Discussion: Family Friendly Museum Featuring Paintings of Dogs Killed by Shelters

I saw this post on No Kill Nation’s Facebook page and thought it would make for a good discussion item here.  In summary, the city of Bradenton, FL is considering the idea of a museum which would house several thousand paintings of dogs who were killed by animal shelters.  The paintings depict the dogs as they were in life.

How would you feel about visiting this museum and bringing your kids/grandkids to see the paintings?  Is it a good opportunity for education and action?  Too overwhelming?  Too negative?

Leave a comment

57 Comments

  1. anne davis

     /  March 27, 2012

    I think that the mass killing of adoptable animals is hidden and most people don’t even want to know about it. I have seen the portraits. They are beautiful and I’m all in favor of putting them in a museum. But it would be nice if the museum has an educated staff member in the room to answer questions about these poor lost souls. It’s a good way for people to see this horror in a new light and maybe invoke them to adopt.

    Reply
    • Leslie Cobb

       /  March 27, 2012

      I agree that education is a necessary part of this, not only to invoke people to adopt, but to encourage them to take action to stop the needless killing by letting their elected officials know how they feel. Handouts with the No Kill Equation would be a good addition, too. The idea behind this reminds me of Cyrus Mejia’s 575 Project, which had a profound impact on me even though I’ve only seen it online and in a book. http://cyrusmejia.com/art/575-project

      Reply
    • lorbison

       /  March 27, 2012

      Excuse me, you cannot be invoked to adopt a dead animal.

      If I am correct, these portraits are all of animals that were killed? To me, that is just totally depressing.

      Could we add a few portraits of success stories? Please!

      Then you browse the exhibit and discover that there is no difference between the animals that died, and the ones that are alive and happy…THEN you can be invoked to go to a *shelter* and adopt.

      Reply
  2. mikken

     /  March 27, 2012

    I understand the point and it may even be useful for some to see shelter animals in that light. It’s more memorial than museum, though…

    I’d like to see it benefit live animals, somehow. If you have the publicity and the people, have a section of “here are some animals adoptable RIGHT NOW in the shelter down the street!” displayed.

    Reply
  3. Daniela

     /  March 27, 2012

    I don’t like this idea. If they are going to do this then they should have painting of all the types of animals that die – cats, rabbits, hamsters, etc – not just the dogs. I also find it really morbid and wouldn’t want to go there. I can just imagine the reaction of the little kids “Look at all these pretty animals! They are all dead because heartless people killed them instead of trying to find them homes. Don’t cry – there are still 3 more rooms of dead animals to look at!”

    I hate looking at the pictures of the animals on death row and knowing their lives were cut short. It doesn’t make me mad and want to take action – it makes me want to curl up and hug my animals and not ever go back to that page.

    Reply
  4. bunchofpants

     /  March 27, 2012

    Everyday on Facebook I see photos of animals that end up dying because they don’t get pulled in time. I’m sick of it and I don’t want to see more. I’d rather save animals from dying in the first place than go look at photos of the dead ones.

    And I’m curious: does this sort of thing actually encourage people to adopt animals? Or do we (rescue types) just assume it does because surely no one could look at all these photos and then go buy a puppy?

    Reply
    • Jessica C

       /  March 27, 2012

      Couldnt agree more with your thoughts, bunchofpants.

      Reply
      • So, what I gather from your post Jessica, you would rather see a bunch of happy pets at a shelter that you naively believe are going to be adopted. You don’t want to fact the fact that most shelters let dogs, cats, whatever animals starve, suffer in pain, and ultimately die in the kill room. You’d rather see the unreality of happy, than the truth of misery. Doesn’t work that way. Sorry. Just sayin.

      • Jessica C

         /  March 27, 2012

        As bunchofpants said, to which I agree, Id rather help the ones I could than to continue staring at dogs that are no longer with us. Theres no point in it because its too late. I dont see how that is supposed to be wrong? I already know the reality of it. If I didnt, I wouldnt be on this page. Calm down.

  5. Eucritta

     /  March 27, 2012

    I would never, ever take anyone to an exhibit like this.

    On the other hand, if they were portraits of pets – not just dogs – who’d been placed in good homes, some of them despite manifest ‘faults’ – that I could get behind.

    What people need to see is that there are effective means by which pet deaths in shelters may be drastically reduced, that shelter reform is possible and can be sustained, and that even seemingly ‘unpromising’ pets – the old, the impaired, the chronically ill – can find homes and make great pets. Portraits of dogs who’ve been killed, no matter how personable the painting itself, aren’t going to do that.

    Mourning & memorializing the dead is all very well, but close-ended. It’s the living whose stories we have the power to change.

    Reply
    • vida

       /  March 27, 2012

      I like this idea a lot, and as Mother Jones said:” Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living”

      Reply
      • Yes, vida, precisely. We must educate people about this plight, for if we don’t, who will? If you don’t want to face the fact that humans kill for pleasure and excitement, then don’t go. If you realize that animals were here way before we were, and they kill out of instinct, not pleasure, then everyone should go. Hiding this fact doesn’t help the situation, knowing it and admitting it does. I am all for it.

  6. Sounds like an excellent idea. A chance for educating the public, children and the dangers of overpopulation. I say build it, they will come.

    Reply
    • Eucritta

       /  March 27, 2012

      In the 1990s, the Peninsula Humane Society here in the SF Bay Area broadcast the killing of puppies & kittens.

      All it did was make people cry.

      Bludgeoning people with shelter killing may feel good to those wielding the club, but I have yet to see it substantively change public behavior.

      Reply
      • You may be right Eucitta. However, with the desensacacation of these types of killings, I still think it is a good ides. Kids play video games and kill people in war, car chases and police. These are real animals, and it may make them cry, but the parents should make sure their children know to treat animals with love and compassion. How many little chicks will die this EASTER because sissy or tommy wants one to play with, and they end up dead. How cruel is that. And the human race kills for pleasure, no matter what. So, we weren’t put here to do as we please, animals were here first. If they cry, then let them stay home. But, this could really be educational how cruel our society is. Just sayin

      • Eucritta

         /  March 27, 2012

        Do you really think rubbing kids’ faces in others’ cruelty will teach them compassion & empathy? Myself, I doubt it. I know I learned by observing & participating in acts of kindness to the living – and once having learned, I needed no instruction to recognize cruelty when I saw it.

        IMHO, all making people cry is likely to do is encourage them to avoid you. On the other hand, showing them that shelter pets can make wonderful family members, in my direct experience, that’s what works. My shelter dog Bertie has resulted in a few shelter adoptions all on his own just by being himself in company – a happy, funny, gentle little dog – and proving that yes, great dogs can be found there.

        I also doubt that violent movies & games truly desensitize kids on their own – but then again, that also comes from my own personal experience. I love both, you see, and I’m not a monster … unless I play one in an RPG.

    • Grahund

       /  March 27, 2012

      I think Denise has hit on exactly why this is a bad idea. “Overpopulation” is a myth not a problem. There are plenty of homes for the pets that need them. The problem is shelters killing pets instead of doing the hard work of getting them adopted. I have a hard time believing that any such facility (I can’t call it a museum) would make that clear.

      I wouldn’t go or recommend someone go in any case. I’d rather see the money spent at the local shelter to help more pets.

      Reply
      • thank you Grahund. I appreciate your outlook. We can always beg to differ. First, animals were put on our planet not to be abused, but to sustain us with food, warmth and other creature comforts. How many own mink coats, or beaver? Animals kill for instinct, we kill for pleasure. Hiding this does not solve the problem. It creates a much more serious problem. Susie and Johnny want a puppy, but don’t realize the problems and responsibiity that comes with that. I want a chick for Easter, how many chicks will die this Easter? Yes, there is a problem with overpopulation with all the strays that are left to die, and owners who dump their pets, because their children couldn’t take care of them. I don’t mean to take a 3 year old, but a child that is of the maturity that can understand the cruelty than man inflicts on the animals that are left in our care. If you really do explain this to your children, then don’t take them. If you don’t, you should.

  7. Tammy

     /  March 27, 2012

    I agree with Eucritta and Daniella. I wouldn’t bring my children to this museum. I might go see it as an adult , on an empty stomach and when I am emotionally able to “handle” seeing all the unsaved animals. But, I would never take my children. I don’t think it is necessary. I speak to them and educate them about shelters and needless killing in a way that they can understand. At young ages I don’t feel they should be subjected to a multitude of portraits however beautiful they are. I would much rather raise my children to advocate for the living animals then to have them focus on those we lost and can do nothing to help. Though, don’t get me wrong, even the lost ones should be remembered. I don’t think this is the way to do it for children.

    Reply
  8. CristyF

     /  March 27, 2012

    I think this idea would be better off as a website launched in the lost one’s honor than an actual physical museum. Making people sad doesn’t make people want to adopt, though. What draws people in more, one of those shelter pictures of dogs with a “please don’t beat me” look, or a relaxed, happy picture of a dog with his eyes bright and his tongue hanging out?

