« Meanwhile in the Philippines | Main | In the text »
June 13, 2005
Mother of the Year
This is via Jonathon Last at Galley Slaves:
There really are no words to describe this...
A mother was "so concerned" about her dangerous pit bulls that she...shut her son in the basement while she did errands. The son got out, the dog mauled him to death. Her response:
"It's Nicky's time to go," she said in the interview. "When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Unbelieveable. May the child rest in peace.
Maybe someday the mother will be able face the truth about what happened and why.
You're right: there are no words....may this terrible incident serve as a warning to others that the child's safety must be the mother's primary concern.
Posted by: Lynn at Jun 13, 2005 12:31:12 PM
This. Makes. Me. Sick!
There really are no words...
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Jun 13, 2005 12:34:13 PM
Nice Catholic family in San Francisco.
His funeral was conducted by his great-uncle, a Catholic priest, at St. Anne of the Sunset Catholic Church.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 12:36:49 PM
No one should own pit bulls. The mother should be charged with child endangerment and child abuse for keeping a dangerous animal in the house and telling the boy to stay home. Why didnt she take him with her?
Posted by: Wilma Tyndale at Jun 13, 2005 12:43:09 PM
I have no intent to stir up religious baiting, but that attitude of fatalism runs strong in some religions. "It must have been their time to go" is a very, very common quote when I read about mass accidents in Saudi Arabia, such as a crush of worshipers during the Haj.
Still, I wonder how much in her right mind the mother was when some reporter hounded her for a quote. Sometimes distraught, unthinking utterances end up sounding as if they were sensible, carefully thought proclamations by the time they appear in a newspaper.
Posted by: Albertus M at Jun 13, 2005 1:06:24 PM
Stop it, Wilma! There's no animal in the world so dangerous as man, but so far we haven't been outlawed yet.
The problem here is the dogs' owner, not the dogs. While they are born powerful, they are not natural-born killers. They can be trained to be loyal defenders of the family. These dogs were obviously never properly trained.
I am sad beyond words for the boy and for the mother, who has obviously gotten her priorities so far out of order that she caused her son's violent death. May she someday understand and repent, if the guilt doesn't drive her to suicide.
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 1:07:13 PM
There are many pit bull owners who have controlled, trained, well-behaved dogs ..... until they let loose and maul someone to death. Doesn't mean every pit bull will kill but the potential is Always there.
Posted by: Nguoi Dang Chay at Jun 13, 2005 1:16:29 PM
Yurodivi is right. Pit bulls didn't evolve themselves, they were created by human beings for the "entertainment" of fighting. Anyone who has ever seen an undercover video of staged dog fights knows how unbelievably cruel they are.
The breed has been damaged by poor genetics and overaggressivness. I agree that no one with children should have Pit Bulls. They are also the breed of choice for drug dealers and I've seen many young men in the inner city areas of Cleveland, east and west, parading them around.
The response of this "mother" is pitiful beyond words. I hope she's prosecuted to the full extent of the law for the danger she placed her child in.
Meanwhile, I still fondly remember "Petey" from the little rascals. He was one sweet dog.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 13, 2005 1:16:46 PM
This is big news in the SF area.
No one is talking about prosecuting the mom. And I don't think attacking her right now is the right thing to do, whatever she says or does. She's obviously deeply grieved, as who wouldn't be.
I've known many well-behaved pit bulls. I met a sweety-pie of the species last weekend. But I admit they do make me a bit edgy.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 1:22:34 PM
I think Mom should be charged with reckless endangerment at the very least.
She knew the dog was dangerous, or she wouldn't have locked up either the dog or her son. But she decided to restrain the one who had opposable thumbs, and was hence more able to open a locked door. Why? So the dog wouldn't feel put upon? If she thought the dog could break the door, there wasn't any safe way to have the boy at home at all.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Jun 13, 2005 1:32:01 PM
Personally, I recommend the Korean Solution for pit bulls. Yummy.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 1:33:14 PM
Kids + various dangerous dog breeds = harm to kids. I have had numerous battles with my sister-in-law over her aggressive terrier around my son. It's the only thing we've ever really argued about - and she's Presbyterian!
Why do people with dogs and no kids insist they are correct about dogs and kids? Kids who are not used to being around dogs (sorry, we just do not have the time or energy for a dog) are not good around aggressive dogs.
Why does she insist on wanting to use her "nipping and biting" dog to teach my son how to be around a dog?
I grew up with dogs: calm beagles and mutts. I know a bit about dogs. My son is not afraid of nice, calm dogs...
Anyway, glad to get THAT off my chest...
(Yes, Benedetto, Korean meat is rather delicious. One of the best Asian restaurants, IMHO...)
Posted by: Brigid at Jun 13, 2005 1:46:13 PM
A pit bull is not like a raging human psychopath that will turn in murderous rage at the slightest provocation. Experienced owners put the dogs in their proper place in the "pack" and keep them there. They don't tolerate bad behavior.
Admittedly, there is a lot of potential for disaster, and if I had kids of any age, I wouldn't want to have a pit bull (in fact, I have neither children nor pit bulls!). But that doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to have both.
My solution would be to require people who get pit bulls to be trained *with* the dog instead of just shipping the dog off for "obedience school," which is usually a waste of money. That Cesar Millan guy on TV always says, "I *rehabilitate* dogs. I *train* owners."
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 1:58:32 PM
San Francisco has the highest population density in the U.S. outside Manhattan. We also have more dogs than kids. The dog situation is sickening in SF. There's crap on crowded sidewalks and city parks everywhere where kids should be falling down and playing. People feel freer each day to bring their dogs into stores and eating establishments. There's plenty of dog violence too. Part of it is the breeds some people keep, but part is the nature of the city. There's no room and the room there is is no place for pets.
This is a bit off topic, but it really is becoming a significant reason for the flight of families and the sane from SF.
Posted by: Jack Smith at Jun 13, 2005 2:00:33 PM
Why would anyone have any dogs that hadn't been "fixed" in their home with or without children? I wouldn't want to get between two chihuahuas in heat.
Also, I agree with Ed. Who locks up their kid and gives their dogs the run of the house?
Posted by: JohnM at Jun 13, 2005 2:20:20 PM
It's the mother's time to "go". (To jail that is).
Posted by: Tony Miller at Jun 13, 2005 2:39:32 PM
You all are so judgmental and uncatholic. Who are you to deny this woman the right to choose?
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jun 13, 2005 2:53:35 PM
I read this in the SF Chronicle and was sickened. I have no idea why the mom locked the boy in the basement (which was a family room, not a dark, damp storage area) instead of taking him with her or sending him with her daughter to a picnic. She said she didn't want to put the dogs in there because they would go through all the bags that were packed for their imminent move to Oregon. From what I've read, no one has talked about charging her with anything. I also don't get her fatalistic view.
People should remember that this is big news in SF because of a lethal dog mauling a few years ago by a couple of presa canarios.
I don't think pits should be outlawed, it has a lot to do with their upbringing and in particular, their handing between 3-16 weeks of age. My in-laws have a wonderful female pit that I trust with my kids. Pits, because of their publicity are the choice of dog for gangs, meth addicts, and the overly macho, who encourage the aggressive behavior. (I should note that after the other mauling death, lots of people started shopping for presa canarios. The responsible breeders put a stop to adopting out puppies for awhile.)
From Fatal Dog Attacks:
If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.
In the SF case, the mother said the female was in heat and the male was intact and acting very aggressive lately because of that. A very good reason to spay and neuter dogs.
Posted by: mayangrl at Jun 13, 2005 3:00:07 PM
(Hey Victor, have you seen "Saving Face" yet? Saw it last night.)
In San Francisco, it would make perfect sense to lock your kid in the basement, secured with a shovel, and let your mating dogs have the run of the house. Who knows, may the kid has a gameboy, a bed and a small refrigerator down in his dungeon. One must treat animals humanely and let them get exercise.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 3:00:44 PM
There is no unsafe breed. There are unsafe individual dogs, and they are made that way sometimes by unsafe breeders, and sometimes by unsafe owners. There are also people who mean well and might even have successfully owned dogs before, but who honestly don't understand breed temperaments and individual dog personalities. (See unsafe owners.)
That said, cocker spaniels have the highest numbers of attacks. Overbreeding.
In general, breed temperament is something that breeders are supposed to guard carefully. A dog which is pathologically shy and fearful of strangers, or pathologically territorial, is a dog that should never be sold or bred. Breeders don't like to talk about culling, but sometimes it has to be done -- particularly in large breeds or breeds with powerful jaws. I think maybe small-breed breeders aren't as sensitive to this, so more vicious dogs get out on the street.
Another big reason for dog-on-dog attacks is dogs that have seizures being kept with other dogs. There's something about a dog going into grand mal that often provokes attack from other dogs -- very weird, since dogs don't attack humans in that state, and indeed show great concern and care. Seizures have been showing up lately in many breeds, thanks again to idiot breeders who don't keep in touch with owners and unscrupulous breeders who don't care about the general welfare and hide their breeding problems.
Posted by: Maureen at Jun 13, 2005 3:27:04 PM
Does anyone remember the story a couple weeks ago about a stray dog that rescued a little girl in where was it, Kenya I think? Those examples could be multiplied over and over. And through my husband's career as a police officer I learned of many faithful police dogs who literally saved officers' lives over and over.
Benedetto's flippant attitude towards dogs is pitiful. It is human beings who fashioned all the breeds that exist. And it is God who ultimately created all that exists.
I have had several canine companions over the years that brought me nothing but joy.
And personally, I'd like to see all "purebred" breeders cease and desist until the shelters are emptied out. And yes, Mayangirl, all responsible dog people should spay and neuter.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 13, 2005 3:46:36 PM
Sorry Christine, I don't like dogs.
Bite me.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 3:55:20 PM
Bingo Jack! I was hoping that I wasn't the only one who appreciated that point. The reality is that most San Franciscan's don't have the room to have the dogs they insist on having.
Posted by: Ken Crawford at Jun 13, 2005 3:55:25 PM
Christine, God also created black widows. I smash them every chance I get. And God created rattlesnakes, and I'll shoot every one I can find. God creaeted termites, and I kill those regularly, too, as well as any ants I find in my house. And I pull weeds, knowing God made them, too. Just because God made some critter or part of creation does not mean we need to live with it, or even like it. Different cultures have very different relationships with animals that pass as "pets" in America. For some people, a rabbit is a pet. For others, it's dinner. Same for cats and dogs, in some countries.
There is nothing innately "noble" about dogs in my book, anymore than a goose can save somebody, or a rooster can be an alarm clock. Animals is, basically, food and tools.
I think the most pathetic thing is that in a place like San Francisco dogs really get treated better (by law) than a lot of people. When was the last time you were in San Francisco? I was there ten days ago.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 4:04:21 PM
"Sorry Christine, I don't like dogs.
Bite me."
Nah, I wouldn't do that. Just don't ever come around dressed as a fire hydrant :) :)
As the psalmist wrote, "All your creatures, wild and tame, bless the Lord." Amen!!
Posted by: Christine at Jun 13, 2005 4:05:23 PM
Oops, that should have been all "YOU" creatures
Posted by: Christine at Jun 13, 2005 4:06:13 PM
Thank you, Christine. Dogs can bring us (and them) much joy. However adopting one is not a responsibility not to be undertaken lightly.
Dogs deserve our respect and care.
Posted by: Lynn at Jun 13, 2005 4:06:40 PM
Now you did it.
Don't be trying to quote Scripture to me to support dogs.
No, sir.
1 Kings 14:11 When one of Jeroboam's line dies in the city, dogs will devour him...
1 Kings 21:23-24 ..."The dogs shall devour Jezebel in the district of Jezreel.") "When one of Ahab's line dies in the city, dogs will devour him;"...
Psalm 59:
Have no mercy on these worthless traitors. Selah
Each evening they return, growling like dogs, prowling the city.
Their mouths pour out insult; sharp words are on their lips. They say: "Who is there to hear..."
Each evening they return, growling like dogs, prowling the city.
They roam about as scavengers; if they are not filled, they howl. ...
Isa 56:10-11
"My watchmen are blind, all of them unaware; They are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; Dreaming as they lie there, loving their sleep. They are relentless dogs, they know not when they have enough. These are the shepherds who know no discretion; Each of them goes his own way, every one of them to his own gain:"
Phil. 3:2 "Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers!..."
Rev. 22:15 "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit."
---
In Scripture, dogs are bad news.
I tend to agree.
But if you have a cultural fondness for them, I hope you can appreciate that I don't share that fondness. To me, at best they are useful as tools (seeing eye dogs, farm dogs), but I don't think they should be urban pets.
I don't like the way people bring them into supermarkets in their purse, or let them roam around and poop on other people's yards, or train them for fighting matches. Sure, you can blame all this on the people. But in a culture that feels that "dog is man's best friend" you are not going to solve these problems.
Dog is not man's best friend.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 4:21:03 PM
Psalmist? Wasn't that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?
----
I wrote a paper in high school on various religions and their opinions of dogs. Outside of the book of Tobit, ever mention of the canine in holy scripture is negative, usually 'and the dogs shall lick their blood' or something like that.
----
I like dogs. But I wouldn't buy one unless I decided to take up shepherding or hunting. Dogs were bred for work, and I wouldn't want to reduce one to a housepet anymore than I'd want to refashion a shotgun into napkin holders. I guess I just don't get the urge for pets in general. Seems like a waste of money. And Catechism 2418 says that to spend undue money on them (like, say, veterinary surgery bills) indicates messed-up priorities.
Posted by: hieronymus at Jun 13, 2005 4:22:37 PM
Michele Catalano at asmallvictory.net covered this a few days ago. The original story had all sorts of horrid quotations by the mother. She's under investigation for this: apparently there was a history with the boy and the dogs, ergo the locking of the boy in the basement with a shovel to block the door. Oh, and the mother berates her dead son too... Scum.
Posted by: Ian at Jun 13, 2005 4:24:11 PM
In San Francisco, it would make perfect sense to lock your kid in the basement, secured with a shovel, and let your mating dogs have the run of the house.
Yes, that is exactly what SF is like, and you should know because you were there 10 days ago.
And this sort of thing happens in PA all the time. And the cultural wasteland that is NC, sees this all the time.
Posted by: mayangrl at Jun 13, 2005 4:39:41 PM
One thing I have learned lately from this blog is what remarkable things people choose feel strongly about. A week ago I would have thought that militant dog haters were an even more unlikely subculture than militant public breast feeders, but live and learn, I guess.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 13, 2005 4:42:19 PM
@#!* typo:
should have been "choose TO feel"
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 13, 2005 4:46:12 PM
Give this mom a break, for the love of God.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 4:48:39 PM
James, I think a lot of this has to do with increasing bluntness and "in-your-face-ness" of modern American culture.
Personally, I'd much rather have breastfeeding "in my face" than somebody's dog--be it a chihuahua, a pit bull, or a full sized poodle. I'd much rather have an unknown baby spit up on me than have somebody's dog come up and lick me uninvited, or bark at me as I pass a car in a parking lot, or sh*t on the sidewalk. I have little love to too many dogs in too little space, and the way that people think everybody should love their pet.
I'll take human babies any day of the week over dogs.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 4:50:33 PM
I don't think Benedetto is a militant dog-hater. He does seem to like dogs. Though whether well-done or rare he doesn't say...
Re: the unfavorable attitude towards dogs in the Bible: if you think that's bad read the Koran sometime. Or just read up on what people in the Middle East think of dogs. Newsflash: dogs have always, in general, been thought less than well of in that part of the world where barring a few breeds bred for hunting most dogs were scavengers who lived in packs outside the villages, and whose functions were mostly to eat the garbage. And animals in most of the world were thought of as mostly tools and food. The sentimental anthropomorphizing of certain animal breeds (or all of them if you've gone into deep Disney) is a phenomenon of our modern culture. Two hundred years ago if you had said to someone that animals were here to give us love and be our boon companions you'd have gotten a blank stare from most people.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 13, 2005 4:59:17 PM
I saw today a bumper sticker saying "My dog is smarter than your honor student." I know it's wrong but I could only hope that the girl in the car would be spayed. With an attitude like that I doubt she will become a mother anyway.
