Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned selling pet cats and dogs and walking them in public places in the country's capital Riyadh to preserve public morals.
That sounds pretty outrageous, doesn't it?
Then shouldn't we be just as outraged by animal rights advocates? They would also ban the selling of cats and dogs, and would outlaw the ownership of animals altogether. So, which is worse? Religious totalitarianism or some other form of totalitarianism? Totalitarians, collectivists of most sorts, will cross your personal boundaries to enforce their ways. They might even have good intentions. But, do the ends justify the means? Usually not.
Would you vote into office someone who was a such a religious fanatic that they would ban you from having a dog, or would severely restrict your ownership of a pet? Then think on this: Barack Obama supports animal rights. He said so. Are you going to vote for him?