    Reply
  9. I’ve just been reading everyone’s responses and I love that there as so many thoughtful, intelligent people trying to protect animals.

    Personally I have no problem going to see an exhibit like this and I wouldn’t have any problem taking anyone else to see it either (if they were willing). I guess from an emotional point of view, looking at paintings of dogs who have been killed isn’t nearly as hard on me as looking into the sad eyes of live animals on death row and knowing they don’t HAVE to die but there’s nothing I can do to protect them all. I also agree with you Daniela- where are the other species!

    But I agree with everyone who has argued that if the point is to prevent animals being killed then this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. First, anyone walking through a sea of portraits of dead dogs would surely come away feeling at best overwhelmed, hopeless and impotent. At worst they’d leave feeling desensitized. There’s nothing they can do, they’re likely not responsible for any of the deaths and yet there’s an accusatory feeling about the whole concept. A, “look at all these dead dogs, what are YOU going to do about it?!” message, as if there’s anything they can do.

    There will be a place for this kind of exhibit in the history museum one day, alongside photographs of the holocaust, but in the meantime I’d rather see art that saves lives. Why not giant sculptural pieces which incorporate live cats or dogs that are looking for a home, displayed in public areas? Or photographic murals, street art, poetry walks designed to market homeless animals and inspire people to open their hearts and homes to them. What about adoption booths in public areas where every time a person submits an application to foster or adopt bells ring and streamers explode- people love to be rewarded and cheered in front of an audience.

    Normal people don’t like being set up for failure- especially if it results in animals being killed. They’d rather just turn their heads and think of something pleasant. When I worked in retail one of the first lessons I learned about window dressing was that less is more. It’s tempting to put all the cool stuff in you’re selling in the window, but then your customers don’t know what to focus on and your window is just a waste of space. I think the same goes for animal rescue work. Anyone working in rescue sees ALL the animals in need and feels the urgency to save as many as possible but when you bombard the average person with reality, let alone all the overpopulation and irresponsible public crap, they give up before they begin. We have to break it up into manageable bite sized pieces for them. Speaking of which, I write too much. Shutting up now.

    Reply
  10. Jean

     /  March 27, 2012

    I’d be so upset I would leave crying.

    Reply
  11. animalnewsinfo

     /  March 27, 2012

    In my minds eye I still see shelter dogs that didn’t make it out of the shelter alive and I have many photos I have taken of these dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens too. It does make me sad but also I feel honored that I got to see, even for a brief moment such beautiful souls.

    Reply
  12. Fun Is Best

     /  March 27, 2012

    This museum’s display is a great opportunity for discussions on what many turn a blind eye to. It’s a great start for opening the hearts & minds of those who never allow such things to be thought of. It will be a great place to bring children for them to begin early in life to be the generation where all the killing stops.

    If it were up to me, a sign would be on every street corner, showing exactly what happens when a heartless society has control over shelters. A museum doing it is fantastic & will be more well received.

    Reply
  13. mary francis

     /  March 27, 2012

    I met a woman, a retired physician, who has worked establishing affordable spaying and neutering for dogs and cats – I only met her once but spent an afternoon with her in Oregon.

    One of the memories I have of taking a tour of her upbeat and wonderful clinic – there was a large painted wood carving – an artist had been hired to make it as a tribute to all the dogs and cats killed in animal control facilities.

    It was beautiful and it made me tear up but I was glad to see it – a reminder of what we all work to end. (This remarkable woman was one of the first people I met who had also read Redemption and felt as I do – the killing has to end).

    Everyone has there own way of grieving and remembering.

    Reply
  14. Fun Is Best

     /  March 27, 2012

    I do NOT agree with Denise’s ideas of what animals are for. They are NOT for our every whim to do whatever our greedy desires are. They are not ours to wear, to feed us, to entertain us or do experiments to. They are here to comfort us as we are to comfort them; with love & understanding, as our sisters & brothers on the path of evolution.

    You’re in the 21st century, Denise, not the stone age where they didn’t have enough sense to know better.

    Reply
    • Jessica C

       /  March 27, 2012

      Couldnt agree more, Fun is Best. Wow, if she actually thinks that.

      Reply
      • If you will reread my post, you will see he misinterpreted everything I said. I am an animal lover and advocate. I stated animals were put here long before us and we are not here to do with them as we please. I brought up how at easter, so many kids want a little chick, and how many of those chicks are gonna die? Then Suzie or Johnny want a puppy, but fail to understand the responsibiity that goes with owning a puppy and mom and dad take the puppy to the pound. I don’t know who’s post he did read, but it wasn’t mine. Read it again, carefully, please.

    • I beg to differ Fun is Best. If you will read my post again, I SAID animals were NOT put here for us to kill and abuse. Animals were put here to provide us food and nourishment. I also stated that humans kill for pleasure, and animals kill out of instinct. I also stated animals were put here long before us, and they are not for us to do with what we please. You totally misinterpreted my post. I am on the animal side, not the human. I’ve always had a pet, and always will. I rescue and will continue to do so. I am in the 21st century, not a caveman. Maybe you need to take up remedial reading??? I said none of what you said I did.

      Reply
      • Fun Is Best

         /  March 30, 2012

        Denise: YOU said it again! So, I will repeat; animals are NOT here to provide food & nourishment. You seem to be programmed to believe that.
        1. Genisis, 11:29= “I have given you every plant, every fruit, every herb, every tree bearing seed. For you it shall be as meat.”
        2. We have the same teeth as vegetarian animals; horsed, cows, etc., not teeth of a carnivore.
        3. God has given us all the plants and the intelligence to make plants our food and be healithier for it.
        4. “Thou shall not kill.” or let someone else do it for you.
        5. God said man should “have dominion over the animals” not fry them up, bake them or eat them.

        Somewhere along the line the meat industry has snookered us into thinking meat is normal food. Ask any good doctor what meat does to the insides of your body as compaired to a veggie diet. It also makes man overly aggressive, prone to violence.

        I repeat: Animals are NOT our’s for the misguided taste of flesh. They are there for their own reasons, not yours or mine.

      • You are wrong. Yes, animals were put here to help feed and nourish us, and to give us companions. They were here long before us and NOT here to do with as we please. But it is a fact that humans have used animals for food since the beginning of time. Further, I will not get into the religious ramifications of why animals were put here. I will not entertain this debate with you. You still misread and misinterpreted my post. I also stated animals kill out of instinct, PEOPLE KILL FOR PLEASURE. Evidently you cannot understand the full context of a post. Or look at the full meaning. I am an animal love rand advocate. Period. Do not accuses me of being anything less. Thank you.

  15. Jeanne

     /  March 27, 2012

    Check out this guy’s website at
    http://anactofdog.org/An_Act_of_Dog/Home.html
    The paintings don’t even exist yet–except for a few that he’s turned out assembly-line style (painted from photos). Examine the quality of this stuff–which he proposes to sell for thousands. Read the Grandiose Mission Statement. And most of all–read the bit about the Barking Bank. Hahahahaha. What a scam, er, scheme. Even $20 could be put to much better use than throwing it away on this guy’s delusion. And he says he’s going to raise
    $20 million. Yah, since when did no-kill depend on that anyway?

    Reply
  16. Angela B.

     /  March 27, 2012

    I saw something about this months ago. There was a news article circulating on FB about it. I thought it was an awesome idea.

    We, as rescuers, sometimes become conditioned to the killing – while it upsets me everyday, and my heart aches for every single one – it has gotten easier for me to look through FB threads of death row dogs, after doing it for so long now. I had no idea it was ”that bad” until facebook – and I believe that it will open many eyes, and inspire people to get involved with their local shelters/rescues.

    I believe, it will inspire people to foster if they can not adopt. Of course, everyone that views them aren’t going to go out and adopt 5 animals to save their life, but it will (hopefully) make an impact. I see more volunteers and more activists coming out of the woodwork. Yes, there will be people who will object, but are those the ones the animals need on their side anyway?

    This is an excellent opportunity for education. I applaud the artist(s) for taking the time to give all of these forgotten souls a name (even if it was just a number) and a story, for all to see.

    It will serve as a memorial for all the innocent lives taken. They are gone but NEVER forgotten, and their faces are worth remembering.

    Reply
  17. mydogsaremyboys

     /  March 27, 2012

    As an artist I like this idea and I would love to get involved. I have been trying to think of a way my art can help dogs…and here it is. If I can draw/paint any dogs for yall please let me know :) misshaselhoff@gmail.com

    Reply
  18. Many good points have been raised. I interpret the motivation of the artist to be positive – shining a light on the reality of shelter pet killing. The execution however seems poorly thought out to me. The website Jeanne linked to talks about building a facility 2 football fields in length to house 5500 paintings of dogs which have not been done yet. If this thing ever gets off the ground, I have little doubt it will commonly be referred to as the “dead dog museum” because – how could it be avoided? And while I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to bring awareness and honor the memories of the dead, I think the negatives outweigh the positives here. I don’t want “the dead dog _________(anything)” to become a common phrase in the local lexicon. It makes the killing seem more commonplace and acceptable – the opposite of the words “no kill”.

    I could not visit such an exhibit myself and had anyone taken me to see such a thing as a child, I can only imagine it horribly scarring me, perhaps beyond my ability to recover enough to ever advocate for shelter pets. When I was a girl, I cried at the end of Lassie, which I watched on re-runs, every day. The image of Lassie waving her paw goodbye made me so sad, I burst into tears. Every day. My mother tells me she would try to comfort me and I would always wail, “Lassie’s going away!”. She would reassure me that Lassie would be back tomorrow. I can’t say with any certainty what would have transpired with the kid me at this exhibit of 5500 dead dogs but I’m pretty sure lithium would have been involved.

    There are better ways to shine a light on the reality of shelter killing IMO. And while we do that, we have to offer people solutions – adopt, spay/neuter, volunteer, etc. We can not expect to unload a truckload of sad on someone then hand them a brochure that says “Don’t forget to adopt a shelter pet!” and figure we’ve done a good thing. Having visited the exhibit, some people might never visit a shelter for the rest of their lives for fear of seeing living dogs who will end up as future paintings in the museum.

    It’s too much sadness and too overwhelming. I applaud the intention but think the efforts could be redirected toward a more successful venture that would yield better results.

    Reply
    • Jessica C

       /  March 27, 2012

      I couldnt agree more. I actually didnt really watch Lassie as a kid, but I cried my heart out in Bambi when the mother was shot. I had a soft spot for animals even back then. Anywho, I also agree that the time and money spent on this facility could be spent to better use. I think he had good intentions, but in reality, there really is not much point to this place. Children will be scarred and I think most adults know already about animals in shelters plights and turn a blind eye to it. A museum of paintings of dead dogs isnt going to make them run to the nearest shelter.

      Reply
  19. Daniela

     /  March 27, 2012

    I think they need to think about who is the target audience for this. Is it the people who already are involved in the no-kill movement and already mourn for the millions of lost animals? Or is it the people who either don’t know or don’t want to know about the plight of shelter animals? If it is the latter then how will they entice them to come into the museum? “Come see pictures of dead dogs that could have been saved if only you adopted from a shelter” doesn’t really seem like a selling point. On the other hand a museum of currently available animals could be. That one would be hard to do since you would have to be updating paintings all the time.

    Reply
  20. Amy W-K

     /  March 27, 2012

    It is always hard to see the horror we as “humans” create and do by killing healthy adoptable animals needlessly. They are God’s creation to be companions and not to be destroyed. Maybe this might be what is needed for the next generation to make the change.

    Reply
  21. Meg

     /  March 27, 2012

    When I was in Prague I visited the Children’s Museum in the Jewish Quarter. It features children’s drawings from a nearby concentration camp: Terezin. It has been 20 years since I was there but I still recall the deep sense of sorrow as I walked out knowing that those children did not survive the camps. I think that is the same goal that this artist has in mind.

    I think my biggest concern is the amount of money that could be used to make a difference in current shelter dogs, whether it is improve the shelter facilities or hiring more staff, whether they are trainers or behaviorists that could help dogs become adoptable. It could be used to help pay for medical care for people who are struggling. I think that as long as there is some good that can be done, a difference to be made that is where we should focus our resources. For the children of Terezin, nothing will change their fate.

    There was a book a few years back called “Shelter Dogs”, beautiful pictures of dogs the photographer had met in the shelter. It wasn’t until you turned the page that you learned what had happened to the dog. I may have the order wrong, the stories separate from the photos so you could not tell which one found a home and which did not until after you had a chance to see the photo. If you have not seen it, I would encourage you to look. It is very stirring.

    Reply
  22. Callie Fitzgerald

     /  March 28, 2012

    I’m not sure if I could visit a museum full of dogs that were needlessly put down. I think it would be a great idea though, since most people don’t know what’s going on around them. Maybe they could add in one room, paintings or videos of rescues or adoptable pets. The more the public is educated, the better.

    Reply
  23. If you are speaking of the powerful work of Mark Barone from An Act of Dog I am in favor. I think that everyone in America should see the show. Until people wake up and see the truth of how many animals die every day in America the catch and kill mentality of our “shelter system” will never change.
    Mark has devoted a year of his life memorializing these lost souls. His paintings are beautiful and haunting, a fitting tribute to stolen lives.

    Reply
  24. Tina Clark

     /  March 29, 2012

    I believe the value of such an exhibit would depend solely on any interpretive material that would accompany it. If the general public who attend this exhibit are hit with the message of, “see what becomes of dogs because of the irresponsible public, and the overpopulation problem,” then it would be more than worthless, it would be counter productive. If, however, there was some solid information about the real source of the killing, and the fact that there are known methods to end it, and giving the audience some ways they can help end it, then I feel it would be well worthwhile, and might just help recruit people to become active in working towards No Kill.

    Reply
  25. Fun Is Best

     /  March 30, 2012

    Denise: No one accused you of not being an animal advocate, maybe ignorant, but surely not unfriendly to animals.

    1. Animals kill out of hunger, not instinct.
    2. You can’t convince me animals are supposed to be eaten, especially when health concerns, our teeth of herbivores & compassion tells us otherwise. I see you have drank the Kool-ade & bought into meat eating. I don’t & won’t.

    You’re welcomed.

    Reply
    • Tina Clark

       /  March 30, 2012

      I would also like to add in response to Denise: you say “animals were put here to help feed and nourish us, and to give us companions.” Then you later say “I will not get into the religious ramifications…” It seems to me that your contention that animals were “put” here is a religious statement in itself. “Put” here by whom? The idea of “putting” certainly seems to reflect a belief in some sort of creator diety.

      Reply
      • Since Fun doesn’t think we were meant to eat the meat of animals, and his quoting of bible verses. It matters not what my religious affiliations or beliefs are. This site is not preach the bible site. This is about animals, pets, beasts, whatever. That is where that came from. You are getting into semantics now. Placed, put, provided, whichever …. Man has eaten meat since the dawn of time. Plain and simple.

    • Fun, you just don’t get it. As it says in the Bible if you want to get religious, give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. teach a man how to fish, he will always eat. First, yes, we need meat. If you are vegan, then fine. Don’t lecture me and please do not call me ignorant. And I haven’t drank any Kool Ade since I was little. I try to be friendly on this site, and it needs to stay that way. Please do not post to me again if all you can do is besmirch me. And please do not bible preach to me again. I’ve read it. We will have to agree to disagree. Enough said.

      Reply
  26. Sissy

     /  April 1, 2012

    For Fun… This proves you wrong.
    Luke 15:11-32

    King James Version (KJV)
    11And he said, A certain man had two sons:

    12And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

    13And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

    14And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

    15And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

    16And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

    17And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

    18I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,

    19And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.

    20And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

    21And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

    22But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

    23And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

    24For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

    25Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.

    26And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.

    27And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

    28And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

    29And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

    30But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

    31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

    32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

    Reply
    • There are plenty of forums online to argue about and quote holy writ. Anyone interested in continuing this line of discussion should please take it to an appropriate forum. This is not that forum.

      Reply
      • Tina Clark

         /  April 1, 2012

        Thank you!

      • thank you thank you thank you. Fun will not quit though. I’ll just ignore him from now on. By the way, I had my private tour of MAS by Mr. Rogers last week. I will advise you when I write his thank you note. I was very impressed, even though many improvements still need to be made, it is a great step forward.

  27. Fun Is Best

     /  April 1, 2012

    Denise: Yep, you are ignorant. It’s no wonder you didn’t want to talk “Bible” because it never mentions teaching anyone to fish. Duh!

    I didn’t want to get religious, I was just using factual verses, from memory, that backs up what I was saying. Look it up, learn something. Go vegetarian and stop the killing. “Every person who go vegetarian prevents 85 animals from being killed each year,” is what I’ve read, and is what this is about. Sorry I hurt your pride, but not your ideas of meat eating.

    Reply
  28. Dana Radell

     /  April 4, 2012

    I think it should be done, because as horrifying as it is, how else will enough people know about it? We are too complacent, people need to be jarred into action to stop the killing. They need to understand that this is NOT EUTHANASIA!!! It is murder and until people get that animals will continue to be killed, nothing will change. Yes, it’s “too negative” but the reality of it is far worse.

    Reply
    • Daniela

       /  April 4, 2012

      And how do you propose to get the ignorant public to this museum so they can be jarred into action? it does no good to have this museum if noone goes to it.

      Reply

Speak!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: