THE BOOMING TREND OF ANIMAL IDOLATRY
A new law went into effect in the State of Alabama on 1 October that, perhaps unintentionally, pitted two wings of the vast, over-the-top, animal-loving segment of society against each other. The law goes by the nickname “Beau’s Law,” which, I’m told, is named after a dog that suffered through the deprivations the law is intended to prevent. We already had an animal cruelty law that has been on the books for decades and a relatively new law entitled Cruelty to a Dog or Cat that is further divided into first degree (a felony) and second degree (a misdemeanor).
But that was not deemed enough by the animal-rights advocates that lobbied our honorables in Montgomery for this newest crime-fighting tool. Maybe that is because this one specifically targets inhumane (is it fitting to use that term when speaking of non-humans?) living conditions for dogs.
If you were wondering why the law Cruelty to a Dog or Cat only includes dogs and cats rather than, say, pigs, fish, reptiles, or cockroaches, the answer is that the latter list does not pass the “Fluffy Test.” For most animal-rights advocates, the animal in question must be adorable to receive their support.
Beau’s Law mandates such things as access to food, water, and shelter, and places restrictions on types of tethering devices permissible. This all seems well and good, and makes one wonder how far our civilization has fallen for such things to require legislation. However, one of the requirements of the law is that dog houses have “bedding for cold weather when necessary [and]...has a roof, walls, and a solid floor.”
I had two dogs growing up, both of which I was very fond. The first dog usually slept on our porch, which had a solid floor and a roof, but no bedding. The second dog had a dog house, which she sometimes used, and it had a roof and walls, but no floor. The dog slept in the dirt and, as far as I know, this did not take away from her quality of life in the least. When lounging around various parts of our property, she even seemed to prefer dirt to grass. She would wallow in it with a big smile on her face.
Most humans would not prefer dirt for naps and lounging, but (and, yes, this often needs to be said) dogs are not humans. That is really something I think would be beneficial for us all to keep in mind when contemplating these matters. Looks like our family would have been in violation of Beau’s Law with both of my dear dogs.
The aforementioned two groups pitted against each other by Beau’s Law I have labeled the Animal Rights Militants (ARM) and the Lazy Self-Centered Dog Owners (LSCDO). Both groups claim to “love” animals. Neither really do, strictly speaking. What they are actually claiming to love are adorable mammals who pass the “Fluffy Test.” So both groups are, in reality, claiming to love dogs (in particular). One group is serious and one is disingenuous.
The ARM is serious. They love dogs. Many, if not most, have elevated dogs to the same level of dignity as a human being. Many even put them on a higher plane. Some of the latter will admit this, while some will sheepishly deny it because, deep down, they understand that this is a form of mental derangement.
The ARM is filled with people whose social skills and understanding of image-bearing human beings has become so warped that they are incapable of forging loving, lasting relationships with humans. So they transfer their feelings to the fluffies, who are always happy to see them (or seem to be) and cannot talk. Therefore they cannot express a contrary opinion, ask to turn the music down, espouse conservative opinions, or leave the toilet seat up. Building a “relationship” with a dog is not complicated and requires no real effort or investment. So they are ideal companions to the ARM.
Then we have the LSCDO. They will tell you they “love” dogs, but what they really love (or like) is owning dogs. If they actually cared for the dogs’ welfare, there would be no need for laws that prohibit things like tethering a dog to the trailer hitch of a pickup truck (I used to have a LSCDO neighbor who did exactly this).
They are lazy because they refuse to work to make necessary accommodations for the dogs they choose to possess. They are self-centered because they care nothing for their neighbors who may not like dogs or, at least, do not want the dogs on their property defecating in their yards, scattering their trash, destroying their property, urinating on their vehicle tires, and terrorizing their children.
No, the LSCDO crowd thinks that since they have made a decision to own dogs, then you are encumbered with the repercussions of the dogs’ activity, as well - whether you like it or not. I have had multiple instances of dealing with the LSCDO in my own neighborhood. I will recount just one from a few years back.
My next-door neighbor’s dog, who came about waist-high to me, was continuously jumping the fence onto my property, where he would do all those things that hyper dogs do. We learned that we could not keep our children’s outside toys outside or they would be destroyed. No slippers were safe on the porch. We were woken in the middle of the night by our surveillance cameras being triggered. My elderly mother next door was uncomfortable walking to the mailbox for fear of the dog.
I tried to do the “right thing” and have a civil conversation with the neighbor, rather than immediately take matters into my own hands. I did this even knowing that a reasonable man who could be persuaded with sane logic would probably not be a man who would belong to the LSCDO in the first place.
The first and second conversations were civil enough. The man assured me he would correct the situation both times. In what I assume was a method to win me over to his point of view, he explained that the dog was a stray that he took in because, “I just have a heart for animals.”
“Tell you what,” I retorted, “would you do this for me? Would you reach down into your bountiful, loving heart and develop a heart for me, my wife, my children, and our property? Do you think you could do that?”
Apparently the man was unable to well up such deep feelings, for there was subsequently a third conversation in which I explained to the man I was to the point of pressing criminal charges against him. He turned nasty and loud, using a string of profanities to tell me how utterly unreasonable I was being. The problem was then finally corrected without an invitation to supper.
God instructed us to exercise dominion over His created animals - not equate them with His image-bearing human creations. Thus, we should not abuse or mistreat them without warrant. The greatest threat to our obedience and devotion to God is idolatry. “The human heart,” said Calvin, “is a perpetual idol factory.”Our propensity to take something good and turn it into an idol is immense.
Those who practice unwarranted abuse of animals should absolutely be punished. However, when we have reached the point that we prefer that our local peace officers spend their finite time and resources investigating and arresting citizens who don't have solid floors in their doghouses rather than devoting their time to crimes committed against human beings (especially children and the elderly), we have embraced idolatry and mental derangement.
