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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (24 children)

Oh I'd say this is definitely just anecdotal to you personally. Lots of animal shelters are owned, operated and funded by religious organizations.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    What metric would you want to see?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Self-reported religiosity and affection for animals would be a start.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (5 children)

    So the shelters and sanctuaries I listed as brief examples?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    No, the logic doesn't hold. There being shelters run by religious people does not say anything about whether they are more or less caring for animals than normal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    So you would need X amount of religious people to make a post like "hey I'm x religion and I love animals" what's the number you'd need? Would it need to correlate proportionally to secular animal lovers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You'd want to show a significant negative correlation between religiosity and friendliness toward animals. 'Secular' would just be one end of the religiosity dimension.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Secular just means not religious, we are comparing the religious with the not religious. How religious an individual is, is way way too subjective to hold any weight at all. Comparing different religions/sects could bring interesting results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Yes, the religiosity dimension has secular at one end and religious at the other. You want to establish whether that dimension is aligned with friendliness to animals. How religious people are is measured all the time, but of course methods can be questioned. I agree that would be interesting; surely a religion's views on animals would have some affect on its adherents.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Yeah, but how do they treat them? Is it just a new way for them to make money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Are you under the impression animal shelters are churning out big bucks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Anything connected with churches can make good money from donations and shady financials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    While true, lets not be those jerks who associate literally every bad thing to ever happen with churches. Believe it or not there are churches with good people feeding the homeless etc. It's probably .000000001%, but they're out there (and it sure as hell ain't megachurches or any church that preaches maga)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I had food and home heating oil for 3 winters when I was a kid. From a church we didn't even go to. Parents were social workers, a unbelievably poorly compensated profession. Its why I became an engineer instead of following their path. Its much bigger than that percentage but I agree its never the mega churches. They are organizations run by people. Some good, some bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I agree, I have even helped my friends church with IT stuff and when I moved to a new town as a kid a church gave us food as we were the poorest family according to my school. That same church said I was going to hell a couple years later when everyone thought I was gay when a gay kid said I was cute and I thanked him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That is true of any charity organization, regardless of affiliation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments