Soup Kitchens for Dogs
A soup kitchen has opened in Berlin to make sure that the pets of homeless people are well fed. From the story:
Despite the looming financial crisis, director Claudia Hollm dismissed criticism that it may be more sensible to collect money for humans than for dogs. "Nowadays people underestimate dogs. They are incredibly important for those who lack social contact with other humans," Hollm told Reuters. "Making sure dogs don't go hungry is just as important as making sure that people don't starve," she added.No, it is not "just as important as making sure people don't starve." If one had to choose between feeding a human and a dog, we should choose the human.
Luckily, in the affluent West, we don't have to make such a choice. So with the above caveat, I think this is a spendid example of human exceptionalism, that is, exercising our duty to humanely treat animals that are in our care.
HT: S. Jensen
Labels: Animal Welfare. Human Exceptionalism. Dog Soup Kitchen
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:47 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
I'm in a good mood today Wesley Smith so I am not going to let this article put me down.
I just want to state unequivocally that this is disgusting, immoral behavior. This is a prime example of the of the evil, near-religious, animal rights philosophy at work! When this "human" Claudia Hollm says 'people'...she's also including poor kids! There is no moral argument one can make to prefer to feed a hungry animal over a starving kid. Not one. Let's take Hollm's statement that a "dogs health is equivalent to a humans health" at face value. Can't the reader reach a reasonable conclusion that Hollm actually believes that a dog's health is more important than a human's health because she doesn't help feed starving, homeless humans at all? Don't be a liar Ms. Hollms. take off your pseudo-animal rights mask and expose your true self!
Sorry for tirade Mr. Smith. I really mean no hostility. I wish Claudia Hollm the best and if she were ever homeless and starving, I would share with her a hearty meal.
I don't agree with Ms. Holms statements, but I do feel some sympathy for these dogs. I've seen a lot of panhandlers, mostly young, with dogs, and I'm often tempted to ask, "If you can't even feed yourself, why do you have a dog?" You can't even give them money specifically for the dog; they'd use it to buy cigarettes. (They're almost always smokers.)
But it's not the dog's fault it wound up with an owner who doesn't make good life decisions. The logical thing would be to adopt out such dogs, but the shelters are overloaded and these essentially selfish people probably would let their dogs starve rather than give them up.
So, not a good situation, but at least her outfit keeps the animals alive short-term, and gives them a chance for their situation to improve. Wish she'd lose the rhetoric, though.
johnnydon'tdoit: I agree that the woman's statement is very wrong, but I think the feeding of the dogs is very right. We are not in a situation in Germany where feeding hungry dogs means that any human has to go hungry.
In my part of the US, I am very proud to know some beautiful people who work alongside of us in our homeless ministry to care for the animal companions of the homeless and economically disadvantaged.
These animals are critically important to the emotional and mental well being of many of these people. It gives them one last connection to a relationship and a reason to keep moving forward, a sense of responsibility, and depending on the animal, safety.
I am so glad for your advocacy for the weak among us, Wesley. Your work is a bright light shining in an increasingly dark world. I admire your dedication, committment, and compassion.
I do however have to disagree with some of the comments on animal rights. I do not believe there is any reason to make this an either or situation.
God's grace is sufficient for all of His creation, and I firmly believe that animals are included in 'the least of these' that we are commanded to respect and care for. They are also weak and cannot speak for themselves, and God places the same burden on some hearts for them as he does on the hearts that are speaking for the disabled.
In a throwaway world where there are not enough people to speak up for the sanctity of all life, I think that those of us who do believe in that should be encouraged to work together and support each other, and respect that we each have a different focus for a reason.
rmillyn: Thanks for stopping by. I agree that we have a duty to treat animals properly and to show them mercy. But if you are a Bible believer, remember Christ said that while God marks the fall of every sparrow, you (and all people) are much more valuable than sparrows.
The term animal rights is used too loosely. You seem to mean it as animal welfare and animal protection. I have no problem whatsoever with these noble causes.
Animal rights properly understood is something different, It is an ideology that creates a moral equivalence between people and animals. That is very dangerous in my view, and profoundly nihilistic, with the potential to cause great human harm.
Thanks for all of your good works.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home