Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists/Freethinkers/Skeptics Message Board › Post-Rapture Pet Rescue Service

Post-Rapture Pet Rescue Service

Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 20­

"You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

"We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each
Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus."

I think that this is a GREAT idea! It shows what we already know, that atheists are generally caring people who value and cherish life and who will help within their communities as needed. Unfortunately, I don't think that this group will get much business.
user 15145171
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 1
My good friend (a buddhist) was telling me about how he had heard of people that were dead set on May 21st selling their houses, property, cars, belongings, etc... he knew of course that my immediate response and question was, "Selling their earthly possessions before going to heaven???" What the heck are they planning on doing with the money??? I'd really like to request of all the heaven bound that if they're off to heaven, that leaving their houses, cars, money and whatnot to those left behind couldn't possibly affect their heavenly standing right?? just a thought.
Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 21
Sigh. I volunteer for a local (NorCal) animal rescue and we just got the following in email, apparently not a hoax:

"I'm at my wits end. My neighbor, a religious fanatic, believes the rapture will occur this Sat on the 21st. In accordance with that, he has announced he will kill all his pets, 2 parrots (one of which I already have a home for) and three cats."

The email goes on to state that the concerned party has called police, sheriff, various animal control and humane agencies for weeks now and has been told that there is nothing that can be done.

I hope that we can save these animals. What sick people!
Tom H.
user 10978961
Boulder Creek, CA
Post #: 3
Send them here. Maybe a deal like that will convince them not to. Of course they may not want a heathen "saving" their pets.
Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 22
>they may not want a heathen "saving" their pets.

We have already offered to take the animals, provide good care for them, etc. They do not want a heathen saving their pets, nor do they want their pets to be alive after the "rapture." They are convinced that any people who will be left behind will be evil and that the post-rapture world will be hell on earth. In the meantime, if you don't claim to be "saved" or agree with them, they don't want anything to do with you. It's a bad situation and it is getting harder and harder to laugh at.

Seriously, we had better hope that none of these people decide to cleanse the world of non-believers in the next few days. There are some hardcore crazies in this bunch!
user 9892369
San Ramon, CA
Post #: 238
If those people kill their pets, they need to be prosecuted. I doubt any claim of freedom of religious expressioin would hold water (holy or otherwise...).

Have you tried contacting ALFD (Animal Legal Defense Fund)? Their headquarters is in Cotati. Perhaps they can advise....­

170 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931

Phone: (707) 795-2533
Fax: (707) 795-7280

General Inquiries:

Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 23
Yes, various law enforcement agencies, pro-bono legal services and even veterinary authorities have been notified. Apparently, it is legal for people to kill their own pets “humanely” as needed (for example, to euthanize them or in self-defense if an animal attacks people, etc.) and, so far, we have not found a way around this; specifically, we have not found a way that we can make any law enforcement agency(ies) take the actions that are needed to rescue these animals before they are killed.

I know that this sounds barbaric but it is not against the law to kill pets in many cases. Even in cases where it is illegal or borderline, the Fourth Amendment, along with other checks and balances, prevents law enforcement from acting preemptively to stop such killings. A veterinarian friend of mine, who is considered an SME and is used as an expert witness, has told me as much.

We have sent out pings to several reporters. A friend of mine who is an attorney (corporate law / IP) is calling in her chits with attorney friends who specialize in family and animal law. We have calls out to an investigative journalist who specializes in animal rights and to a few other humane and rescue agencies.
Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 24
In case anyone's following this, the guy is now saying that he won't begin killing his animals until the "rapture" has made its way as far as Denver. (The way that this is supposed to work is that the rapture -- actually, more of an armageddon -- is supposed to happen at 6PM local time, so that Denver and everyone else east of us will get it first.)

So HOPEFULLY he will not kill his animals at all, since it should become evident to him that there isn't going to be a rapture at all! We are basing this belief on the supposition that he really does want what is best for his pets and that he is not operating out of pure cussed meanness. We could, of course, be wrong.

Besides that, we can try to get a restraining order, which would be a court telling him not to kill his animals (which he would probably ignore, since he thinks that he is obeying a higher power!) and we could then try to get possession of his animals, which would be even more challenging. Apparently this guy has been a kook for a while and has had various complaints against him. You can read more about this at­
user 9892369
San Ramon, CA
Post #: 240
" I know that this sounds barbaric but it is not against the law to kill pets in many cases. "

Yes. The law considers animals property. That's why organizations like In Defense of Animals [IDA: http://www.guardianca...­] and Animal Legal Defense Fund [ALDF:­] have been working to try to change that. But first the mindset of the public needs to change, so that the law will follow. To this end, IDA has slowly been able to get municipalities to adopt a change of wording from "owner" to "guardian" and from "pets" to "companion animals." People generally roll their eyes and dismiss these efforts as typical California woo-woo political correctness, but these small changes are necessary to lay the groundwork for needed corrections to existing law and enforcement.

Law enforcement agencies and courts are very slow to take action in these cases, and more often than not justice is not served in animal abuse cases unless there is an outpouring of outrage by the public.

So, thank you, Vincent for your efforts in this instance.
Miltown H.
Pittsburg, CA
Post #: 25
Here's an article that mentions the positive outcome of this effort (about 2/3 of the way down):­

For what it's worth, one of the people that I talked to while working on this, a close family friend of Bill Tinker (the would-be euthanizer) said that Tinker was a good person who really does love his animals and wanted to do the right thing, but that Tinker was caught up in the Family Radio / rapture scam and did not have the wherewithal to make the right decisions. Each of us can take or leave that as we choose, of course, but I will infer into it that Harold Camping was able to manipulate such people with his bogus threats and promises -- which is something that we can probably all agree on!

Regarding animals as property: property rights and responsibilities are a very important part of animal guardianship; among other things, they give teeth to our surrender and adoption contracts and prevent the government or a private party from confiscating my animals without due process. As an animal rescuer and caretaker, I will continue to oppose any attempts to remove those property rights and responsibilities from animal caretakers. I am sure that groups like In Defense of Animals mean well, but IDA is a lobbyist / advocacy group and not a rescue or shelter, so they are not dealing with the same realities that we are in the world of rescue, rehab and adoption. I agree that the responsibilities of animal care need to be more carefully defined and understood by each of us who chooses to take on those responsibilities, and that appropriate regulation and enforcement is needed.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy