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maik.both Maik Both

    For this case – delusion, meet reality.
    I love animals – cats and dogs make for good company, and (with apologies to vegetarians) cows, pigs, chickens and kangaroos make for good eating. :^)

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    I’m thinking that the fact that he chained the dog affected “god’s will”.  If it was God’s will that the dog to stay on his property wouldn’t the dog have just done that?  The whole restraint thing seems to contradict his entire premise.

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    Dear Christians with the whole god will save me if I act like a lazy idiot, I feel as though this arguement was settled in the new testament.  MAYBE you should read the book your religion is based on.  Just a silly thought.  Ohhhh that story wasn’t in the movie?  My bad, guess it doesn’t count then.  Must have been cut like the chapter on thou shalt not judge.

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    Dear Christians with the whole god will save me if I act like a lazy idiot, I feel as though this arguement was settled in the new testament.  MAYBE you should read the book your religion is based on.  Just a silly thought.  Ohhhh that story wasn’t in the movie?  My bad, guess it doesn’t count then.  Must have been cut like the chapter on thou shalt not judge.

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    Dear Christians with the whole god will save me if I act like a lazy idiot, I feel as though this arguement was settled in the new testament.  MAYBE you should read the book your religion is based on.  Just a silly thought.  Ohhhh that story wasn’t in the movie?  My bad, guess it doesn’t count then.  Must have been cut like the chapter on thou shalt not judge.

  • JettaJameson

    I have to seriously question the logic of someone who dislikes animals. How completely and totally idiotic. There exists not ONE single animal you like? Not one animal in all their numerous kinds, colors, shapes, sizes, skin/feathers/scales/shells, so vast a selection, we’re still discovering new species in 2011. Give me a break. I just cannot fathom an individual not liking at least one.

  • Rich Wilson

    Not to pass judgement on anyone else’s life decisions, but I think having a child gives this Hitchslap a little more spine shiver and a few more tears.  Gets me every time.  And since I just finished posting it elsewhere, and it’s in my clipboard, I give you Hitchens on Abraham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQorzOS-F6w&t=5m22s

  • James Dominguez

    I want to ask idiots like this one simple question: “Why do you eat and drink?”

    Surely starvation and dehydration are conditions that god can heal, so why not forego food and drink and use the money you’ll save for spending on god’s work? Sure, the unfaithful would be dead within a week or two, but you’re a soldier of the lord, right?

    Your base insistence on taking the earthly fruits of this sinful world into your body is an affront to god, who would sustain you with his divine power if only you would purify yourself and stop polluting your body.

    Go on, then. Stop eating and drinking, or admit that god won’t keep you alive if you do.

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    Now that . . . was awesome. I wanted to be annoyed that you didn’t include an indication of the timestamp where he slaps around Abraham, but I enjoyed the slaps leading up to it (and following) too much.

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    I have to seriously question the logic of someone who dislikes animals

    Like so many other issues of “like” and “dislike,” I doubt logic enters into it. It’s taste, and emotion, and purely subjective. And there may be a difference in how people use the terms. For example, I find spiders fascinating, with the portia spiders being my favorites. But I sure as hell don’t want to have a pet tarantula, or any spider crawling on me. 

  • Rich Wilson

    But… I did include a timestamp… at least that link opens right to 5m 22s for me.

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    I . . . apologize, in abject confusion. I just tried it again, twice, and it opened to the appropriate time. I have no clue what happened the first time. 

    I suppose I might have rewound immediately without thinking, but I was anticipating a timestamp, so I don’t know why I would’ve done that. I’m utterly confused, and apologize.

  • Rich Wilson

    50 lashes with a wet noodle in penance!
    :-)

  • http://godconfusion.com/ Xanthe Wyse

    What? Don’t like animals?  I often prefer the company of furred, scaled & feathered animals over the human variety.

  • http://taotrucker.org Mschoolman

    I really love what you are doing here on your blog. I just started reading, but I find your posts quite interesting and brave. Subscribing by email, I can’t wait to read more. 

    I’ve always considered the religious “right” to deny medical treatment to a child to be abuse. It seems like a God-Given excuse to be lazy. All joking aside, I can’t really get inside the minds of parents and pet owners that subscribe to the belief that medical care should be denied because it isn’t the will of God. I honestly don’t believe that they are malicious because I don’t think they would really watch their loved ones die if they didn’t believe it with all of their heart. 

    Getting through to those who have been brainwashed/convinced is the true challenge. Understanding, love, and a lack of condescension may be what is needed to bridge the gap.

  • http://taotrucker.org Mschoolman

    Lol, is this real life?

  • http://taotrucker.org Mschoolman

    It would make life easier. I mean the adult diapers I purchased are basically begging to be used.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “I have to seriously question the logic of someone who dislikes animals.”

    I dislike botflies, and I don’t think that’s idiotic. “There exists not ONE single animal you like?” — Logic, ur doin it rong.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    ” Animals surely fall into that category.” — Do people here actually know what that word means? A lot of them seem to be confusing “animal” with “pet” or “mammal”.

  • Drakk

    I don’t like trolls any more than other animals, so if you want to keep it you’re resposnsible for feeding it (or not).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “I wonder to what extent we should subvert God’s will.”  I thought the bugger was supposed to be omnipotent?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    “Sounds like he just doesn’t believe animals have any right to medical treatment”  How can you tell that? I find it more plausible that he believes exactly what he says he believes. These nutters really do believe that the creator of the universe wrote a handbook (in King James English) for them.

  • Drakk

    While I don’t dislike animals, I have no particular attraction to them either. I can appreciate them for their qualities such as appearance or if there’s some interesting fact about them, but I cannot see myself forming a personal attachment to an animal, nor do I honestly understand the position of those who can and do.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Good luck with providing veterinary care for all the wild animals, Joshua. But in fact many people do exercise a morality of non-suffering toward wild animals … some hunting practices reflect this, for instance.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    You’re expecting logical consistency from religious nutters?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Um, people are convicted of child endangerment, etc. when they deny required medical treatment to their children even for religious reasons.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Get an IQ, Jdatty.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SU3L6O6MNAPXLBIGJGEX5NW5UQ jqb

    Now now, everyone knows that “animal” is a synonym for “four-legged mammal, usually a pet”.

  • End3r

    I love you. 

  • ACN

    I sure hope so! Do you think it needs to eat, or does the self-righteous sound of its own voice sustain it?

  • ACN

    Heh heh, I concur. 

    I’ve find myself more pleased with the company of my girlfriend’s cat than with about 50% of the humans I know 

    Maybe I need better humans? :)

  • Pickle

        I have to admit, it’s nice to read a story mentioning my home state of Texas that doesn’t make all of us look like redneck buffoons. It’s also especially nice not to see “Why doesn’t Texas just secede already” a hundred times in the comments. (although with the Governor we have, we may not have to secede, the rest of the U.S. may just kick us out!)
       

  • Anonymous

    Can I feed it to my bird?

  • Douglas Kirk

    Don’t be thick.  Animal is an acceptable colloquial term to mean non-human animal.  If you want to jump on your personal hobby horse and deride everybody for using a word to mean what it’s meant in personal conversation for years; fine, just do it somewhere we don’t have to read that drivel. 

  • http://www.phoenixgarage.org/ ala

    Something I do wonder about these kind of “mistreatment of pets”-type laws we have is “what constitutes mistreatment”? Say for instance you have a pet who is near the end of its lifetime – is it considered mistreatment to deny it expensive healthcare, but let it live out a natural life (provided it is in no other way visibly suffering), without putting it down? Is putting it down considered “mistreatment”?

    Consider how we apply similar reasoning to humans who haven’t left a living will, but are incapacitated due to illness from old age. Is this reasoning creeping into pet care and laws surrounding it? I almost daresay it is, and will likely lead to a state where most people (except perhaps the wealthy) don’t have pets. They’ll probably still want pets; they’ll probably have to settle for robotic analogs (at which point, if the AI becomes sophisticated enough – will there be cruelty laws against robotic pets – and furthermore, how will this extend to higher forms of robotics, such as humanoids? Or will we see those as “others”, to be discriminated against?).

    Don’t get me wrong; I agree that animals should be cared for – my only question is to what level, and has the public been properly educated on the laws and how they really work – that is, if you don’t get your dog the cancer treatment it needs to the tune of many tens of thousands of dollars, preferring to let it live out a natural life (provided it is not in any pain, is eating and urinating/defecating properly, etc) – is this considered by the law “mistreatment”, and if so, do people honestly understand that?

    Have pets, in effect due to interpretations of laws, become just another wealth status symbol – and does the public know this, if that is so?

  • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

    Hey cut Hemant some slack here.  He is single with an active traveling schedule on weekends and in the summer.  And during the school year he is involved with coaching and stuff which keeps him away from home.  He doesn’t currently have the lifestyle appropriate to take care of a dog (or cat).    I didn’t have pets either when I was single and his age and traveling for work a lot.  Fast forward a few years with Hemant married and living in a house in the burbs, and I bet even money he will get a dog (and love it).  That is what happened with me.  I now have two dogs.  The thing that changed it for me was my wife saying that she wanted to get a dog while we were on our honeymoon.  “No” is not a word spoken much on honeymoons.

  • Heidi

    I know, right? Clearly Saudi Arabia is very strong in protecting the rights of its indigenous camel spiders. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

  • Strech

    (Note: Not a Lawyer, but I have read the decisions below, among others).

    While this is true with regards to the first amendment protection of religious freedom, it’s not true as a matter of current law, as that extends beyond the first amendment.

    First, states are free to write constitutions with greater protection of religious freedom, and state courts are free to interpret state constitutional language as granting greater protection for religion than the US Constitution even when that language is similar or identical to the US Constitution’s.  For example, Alaska’s religious freedom clause is an essential copy of the US clause (No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.) but has much stricter requirements (See Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068, 1979).

    Second, there are various legislative initiatives that grant higher protection.  Most are modeled after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies Strict Scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) when applying neutral laws of general applicability to a sincere religious practice; see Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 US 418 (2009).  It only affects the federal government, though (City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 US 507) and not all states have passed equivalent laws.  Texas has, though (AA v. Needville Indep. School Dist., Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2010).

    It’s a bit of a mess in some ways.  Eugene Volokh posted a map/table with current state-by-state status at http://volokh.com/2010/07/09/religious-exemption-law-map-of-the-united-states/  .

    In regards to the decision here, it never reached the religious freedom issue (which Myers would almost certainly lose, even in Texas) because Myers never actually challenged the statute at trial and so the state never got a chance to defend it.

  • Drakk

    Surely that would be cruelty to animals (the bird specifically)?

  • GTWiecz

    I’m with Hemant. I don’t have pets nor would I like to have them, although I like animals in general. I do find them cute, but I wasn’t raised with them (except for canaries). There was a neighbor’s dog that my brothers and I liked and played with as children, but I never had to feed or take care of one. I like babies though :)
    I was once bitten by a cocker spaniel (still have scar in my hand) and almost bitten by a huge dog when I was taking a walk. Don’t like that side of animals. My father was attacked by cats in his mother’s house and his ankle was so bruised he had to take antibiotics. On the other hand, my heart melts when I see that TV ad about abandoned dogs.
    With that said, I disagree with people who say those who don’t like pets have a problem. We have to respect those who don’t like or want pets (I don’t want them, especially sleeping in my bed!!) as well as people who decide not to have kids. Not everyone has to procreate! Animal cruelty and abandonment makes me mad, just like when I see stories of elderly and child abuse.

  • cipher

    Priceless – s/he’s pissed off because Hemant doesn’t like animals, but has no problem with the idea of billions of humans being tormented for all of eternity.

  • cipher

    Priceless – s/he’s pissed off because Hemant doesn’t like animals, but has no problem with the idea of billions of humans being tormented for all of eternity.

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    Love how JDatty either stopped reading after the first line…. OR… Supports the abuse/neglect of pets.  As long as the abuse/neglect is at the hands of a “good” god fearing Christian. 

  • A Little Caustic Agnostic

    My bad.  What was I thinking? lol


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X