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.
Very true, Mr. Doggrell. I suggested a similar piece to Dr. Fleming several years back. I would suggest a third category that includes police officers and firefighters, who have absolutely elevated dogs above the level of humans. We had a case locally where a police dog was killed “in the line of duty.” The dog received a “funeral” and all the regional cops, firefighters, and EMS did a massive procession with their lights on, in the same manner they would a fallen human officer. In fact, the dogs are now referred to as “officers” and have, basically, the same rights as actual police officers. The human police officers will sic a dog on a suspect, or anyone the want to, and if this person kicks or punches the dog, they are charged with a felony for attacking an “officer.” It’s my experience that when a large, aggressive dog leaps for your throat or testicles, the natural human reaction is to attempt to protect yourself. Protecting yourself is a felony. The human K-9 officers I know, routinely laugh about the damage the dogs cause to the suspects/perpetrators. They find it funny. I asked one of them, why not just have “police lions?”
Another ridiculous case that occurred locally involved an old man who lived out in the woods. We have a serious problem locally with rabies and raccoons and feral cats are especially afflicted, to the point that health warnings are regularly issued and they have a huge baiting program to attempt to get rabies vaccine into the animals. This old guy, who owned several dogs, was worried about the abundant raccoons biting one of his dogs and the dogs getting rabies. He rigged up a rain barrel trap for raccoons, where they would fall into the rain barrel and drown, similar to many traps I’ve seen used to kills rats and mice in a five gallon bucket. Someone turned him in. He was charged with a number of animal cruelty “crimes” and ultimately sentenced to years in prison. I would have given him an award for ridding the neighborhood of rabid raccoons. I don’t see much difference between killing rats and mice and killing raccoons. What is the difference?
The Idolatry described here by Mr Doggrell and JamesD robs people of human dignity. Perhaps that is the purpose, at least for those who influence the Arm crowd and and for those who promote dogs as police officers? Do the cops not know how silly it looks when they give a dog a full police funeral and refer to them as “Officer Fido”? It’s sillier than something little kids might do.
We have a very large population of LSCDOs around here. One dare not leave the garbage can out for very long after pickup or they will fill it up with little blue bags. Apparently they only like the fluffy bits and don’t want responsibility for the nastier side of animal ownership. And they don’t have one dog. They have two or more, the more dissimilar the better. People used to almost be willing to kill to have a matched team of horses or dogs, but that was a more rational symmetrically oriented society, unlike ours where diversity infests every aspect of our lives. I like dogs but do not own them because they are expensive and I need the ground they take up for food production. I also do not want to spend time cleaning up after them so when the the LSCDOs presume to unload their effluvia in my trash can, which goes to the curb maybe once every three or four weeks I take extreme exception at having to curate this stinking pile next to my house for as much as a month. I had a neighbor, now moved away, who rarely cleaned up after his dog so on a hot summer morning, when I would go out the back door, it was not the smell of our flowers or herbs or the soil exhaling that I smelled when I would like to have sat outside to eat.
I have been twice been charged while walking in my neighborhood by dogs. The first time a neighbor to the dog charging me laughed at us scornfully when I shouted at the animal to check its progress and alert its owner. I didn’t know the dog, but apparently the cackling hag felt that fluffy always means harmless and I am not a real man for not submitting to an unwarranted anonymous crotch search. The second time was in the park across the street where the animal covered about seventy yards at top speed to reach us. Pulling up short only when I shouted at the owner to please (I said the word) call his dog in. He put it on its leash and barked, “Is that good enough for you?!” as he passed. I merely wordlessly stared the creep down as we continued on our way. I had my umbrella that day and it would have done for one as good as the other. I did him a favor in alerting him. He didn’t take it well. I could go on at greater length about such incidents, but won’t.
I wish that I could say that this is a sign of the deterioration of general societal morals, but people have always, to some degree, treated their own animals as better than their fellow human beings and used them as weapons against neighbors and others. They sort of become the incarnation of their animal selves that can possibly get away with acts that the owners would like to perpetrate against their fellow man. Nothing fluffy in this. Just pure human nature in its fallen state.
Ever hear of “The Three S’s of Country Living”?