For heaven's sake

I would rather work for the elimination of cruelty and abuse to animals than waste time arguing how they would fare in another life. However, Ron Serge's letter (Heaven Forbid, September 22) requires a reply.

Mr Serge asks: "If pets and animals go to heaven, should they have an advantage over us poor humans? Should there not be a hell as well? Shouldn't man-eating tigers, sharks, crocs, etc. go to hell?"

The answer is quite simple. If there is a hell, I would presume that only evil beings would go there. Non-human animals and children cannot rationally be described as being evil. Regarding carnivorous animals, Mr Serge cannot claim that these would end up in hell because they kill to eat, unless he also believes that all humans who eat meat also end up in hell.

Carnivores cannot live unless they eat meat. Humans, on the other hand, can live healthily on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

It is, therefore, a case of carnivores killing other animals because they must. Humans, on the other hand, kill other animals because they like their taste.

Am I saying meat-eaters go to hell? Not necessarily. But to be consistent, one who believes carnivores deserve hell, must also believe that meat-eating humans deserve hell even more, simply because, in the case of most humans, meat eating is unnecessary.

I am quite certain that Mr Serge's intention in writing was to ridicule the belief in a heaven comprising non-human animals.

But the joke's on him, since if God follows his logic, and if, as I presume, he eats meat, this would guarantee him a place in hell.