Posted by: Tim F. at Jun 13, 2005 5:05:14 PM
Albertus:
>"It must have been their time to go" is a
>very, very common quote when I read about
>mass accidents in Saudi Arabia, such as a
>crush of worshipers during the Haj.
It's part of the fallout of extreme predestination belief, where God is so soveriegn that man is but a puppet in God's Will. Islam has had this problem from its outset, and a lot of Christians like to "Reinvent Islam".
You see, total predestination is very attractive. No need to strive for anything, because It's All God's Will and Will Happen Anyway. No need to put out any effort, because what happens is God's Will. Never get blamed for anything, because "It's Not My Fault -- It Was God's Will!" Just cruise along on autopilot, because whatever happens to you was predestined to be from before the foundation of the world.
Posted by: Ken at Jun 13, 2005 5:14:16 PM
Tim F.: I don't say this often but... lighten up. It was just a bumper sticker, one of the many that have appeared as a response to the ubiquitous, obnoxious, "My Son/Daughter is an Honor Student at So-and-So." Maybe, just maybe the person who put that bumper sticker on their car will raise their children not to brag, thus going against the tide of current child-rearing, or rather, -flaunting practices.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 13, 2005 5:23:53 PM
From yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle:
Maureen Faibish said she put Nicholas rather than the dogs in the basement because the room, which also served as a playroom for the children, was filled with plastic bags in preparation of their move. She figured the dogs would have destroyed the bags filled with clothes.Before she left the house, Faibish sent her 9-year-old son to the store to buy Nicholas a soda, bagel and chips. He also had video games to keep him busy.
"Nicky was happy down there," she said.Faibish declined to say what triggered such concern that she insisted her son stay in the basement, away from the dogs.
"I don't want to go into any of that detail," she said. "That's between me and the detectives."Clearly struggling with her emotions, Faibish said the death of her son had become "a media frenzy.'' On one hand, she continued to defend pit bulls and her dogs.
"Even after the whole thing,'' she said, "I'm not mad at my dogs. I just love them to death.''Ella and Rex II were "family dogs," Faibish said. They spent most of their time inside the house, slept in bed with the children every night and woke Maureen Faibish up every morning by licking her face. Ella was trained to lick her makeup off and kiss her ear.
"The police killed the wrong dog if you ask me," Faibish said.
She would never want Rex back in their house.
"Absolutely not,'' Faibish said. "I told them I wanted him put down. I think of Rex as someone who molested my child, murdered my child.''
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 5:36:05 PM
I think the most pathetic thing is that in a place like San Francisco dogs really get treated better (by law) than a lot of people. When was the last time you were in San Francisco? I was there ten days ago.
I live here. We own two dogs. Back off.
Lighten up, Benedetto. And give up the idea that you know everything.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 5:36:49 PM
italics off, sorry.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 5:37:37 PM
ooo the great Benedetto. Who we have observed on many threads to be the Be All And End All of All Wisdom.
Lighten up.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 5:39:23 PM
Ten days and he's an expert.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 13, 2005 5:40:54 PM
Nancy, I expected you to show a little more concern that a 12-year old boy was killed by a family "pet."
Here's another story from today in South Africa:
Gordonia - As three pit bull terriers, owned by a policeman, mauled a seven-year-old boy to death, his grandfather tried in vain to fight them off, police said on Monday.The boy's grandfather was also taken to hospital, but was lucky to escape with his life, said spokesperson Cherelle Ehlers. Gordonia - As three pit bull terriers, owned by a policeman, mauled a seven-year-old boy to death, his grandfather tried in vain to fight them off, police said on Monday.
The boy's grandfather was also taken to hospital, but was lucky to escape with his life, said spokesperson Cherelle Ehlers.
And the feelings of a grandmother who lost a grandson in January:
The grandmother of a boy who was killed by a neighbor's dogs wants Fresno County officials to expand areas where leashes are required and consider banning pit bulls.
Sharon Babcock's grandson, Tyler Babcock, 6, was mauled outside her home near Clovis in January by one pit bull and a mixed breed, according to the Fresno County Sheriff's Department. Babcock brought the proposal before the Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
There are too many news stories of children being killed by dogs.
Why?
How many children do you want to watch die while I "lighten up?"
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 5:49:50 PM
Sorry for the mangled post. I'm sick of hearing about kids killed by "pets."
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 5:51:06 PM
Well I sure would get in line to slap the mom. But a law allowing the slapping of the stupid is a lifelong dream of mine.
Children should not be around dogs unless the dogs are under the control of an adult. Usually someone who is 12 would be safe around a well trained family dog. But when males go after a female in heat they will regard other dogs or even people as potential threats. Most dog maulings do not happen out of the blue. There is usually a reason. Unfortunately that reason is usually that the dog owner does not have a clue about dog behavior and ignores warning signs till it is too late.
And lady it was not your son's time to go- You made it his time by your indefensible actions.
Hope you never serve on a Jury. " Well the drunk did hit the girl walking home from the library but gee it must of been her time to go".
Posted by: Paula JL at Jun 13, 2005 5:53:11 PM
"Even after the whole thing,'' she said, "I'm not mad at my dogs. I just love them to death."
A different set of "family values," wouldn't you say?
Posted by: Jimmy Mac at Jun 13, 2005 5:54:01 PM
Funny...I took the article about this kid's death to a city council meeting just last week in an effort to get a ban on pit bulls in the city limits. We have a neighbor that keeps one in her house with her two young children. The trouble is when she opens the front door, the dog runs out and runs the streets.
Are my kids safe in their own front yard? Can somebody give me a guarantee?
The only good pit bull is a dead pit bull.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jun 13, 2005 6:45:13 PM
Hey, Benedetto, you missed Deuteronomy 23:18:
Thou shalt not offer the hire of a strumpet, nor the price of a dog, in the house of the Lord thy God, whatsoever it be that thou hast vowed: because both these are an abomination to the Lord thy God.
Posted by: xpat at Jun 13, 2005 6:58:52 PM
Benedetto,
many, many more children are killed by their parents or by a separated or divorced parent's significant other, than are killed by dogs.
Perhaps we should outlaw divorce? Or should we just outlaw adults altogether, since they are such a danger to children?
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 7:29:46 PM
midwestmom,
that's a very sad attitude. The dogs aren't the problem -- the irresponsible dog owners are. Killing all the dogs, while it might titillate your bloodlust, would not solve the problem.
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 7:30:51 PM
Yurodivi,
I'm sure you understand the difference between adults and dogs.
Adults are vital caregivers for children.
Dogs are optional "accessories" (except for those working to assist the handicapped or police) in urban areas.
Please try again.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 7:38:52 PM
Look, I don't own a dog and so I have no dog in this fight, literal or metaphorical. But does Benedetto even notice that all the killings by dogs that he cites are by pit bulls? It's a pretty big jump from the nastiness of pit bulls and the twenty fatalities a year that they and similar breeds cause to the declaration that all dog owners (which means 65 million Americans) are doing something improper. Furthermore, he objects not only to genuinely offensive behavior like dogs who lick on him or defecate in improper places, but to dogs who merely bark at him? What a wimp!
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 13, 2005 7:49:14 PM
James...nobody ever gets killed by the family cat, or the family turtle, or the family goldfish, or the family parakeet.
Why do we have to keep dogs, which opponents of breed-specific laws say are genetically indistinguishable from breed to breed and even from wolves?
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 8:03:51 PM
I don't know. My cat is always running in front of me, and has tripped me up several times. I think she's up to something.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 13, 2005 8:26:44 PM
This has been interesting, but I'm off to a dinner party with Cruella de Vil.
I still don't understand why Americans love dogs so much. Candians don't have so much trouble outlawing pit bulls in their cities. Mexico has a very different view toward dogs. And dogs are more food than pets in much of Asia, and, as mentioned, mostly despised in the Middle East.
I think it is just a cultural oddity.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 8:27:02 PM
Seems to me that there are many young couples (and singles) who own dogs, more than there were 25 years ago. And, if you listen to them, many of them refer to their pets as if they are their children. So, I tend to think that dogs in this case are for people who don't have the juevos to raise children. Either that or there are lots and lots of infertile young marrieds in this town.
I had a Mexican friend who was disgusted that "you Americans" allow dogs in the house.
This story is interesting in that the woman doesn't seem to see any problem in what she did. Points out the need, as we see in the theological debates, for a properly formed conscience. Most people, I hope, wouldn't even consider having such a dog in the house. We have young children and we won't have ANY dog until I am convinced the situation will be safe. (Although we've had bears go through our garbage)
Some odd quotes:
"Even after the whole thing,'' she said, "I'm not mad at my dogs. I just love them to death.''
She would never want Rex back in their house.
"Absolutely not,'' Faibish said. "I told them I wanted him put down. I think of Rex as someone who molested my child, murdered my child.''
So, she loves "someone" who murdered her child. See what I mean, the dog is refered to as "someone" when it is a dog. This isn't normal. I understand affection for pets, but they are not people. It's strange to have to say that, but such is our culture.
Nor, she said, would she caution families who have pit bulls as pets. In the wake of this tragedy, some parents are wondering if they should keep their pit bulls.
"Oh, they should keep their pit bulls,'' Faibish said. "Even though my son has been killed in a tragic accident, I don't think they should be banned. You've just got to worry about them when they are in heat. I didn't know Rex was going to be so possessive.''
Thinking problems here. Nobody is discussing banning them, only that some families are thinking of getting rid of them.
My experience as a paperboy tells me that there are many many many dogs out there that are willing to attack children at the slightest provocation (or none at all).
I think pit bulls should not be allowed to live on property that is within 100 yards of another property with children on it, unless the children know how to use guns, and the guns are big, handy and loaded.
Posted by: Troll at Jun 13, 2005 8:35:22 PM
Trivia of the day: I understand that Benedict XVI likes cats.
Posted by: Lynn at Jun 13, 2005 8:38:44 PM
Children under 13 who were murder victims in 2002: 7.6% of 9,102 murders, or approximately 691 children.
Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
From 1965 to the present, there have been an average of 20 fatal dog attacks every year. This is consistently far, far fewer than those humans who, like Cain, have slain their brothers and sisters, parents and children.
Source: http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id3.html
It makes just as much sense to outlaw or exterminate pit bulls as it does to outlaw fathers. After all, fathers killed their own children in 80.2 percent of child murders in 2002, or about 500 victims.
Who's more dangerous? A dog or a dad?
Force owners to control their dogs, or forbid those owners to have dogs in the future, but on the whole dogs are a net good, performing many helpful functions for the blind, people with epilepsy, etc. etc.
Le plus que je connais les etres humain, le plus j'aime mon chien!
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 8:45:56 PM
" Animals, too, are God's creatures, and even if they do not have the same direct relation to God that man has, they are creatures of his will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation and as important elements in the creation."
Pope Benedict XVI
http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/catholicquotes.html
Posted by: Lynn at Jun 13, 2005 8:46:30 PM
Sorry, that should read, "les êtres humains." Bad SVA!
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 8:49:15 PM
And did I mention that there are 3,500 guide dogs in the US alone? Does that make up at all for the scourge they represent to postal employees and paperboys?
If you think the dog is the problem, you're looking at the wrong end of the leash.
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 13, 2005 8:50:39 PM
Yurodivi,
Wow. That's a huge number of children.
Do the stats separate out step dads and live-ins?
I have noticed that in many child killings there is a step-dad involved, or a live-in, or a visiting boyfriend, or some other irregular family situation.
I still stand by my last paragraph. If you have a pit bull or any other really strong dog living near you, be ready to kill it if it turns on you or your children.
Additionally, consistancy is a small virtue. If we outlawed pit bulls and did nothing about the bad fathers, we would still save 20 lives per year.
And, my response to the french sentence:
sdkgjbkgklsdhg;lkdyh'qwlhtg;oasuih[89;q3hig
Posted by: Troll at Jun 13, 2005 9:03:59 PM
I'm here using Cruella's laptop...she says it is o.k. with her if dogs eat children...she doesn't like children anyway.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 9:06:17 PM
The love of dogs is not an exclusively modern phenomenon. (Though it's better to have kids and dogs than just dogs, I grant you.) The Irish have always loved dogs, to the point of having dogs as legendary heroes, and naming human legendary heroes after dogs. But then, the Irish have been breeding big, gentle wolfhounds and other useful breeds for longer than the Church has been around, even.
"I am giving you an Irish hound. He is a big animal and will make as good a comrade in arms as a powerful man. He has human intelligence and will bark at every man he recognizes as your enemy, but never at your friends; he can tell from a man's face whether he means you well or not. He would lay down his life rather than fail you. His name is Samr."
In defense of purebreds -- it's not a bad idea to have breeds of dogs. It's a useful thing to know what a dog's parents and grandparents were like, what he's going to be good at, what diseases he's likely to catch, and what his temperament is likely to be. There's nothing wrong with mutts, either; hybrid vigor has its points.
But it's not fair to expect good breeders -- people who breed to improve the breed and only sell their dogs to good and well-prepared homes -- to "stop breeding until the pounds are empty". The pounds will never be empty, because mutts and strays are produced by the numerous irresponsible people in this world at a far greater rate than even the worst puppy farm.
Now, a responsible breeder will only have two, maybe three litters from any female they own. (Maybe only one.) The females suitable for breeding will be very few. Males have a longer career, but still, the breeder must be picky. All the other puppies will be spayed and neutered; and if you guess wrong about which pups are breed-worthy, you can't go back and unfix them.
If breeders held off breeding for even a few years, many breed-worthy females would be beyond breeding age, and wouldn't have produced dams to replace them. Their whole breeding program would come to a halt, or be greatly diminished in strength and genetic diversity.
For less numerous breeds, particularly those without much longevity -- like the Irish wolfhound -- that could easily mean the end of the breed. Forever.
Now, I realize some people don't care whether wolfhounds live or die or get subsumed back into the general dog population. That's your right. There's nothing stopping you from going to the pound, or talking to a rescue dog organization, or even from getting a cat or a ferret!
But those of us who do care don't ask the rest of you to subsidize our hobby in any way. We have the right to spend our money and time the way we want, if we aren't neglecting our other responsibilities. (And dogs don't like it if you neglect your other responsibilities. They want to be part of your pack, with you and the other humans securely in charge.) Hey, if sharing life with Irish wolfhounds was good enough for St. Patrick, it's good enough for us!
An eye of sloe, with ear not low,
With horse's breast, with depth of chest,
With breadth of loin, and curve in groin,
And nape set far behind the head -
Such were the dogs that Fingal bred.
Posted by: Maureen at Jun 13, 2005 9:13:29 PM
Ok. So, if I get this straight, we have in one corner:
1)some serious animal lovers that think dogs are getting a bad rap
2)Some serious dog haters that think we ought to leave them with the wolves
3)Some people that appear (shocked! shocked!)that the woman who left her son home with two dogs of deadly pedigree hasn't been charged.
Just so that I know what's going on.
I'm torn by this. Part of me wants to toss this woman into a cell, lock the door and never look back. Part of me grieves with her--whatever she's done, she's paid the price more dearly then any of us. She's a mother that's buried her child.
This poor kid--I can't think of what his last moments must have been like.
It is such a shame.
Posted by: A Holy Fool at Jun 13, 2005 9:17:16 PM
Holy Fool,
Who's in the other corner?
Posted by: Troll at Jun 13, 2005 9:19:33 PM
I nominate Yurodivi to give the Father's Day "reflection" at my parish next Sunday!
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 9:24:09 PM
Even though this has kind of turned into a back and forth between dog-lovers and those who don't (the nerves you hit on a Catholic blog), I'd like to go back to the original mom. Here was my take, only because I try to see everybody in the best possible light.
This is the mom of an almost middle school boy. Having taught 6th and 7th grades for awhile, I can almost picture it.
"Honey, your sister is going on a picnic, do you want to go along?"
"No, I think I'm just going to hang out and play video games".
"You could come shopping with me."
"Are you kidding, Mom?"
"I don't like the way the dogs are acting today, if you're going to be here by yourself I'm going to block off the door. I'll send your brother out for some food. There isn't any reason for you to go upstairs. I'll be back in about an hour".
