Gone to the dogs | 2CJC Project

So who's heard of Leona Helmsley? You may have known who she was before she died, but if you read or listen to the news then you couldn't have missed her. She was the woman who became a billionaire managing her late husband's real estate in New York, and she went to prison for tax evasion. Interesting life I guess - but the most interesting thing about Leona Helmsley is how much she hated people and loved dogs.

I love dogs, really love them, I have four and I couldn't imagine life without dogs. But my love is definitely not on the level of Leona Helmsley's love. Get this - when Leona Helmsley died, she left her huge reserves of money to dogs and dogs alone. A New York Times article describes it:

Her instructions, specified in a two-page “mission statement,” are that the entire trust, valued at $5 billion to $8 billion and amounting to virtually all her estate, be used for the care and welfare of dogs, according to two people who have seen the document and who described it on condition of anonymity.

The two people who described the statement said Mrs. Helmsley signed it in 2003 to establish goals for the multibillion-dollar trust that would disburse assets after her death.

The first goal was to help indigent people, the second to provide for the care and welfare of dogs. A year later, they said, she deleted the first goal.

Now, I contend, this woman didn't so much love dogs as she absolutely detested people. By the accounts of people who knew her, Helmsley was indeed "known for her sharp tongue and impatience with humanity."

Albert Mohler has a great perspective on this spectacle:

"We really do know that feeding fellow human beings is more important than feeding dogs, and that care for humans should take precedence over care for animals...Confusion about this abounds. Radical animal rights activists claim no moral distinction between human beings and other creatures. Spain proposes to give apes and other "hominids" legal rights. Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University argues that some domestic animals such as cows and pigs should be granted moral preference over human infants in some situations. Scientists grounded in a naturalistic worldview are more and more hard pressed to define just what makes humans unique as a species. Leona Helmsley is not alone in her confusion...But anyone who thinks that a dog is as morally significant as a human being is lacking in moral judgment...The case of Leona Helmsley -- whatever the eventual outcome of legal battles ahead -- makes this point with absolute clarity. Her worldview had, quite literally, gone to the dogs."