"Yeah Mom, I'll be fine".
OK, I know it wasn't the best parenting decision in the world, but it probably seemed safe enough to her. In fact, if she really trusted the dogs most of the time, she may have thought she was actually leaving him on the safe side. As far as her will of God quote...imagine coming home to find your child like that, knowing that you are really the only one to blame. Not many people can handle that without going insane (I know if I found one of my sons with a broken neck because I left a gate open, I'd have a very hard time dealing with it, not the same but not entirely different either). I'm sure that in the near future, she'll realize how ridiculous the quote is, and her insides will crumble. Same with the "he didn't listen" quote. If she doesn't blame God or her son, she's the only one left, and she may not be able to handle that just yet.
Anyway, I feel for this woman. She lost her oldest boy. I can't begin to imagine. She is a definite "dog-person" in that dogs become like second children to her. That I don't entirely get, but I've met plenty of people like that and don't see that in itself as being a reason to condemn her. We all make bad decisions. Maybe give her a little break.
Maeana
Posted by: Maeana at Jun 13, 2005 9:24:58 PM
Maeana,
There was no mention in any reports that there was a bathroom available in the basement "family/storage room."
I suspect that after enough time of soda and video games, the kid had to pee.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 13, 2005 9:28:44 PM
There also wasn't a mention that there wasn't, and with the whole "locked in the basement" thing, the ever vigilant media probably would have made sure we knew that too. Most people who spend the money to convert a basement stick in a little toilet/sink thing too.
Maeana
Posted by: Maeana at Jun 13, 2005 9:39:04 PM
Benedetto: love of dogs, and treating them as part of the family, seems to mainly be a Northern European/British thing, even more than in the US. I went to Europe back in the 80s and went to Scotland, England, then over to Belgium, the Netherlands, down through West Germany to Austria, then Switzerland and back up through France on the train back to England (by hydrofoil). At all times my mother and I were astounded that dogs were allowed to come into restaurants with their owners, which is not allowed in any state of the US unless the dog is a guide dog.
I didn't go to Italy though. I guess, from your reaction at least, that dogs are not treated as indulgently there.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 13, 2005 10:08:14 PM
I guess I have the go-ahead from Yurodivi to kill my neighbor instead of the pit bull when my kid is mauled to death. After all, it's the owner that's the problem.
Do a search of pit bull attacks and read how many owners said (right after sweet, little 'Fluffy' chewed some kid's head off or choked and shook Junior to death), "We've never had a problem with the dog before."
Pit bulls rarely bark and they don't growl or show signs of aggression before they attack. And they don't bite once or twice and leave like most breeds. They keep coming back - like a shark. Or they clamp down on the throat and don't let go.
Your undying defense if this vicious breed is twisted.
Posted by: midwestmom at Jun 13, 2005 10:19:26 PM
And in case your dog gets out of breath from attcking your children you can always call your fire department and have them resucitate your dog. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/11882238.htm
Your tax dollars hard at work.
Posted by: Kevin at Jun 13, 2005 10:28:03 PM
(that should have been 'of', not if.)
As for the American love affair with dogs, it's a trendy, status symbol to own a dog, especially in metropolitan areas.
If a couple with four kids were to walk the streets of SF they would be given the evil eye at every turn for overpopulating our fragile ecosystem. On the contrary, I've seen people in busy public places with their dogs, and total strangers go nutso and strike up mushy, phony conversations about the mutt.
Human beings are more responsive and affectionate toward dogs than they are babies. What's up with that?
Posted by: midwestmom at Jun 13, 2005 10:32:14 PM
Benedetto, not all Americans luuuuv dogs.
I don't know which I dislike more, dogs or their owners. Working dogs are fine. It's people who insist that their dog is an exceptional thing of beauty and wonder and *insist you feel the same*. You're required to think their ginormous killer breed is no more dangerous than a goldfish, and that their incessantly yapping idiot dog is a thing of joy forever. It's this "love me love my dog" disorder that angers me. You can have your pet. I don't mind. Just keep it away from my children and don't expect me to be devoted to its emotional health.
I'm with you, midwestmom. I've watched while a dog who never growled at a child before took a big bite out of the side of my nephew's face. I've been holed up in a bedroom armed with a shotgun while my relative's chow threw himself repeatedly at the door, trying to get in, after he had just attacked two children. And these were the two children he had been raised with. One of my biggest regrets is that I didn't shoot that slavering menace through the door. Of course everybody excuses the menace, saying that somehow it was the children's fault. Just like poor Nicky here, it was his fault for leaving the basement.
I promise you, if you've ever heard the screams of child being mauled you'll never look at any dog the same ever again.
Posted by: southernmom at Jun 13, 2005 11:03:32 PM
I have a dog and two cats. I never mistake them for anything more than they are--wild animals that live in my house. I don't pretend they are little humans and I don't expect them to behave like humans. When we forget that animals are animals, tragedies can and do happen. I would never leave even my sweetest mildest mannered cat alone with a small child. The cat has never offered to bite or scratch anyone, but being an animal, if a child pulled his tail, he might strike out. None of this is to excuse anything the mother did or to mitigate the horror of the child's death, but to say that if you are going to bring wild animals with a veneer of tame into your house, you can never truly let your guard down around them.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 13, 2005 11:07:14 PM
I'm one of those people who prefer the company of animals to most people. But really, one has to be loyal to one's own species, and if it came down to having to choose between some strange child and a beloved pet -- sorry, Fido, you've got to go.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 13, 2005 11:15:32 PM
Dogs are allowed virtually everywhere in Europe. I even saw dogs in a hospital in France. And none of the males were altered. So it's not just the US that is dog nutty.
Posted by: Radactrice at Jun 14, 2005 12:48:02 AM
As long as dogs are clean and well-behaved, I don't see why they shouldn't go to restaurants. Nobody minds seeing-eye dogs going, or feels they're a health hazard.
Of course, "well-behaved" is the rub.
Look, nobody is saying "shoot the humans and worship the dogs". (I can go quite a long way in gush before I approach what I think of as worship. I haven't even hit dulia yet.) But there is no question in my mind that pet ownership is supposed to be an exercise of human stewardship of the creatures of nature. Humans have the ability to breed and raise good dogs; they've had the technology since the earliest hunter-gatherer days. Except in genetic matters (for which a responsible breeder takes responsibility throughout a dog's lifetime, taking the dog back if inbred sickness arises), the owner is responsible for the dog's behavior, both legally and morally. This is true of all pet ownership.
It's also true of other domestication relationships. If the horse throws the rider, the rider is responsible, not the horse. The horse is just a dumb animal, after all.
So yes, I don't know everything about the circumstances. But the dogs were just dumb animals and the kid was just a kid, so that leaves just two adult humans to blame: the owner and the breeder. Even if this incident wasn't their fault, it was their responsibility.
(Of course, if it's not your dog and it comes after you, the dog's not your responsibility; your skin and the skins of other humans are. If you have to shoot the critter, shoot it.)
One more thing: I totally support people who don't like or understand dogs in their stand of not wanting to own dogs or be around them. If you know you don't deal well with dogs, that's a perfectly good idea. However, I do suggest that people who don't like dogs still learn a little bit about dog psychology. If you act afraid, dogs will either feel sorry for you and want to help you (exposing you to the licks and sniffs you don't want), or decide you're the enemy and/or prey. If you act assertive and remember that you are a human and thus in charge, most dogs will not mess with you. With most dogs, if you have any reason to be unsure of them, the key is not to run and not to turn your back. Note that I do say most, as recognizing a crazy or unsafe animal is as important a survival skill as recognizing a crazy human!
I once found this out the hard way when I got severely gummed by an aged, half-crazy, and practically toothless Pekinese. (It was no joke. Those little suckers have strong jaws! It was a deep bruise....) But it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't stupidly turned my back on a dog I had no reason to be sure of, and indeed, had been warned about. The Pekinese, OTOH, was quite sure it was toothed and dangerous. *rueful grin*
Posted by: Maureen at Jun 14, 2005 6:24:51 AM
Benedetto says:
"There was no mention in any reports that there was a bathroom available in the basement "family/storage room."
I suspect that after enough time of soda and video games, the kid had to pee."
But this story:
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/061205_nw_pit_bull_update.html
does mention a bathroom in the basement.
"It sounded like I threw him in the basement. No, he has video games and TV and a *bathroom* down there, just while I ran some errands."
Posted by: Michael Kremer at Jun 14, 2005 7:33:25 AM
Looks like this thread is about played, but what the hell, a new bomb: What is it about strongly religious people and animals in general? I can't think of a tradition in the monotheistic faiths that treats animals as anything more than food or domestic help. One of the silliest marital arguments I ever heard was between a Catholic and his Protestant wife, after she told their two weeping daughters that they'd see their recently deceased cat in heaven. It comforted the girls, but not the husband, who thought she should stick to the Catholic line, that the cat had no soul and was, in fact, gone forever.
(For what it's worth, I'm with the mother. Not on the cat's final resting place, but in the idea that when a 10-year-old is honestly grieving over a beloved pet, there's no lasting harm in letting her believe Kitty has gone to a better place and will be waiting for them there. Like that old Twilight Zone coot, I think a heaven without critters is no heaven at all.)
As for mauling pit bulls, for every story you read in the papers I could probably stack up five more about a dog alerting sleeping homeowners to a fire in the basement, a terrier repelling a poisonout snake approaching a baby playing on a blanket, or any number of good-dog-Treys raising the alarm on a hazard its human companions hadn't seen yet. A woman once told me her cat woke her to tell her an intruder was in the house, and sure enough, one was.
Every day we've shared, my dog has enriched my life and taught me something about how to live it. If that isn't a soul I see in his eyes, I'm a blind woman.
Posted by: Nance at Jun 14, 2005 7:51:54 AM
Thanks, Nance. Dogs (and most other pets as well) are a net good, not a loss. And people are still in lots more danger from their fellow man than they are from dog attacks.
Posted by: Yurodivi at Jun 14, 2005 7:54:34 AM
Oh, I'm having a jolly good time reading Benedetto this morning. I didn't realize he is a Biblical fundamentalist. It's no secret that Middle Eastern culture has used the term "dogs" perjoratively for centuries.
Now, could you please go back and cull all the literal texts for women, children and slaves and apply the same paradigms to them as literally as you did to dogs?
As for southernmom, she has my sympathy but I have to mention that I've shared my home with three chows and all were affectionate, well-behaved animals. Chows were very popular in the 30's and 40's in the show ring (I don't like dog shows but that's another matter). If they hadn't been properly socialized they would never have been permitted there, but as a result of the exposure the breed became too popular because people liked how they "looked" and too many were poorly bred and ended up with people who shouldn't have had them.
I agree with Nancy that the monotheistic religions have a terrible record with animals and the environment in general and it's one of the things that's turning a lot of young people to Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies. Christians conveniently ignore the creation accounts of Genesis that deal with nature and that St. Paul states that Christ has redeemed the whole world, the whole Kosmos by his dying and rising, not just humanity.
Nancy, you might enjoy Joan Chittister's book "Monastic Wisdom". She has a lovely chapter on nature and animals and how they have enriched her life.
I've stated before that my husband is a retired police officer. I've heard stories about human pathology that could make your hair curl. One of the worst was a six-month old baby with a large screw screwed into the top of his skull.
The human animal can stil be the most dangerous on the planet.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 8:52:41 AM
Midwestern Mom, no one is trying to defend Pit Bulls that are out of control.
There's plenty of information about them out there. If people choose to have them they should know they may be choosing a loaded gun. No one forces anyone to have Pit Bulls or any other breed of dog.
What some of us are trying to establish is that Pit Bulls didn't create themselves. They were brought into being because of the twisted sense of what constitutes fun and games by sorry excuses of human beings who like blood sports and the gambling and other crap that goes with them. I just love it when they bust a dog ring in the South, especially, and there's mom, dad and the kiddies enjoying an evening of watching living creatures forced to tear out each other's throats.
In the Bible Belt. Yet.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 9:06:23 AM
Sorry, some of my remarks were addressed to "Nance", not "Nancy" who I just realized is another poster.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 9:34:43 AM
Christine,
When my kids are in danger of being mauled to death in their own front yard, I really don't care who's responsible for the creation of the pit bull's killer instinct. It's neither here nor there.
Surely you know Joan Chittister is a major dissenter in the Church?
Posted by: midwestmom at Jun 14, 2005 9:40:53 AM
I hate animals. I don't ever want one in my house, licking me, jumping on me, much less biting me. If my boys insist on a pet when they're older, the darn thing will stay outside (& I will NOT feed it). NEVER, EVER in the house. What a dog or cat can do to a home is horrible.
Posted by: Peggy at Jun 14, 2005 9:45:05 AM
Midwestmom, yes, I am fully aware of Sr. Joan's positions. I don't agree with them all. That doesn't change the fact that she is a deeply spiritual person and very gifted writer. And I simply wouldn't tolerate a neighbor who had a dog that presented a danger to anyone. There are legal recourses.
Peggy, with your attitude please, please don't ever get a dog, cat, or anything nonhuman. They deserve better. The shelters are full enough of dogs and cats that kids grew tired of and parents rejected. My dog, who is extremely well behaved, has never ruined a thing in my house. Never. Because Chows are very smart he was housebroken in no time. We can leave the house for hours and not a thing is out of place when we come home.
Then there was the young son of a friend; young but old enough to know better.. Like many of today's parents, when they take them visiting they completely abandon their responsibilities. The young fella had all the books out of my bookcase in a falsh, dropping them on the floor.
Mom said nothing.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 10:03:30 AM
I have to say, too, I'm shocked whenever I hear someone saying they "hate" animals. Dislike I can understand. But hate?
The Jesus who spoke so tenderly of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings and commanded that a sheep be lifted out of a pit even on the sabbath, who spent 40 days in the wilderness with the wild animals, and whose face was first seen by the humble animals of the stable where he was born -- I don't think he would understand that, either. As scripture says, all things were created with - through - and for him. God doesn't make junk.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 10:32:16 AM
I have to say, too, I'm shocked whenever I hear someone saying they "hate" animals. Dislike I can understand. But hate?
The Jesus who spoke so tenderly of a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings and commanded that a sheep be lifted out of a pit even on the sabbath, who spent 40 days in the wilderness with the wild animals, and whose face was first seen by the humble animals of the stable where he was born -- I don't think he would understand that, either. As scripture says, all things were created with - through - and for him. God doesn't make junk.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 10:33:07 AM
"I hate animals....NEVER, EVER in the house. What a dog or cat can do to a home is horrible."
Diary of a Mad Housewife.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at Jun 14, 2005 10:48:52 AM
Ok. "Hate" is a strong word. I do absolutely dislike cats and dogs and most other assorted pets. I have never abused or mistreated an animal in my life. I just can't be bothered with one. They are not people.
I like going to zoos and farms, but would NEVER have an animal in my house. I grew up w/cat and dog in our family. The dog ended up in the house in later years. My Mom's house stinks from her dog; thank God she now keeps it outside. I am allergic to cat dander as well.
Posted by: Peggy at Jun 14, 2005 10:51:45 AM
Right, Peggy, they are not people. They are a species different from us and if human beings choose to keep them they owe them shelter, food, water, and a life that respects the unique requirements of that particular species. If you are allergic to cats it is perfectly understandable that you wouldn't want one in the house and I respect your choice not to have any companion animals.
Some breeds of dogs do well outside, especially the northern breeds such as huskies and malamutes. For others being consigned to a life outdoors will make them neurotic.
If parents are opposed to having dogs and cats they'll just have to steel themselves against their children's pleading because too many kids lose interest after the puppy or kitten is no longer "cute".
The mother who lost her son to what could have been so easily prevented needs some serious help. Dismissing it to the kind of fatalistic thinking that she displayed shows a serious lack of judgment. That in no way denies the tragedy of the loss of her child.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 11:44:01 AM
A dog shouldn't live outside unless it has either a great deal of room to run (in which case it could easily become a nuisance; or failing that, a job to do. Most dogs are bred, at least in part, for companionship, and denying it that will be a sin you'll answer to down the road. Unless you own a great deal of land somewhere, If your kids insist on a pet, buy them goldfish.
Posted by: Nance at Jun 14, 2005 11:48:17 AM
Monotheists having a problem with animals? I strongly suspect that's a canard, unless you define "problem" as not considering them to be the same sort of creature as a human being. I'd say not making that distinction is a problem, but that's a whole different argument.
I doubt that on the whole monotheists have a worse record on the treatment of animals than the rest of the world. At least some traditional African cultures have as low an estimate of dogs as do Middle Easterners, which I'm sure has to do with their roles in the wild there (think jackal vs. wolf). In Catholicism there's the whole Franciscan tradition. And I imagine you'd find that Christians keep pets in pretty much the same proportion as the rest of the population.
The most animal-crazy person I know is a fundamentalist Christian beekeeper at whose home you might encounter anything from a ferret to an emu. I have two dogs and four cats, by the way, and am agnostic but hopeful on the question of whether my daughter and I will ever see her beloved mutt Tess again. Catholic teaching deals with the problem of human salvation and does not consider animals to be human and either in need of or capable of salvation in the same sense. As far as I know it has nothing definitive to say about the presence of "critters," as Nance puts it, in heaven.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Jun 14, 2005 12:20:19 PM
Right you are, Nance. Dogs are extremely social creatures. We created them to be just that.
And I can tell you, although my motivation for having a dog has always simply been that I enjoy them so much, not for what they can "do" in a utilitarian sense, I didn't mind one bit when we still lived in Cleveland and my husband was working the night shift the canine, who always lived in the house with us, warned me on more than one occasion that someone was lurking in my yard who shouldn't have been.
During our stay in Cleveland a very a sweet elderly lady lived across the street from us. We kind of adopted her and looked out for her because some of the kids from the neighborhood school were really nasty to her when she was sitting on her front porch. I was utterly saddened to learn that one night her house was broken into and she was robbed and raped.
Made me even more grateful for my canine alarm.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 12:28:39 PM
I like my critters very much. I'd very much like to see some of them again, but I don't know if I will, although I hope so.
I do know that if I don't see them again, I will know why that is for the best.
That said, I think the rhetoric is a little disproportionate to the matter here.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Jun 14, 2005 12:33:06 PM
Dear Christine,
It's o.k. you call me a Biblical fundamentalist, but please remember that you were the first one to start quoting Scripture..."As the psalmist wrote, "All your creatures, wild and tame, bless the Lord." Amen!!"
Actually, it was not the Psalmist, but the Three Young Men in the furnace, in a Cantciel (Dn. 3:81).
In regard to Eastern Religions, you will not find real Buddhists keeping dogs as pets (I don't mean American Buddhists). There is also another serious problem with keeping pet dogs from a Buddhist perspective. What do dogs eat? Generally, they are carnivores and eat meat...which involves killing living things to keep your pet dog...bad karma. Most little birds like canaries are happy to eat seeds, and not such a karmic problem.
Although there are stories of St. Francis preaching to birds, and St. Anthony of Padua preaching to fish, there are no stories that I know of having Franciscan saints preaching to dogs. Birds and fish have much more positive portraits in Scripture than dogs.
Joan Chittister is a friend of mine (don't tell the folks on OpenBook), and I have had hours of great conversation with her in my car.
My great-grandmother lived along in a very rough industrial area and kept a pair of Boston bull terriers. Very mean dogs. My grandmother kept a pair of dachshunds that liked me but would attack any kid on a bicycle. I'm just not a dog person.
(And for James K., it is not barking that bothers me, but people who leave their dogs in their cars in the parking lot as a kind of anti-theft device, or just for fun enjoy watching elderly folks and children get scared when they walk by the open window of the parked car and the dog lunges at them.)
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 14, 2005 12:40:51 PM
Live and let live, people.
Some people love dogs. (I'm one of them.) Some people love cats. (Not me, but I'll tolerate a cat, and I've rescued several.) Some people are allergic to one or both species. Some people just plain don't like them.
If you love dogs, have a dog. Take good care of it, with proper attention to the particular needs of the breed. You'll never find a more faithful companion. ("I wish I were the person my dog thinks I am.") Likewise cats, who undoubtedly have their own virtues, even if I can't exactly figure out what those might be.
Both species are predators. Cats are too little to be a real hazard; not so dogs. So have an eye to that potential when choosing and training one.
If you don't like dogs or cats, don't have one. All good.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 14, 2005 12:42:30 PM
The only time I saw a thread about animals in heaven on a blog was at Mark Shea's site, and things went badly very quickly after some folks gave reasoned arguments that there might not be. It seems to me that it is better to steer away from that tangent on this thread and discuss something less controversial even if off topic, such as, oh, abortion.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 14, 2005 12:50:04 PM
Cats are too little to be a real hazard...
Spoken like a person who is not allergic to felines. If you only knew...
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 14, 2005 12:56:28 PM
Well, my sympathies, Ronny!
I've often reflected, though...if those cats my daughter likes so much were, like, four times bigger.... they're pretty merciless, and they don't pay a darn bit of attention to human training, ha ha.
There's a reason that keeping lions is mostly illegal.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 14, 2005 1:03:17 PM
This has turned into a Usenet flame thread between rabid dog lovers and rabid dog haters.
Random observations:
Remember Animal Cops: Detroit? All the bootleg dogfight arenas and pit bulls named after weapons and deliberately abused "to make them mean"?
Benedict XVI likes cats? So did Mohammed and Richilieu.
And San Fran, the Mecca of "Petishism" on the West Coast -- where do you think they first started calling pets "Furkids"?
When your Total Sexual Freedom (TM) and/or Enlightened Sophistication (TM) has no place for kids (except maybe in the dumpster behind the Womyn's Reproductive Choice Center (TM)), the instinct to mother a child will still come out. One way or another. If not a two-legged kid, then a four-legged Furkid.
Posted by: Ken at Jun 14, 2005 1:24:57 PM
Oh calm down, Ken. I can and do have both pets and kids.
But no one will force you to have either.
Posted by: Nancy at Jun 14, 2005 1:27:56 PM
The old Reductio ad Usenet, eh, Ken?
I think Mr. Bigglesworth may have something to discuss with you.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Jun 14, 2005 1:34:41 PM
As far as saints and dogs, there's St. Roch's dog (he was in the Franciscan Third Order), the dog as symbol of the Dominicans, and St. Don Bosco's mysterious guard dog (imagined yo have been his guardian angel in disguise).
I am a cat person. Totally. No dogs, please.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Jun 14, 2005 1:40:13 PM
This is a bit off-topic. Without knowing many of the details, I'm going to refrain from commenting about the tragic death of this mother's son.
The topic of pet overpopulation (in this case, dogs) and fixing pets has me wondering whether abortions are offered for cats and dogs. Perhaps someone will pick up on this and write a commentary on a culture that aborts its young but won't resort to the same procedure on its pets.
That reminds me of a story my uncle told me over 20 years ago. When he was a boy, he was told to dispose of kittens recently born. They lived in a rural area, and there was no way his poor family could support the extra mouths (and animal shelters were unheard of). Grandmother told him to whip (i.e. forcefully throw) the kittens against the barn wall. In those days, pets were viewed in a more utilitarian fashion (momma cat's job was to take care of the local rodent population).
Posted by: Bob L. at Jun 14, 2005 1:52:28 PM
This has turned into a Usenet flame thread between rabid dog lovers and rabid dog haters.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 14, 2005 1:53:48 PM
Ed,
I thought the rule was that it isn't all the way reductioed until somebody gets called a Nazi.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Jun 14, 2005 1:54:54 PM
Maclin makes distinctions between the souls of different species, therefore Maclin must be a...
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 14, 2005 2:22:01 PM
I agree with Nance. Dogs have been bred to be pets. Unless Benedetto wants dogs to go extinct (which I have a feeling he might), dogs as pets are here to stay.
I disagree with Nance's other claim. I know plenty of Christian dog-lovers.
I believe completely in the inspiration and truth of Scripture, but I don't think it should be considered an authoritative guide to how we regard particular animals. It was written by Middle Easterners and reflects their cultural assumptions.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 2:31:30 PM
Dear James K.,
You write about Scripture: "It was written by Middle Easterners and reflects their cultural assumptions."
Isn't this just exactly what advocates of gay marriage say? Or advocates of abortion? Or advocates of divorce and remarriage (w/o Church involvement)?
But then advocates of polygamy and slavery (outside the US; yes, slavery is still alive and well in our world in 2005) say that "the Bible/Koran supports this."
How do you decide when Scripture is just "written by Middle Easterners and reflects their cultural assumptions" and we can ignore it?
Does it ever apply to us? I do recall a very nice Deacon starting his homily with, "These Scripture readings don't really apply to us today, let's just talk about baseball..."
We have Catholic professors of religion teaching that "the Bible doesn't really bless monogamy, condemn homosexuality or anoint what conservatives call "traditional family values."
I'm confused.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 14, 2005 2:43:58 PM
As for the dog afterlife, how we can forget:
Marge: Even if Santa's Little Helper has passed away, he's gone to Doggie Heaven. Remember Doggie Heaven?
Homer: Oh, Marge, there is no such place!
(Marge points out Bart and Lisa.)
Homer: Or, to put it another way, there is.
Doggie Heaven - where there are mountains of bones, and you can't go anywhere without sniffing another dog's butt. And Jesus's dog is there, and all the Lassies...
Bart: Is there a Doggie Hell?
Homer: Well, of course. There couldn't be a Doggie Heaven without a Doggie Hell.
Bart: What dogs are in Doggie Hell?
Homer: Hitler's dog, and Nixon's dog, what's his name, Chester...
Lisa: Checkers
Homer: And the bad Lassie - the one that mauled Jimmy!
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 2:51:51 PM
Benedetto:
Do you really believe that dog owners are condemned by Scripture, or this is all some kind of elaborate put-on?
The Scriptures don't say anywhere that dogs are evil and dog-owning is bad. If it does, than the sinfulness of dog-owning has escaped 2,000 years of Scripture interpreters. When the Bible writers wanted to insult somebody, they used the insult vocabulary of their culture, which included "dog" as a term of abuse. If the Bible had been written by twenty-first century Americans, it might call slobs "pigs" and cowards "chickens," but I doubt if anyone would seriously argue that this was a moral condemnation of these animals.
Also, Tobias in the book of Tobit had a pet dog and was not condemned for it. Another reason to be glad we accept the deuterocanonicals!
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:02:45 PM
Dear James,
Tobit's dog is no more. Check your modern Catholic translations. It was a mistake, or maybe a joke that Jerome inserted based on his being forced to include this book in his translation. It is found in no other version of Tobit before Jerome's Vulgate. See Fitzmyer's article.
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 14, 2005 3:11:28 PM
Yes, Benedetto, I did quote the Three Young Men out of context. I probably had the Psalm in mind that says the earth is full of God's creatures.
As far as Buddhists go, Buddhism is really a religion/philosophy of monastics. Plenty of Buddhists eat meat. And I love Buddhists dearly for the compassion they show to animals. Every year a local Buddhist temple has a service in recognition of and gratitude for the lives of animals. But I don't believe in Karma. What I do believe in is the mystery of Genesis which states that God created all things, including man, to live in harmony with him, with each other and all creation. The fact that nature is out of whack sits right alongside the fact that humanity is also.
There was no death in Eden. All were vegetarian. I, too, believe in the inspiration of Holy Writ but agree with James Kabala that it also contains the prejudices and limited worldview of a flawed humanity. And really, Benedetto the fact that you don't care for animals, dogs in particular, is not a biggie for me at all. My mother never cared for them either. So when I was finally on my own I was thrilled to be able to adopt a pair of felines.
I'm also very much aware of how animals were viewed "in the old days." But then so were women. And children. Was a time when the church debated whether they had souls, too.
Posted by: Christine at Jun 14, 2005 3:11:34 PM
Christine mischaracterized me. I didn't say that the Bible reflected "prejudices and limited worldview;" just that the inspired author's use of an animal term as an insult is not a damnation of that animal.
I give up on further argument. When I first got into this argument, I thought that Benedetto was reacting to this terrible tragedy, but his encyclopedic knowledge of anti-dog Biblical quotations (and even Biblical scholarship that can be construed as anti-dog!), plus his comments comparing dog-owning with abortion and gay marriage, reveal that he must have been an anti-dog fanatic for quite some time before and that he will not be convinced by a thousand posts disagreeing with him.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:22:52 PM
Christine mischaracterized me. I didn't say that the Bible reflected "prejudices and limited worldview;" just that the inspired author's use of an animal term as an insult is not a damnation of that animal.
I give up on further argument. When I first got into this argument, I thought that Benedetto was reacting to this terrible tragedy, but his encyclopedic knowledge of anti-dog Biblical quotations (and even Biblical scholarship that can be construed as anti-dog!), plus his comments comparing dog-owning with abortion and gay marriage, reveal that he must have been an anti-dog fanatic for quite some time before and that he will not be convinced by a thousand posts disagreeing with him.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:23:35 PM
Christine mischaracterized me. I didn't say that the Bible reflected "prejudices and limited worldview;" just that the inspired author's use of an animal term as an insult is not a damnation of that animal.
I give up on further argument. When I first got into this argument, I thought that Benedetto was reacting to this terrible tragedy, but his encyclopedic knowledge of anti-dog Biblical quotations (and even Biblical scholarship that can be construed as anti-dog!), plus his comments comparing dog-owning with abortion and gay marriage, reveal that he must have been an anti-dog fanatic for quite some time before and that he will not be convinced by a thousand posts disagreeing with him.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:24:08 PM
Christine, I like animals, especially birds and fish. In fact, when I am at home, I often have a little bird or two sitting on my lap.
But not dogs.
Small correction regarding Tobit's dog. Dog still present in Tobit 6:3 at start of journey, and 11:4 at homecoming, but removed from 11:9, wagging tail at homecoming.
Douay-Rheims read for Tobit 11:9:
"Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail."
NAB reads:
"Then Anna ran up to her son, threw her arms around him, and said to him, "Now that I have seen you again, son, I am ready to die!" And she sobbed aloud."
I'm glad to know that the real reason Tobit is in the canon is so that we can justify our pet dogs! Thanks, James!
Posted by: Benedetto at Jun 14, 2005 3:24:26 PM
In an attempt at humor, I said it was "another reason," not the real reason. Sheesh!
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:25:56 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts earlier. And now, farewell for good.
Posted by: James Kabala at Jun 14, 2005 3:29:03 PM
Um, Benedetto, why not just say "I don't like dogs" and leave it at that? As a matter of fact, I'm kind of ambivalent about them myself and think that some people have an excessive regard for their pets (the occasion for this thread being an excellent example). Your zeal for trying to demonstrate biblically to everyone the intrinsic badness of canines does strike me as being a bit odd, however.
Posted by: Ronny at Jun 14, 2005 3:30:47 PM
For those wishing to develop a Catholic appreciation of creation, I would recommend the reflection of Cardinal Arinze.
CHRISTIAN WITNESS OF THE CLOSENESS
BETWEEN GOD, MAN AND NATURE.
THE INSERTION OF THE SALVIFIC MESSAGE OF THE
GOSPEL IN THE CULTURES OF OUR TIMEFrancis Cardinal ARINZE
President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue1. Gospel on Closeness between God, Man and Nature
It is surprising how much the Gospel goes into details to tell us about the closeness between God, Man and Nature. Let us take some examples.
The Gospel pays much attention to water. God created water, the rivers and the ocean. The clouds help people tell when there will be rain. Jesus taught from a boat, calmed the waves, walked on the waters and directed Peter and other Apostles to lower their nets for a catch.
The seasons receive attention. They lead Jesus to speak of the signs of the times and thereby indicate that the era of the promised Messiah has arrived. The Gospel speaks of when it is dry, when it is winter, when it is cold.
The planets are not forgotten. The sun, the moon and the stars get an honourable mention. Commotion among the elements, lightning and thunder are signs that will announce that the Lord is coming.
The Gospel pays attention to trees. The mustard seed which grows into a large tree is presented as a sign of the coming Kingdom of God. The barren fig tree stands for the person who bears no fruit, while the vine is a symbol of the unity between Christ and his disciples. All these are images which Our Saviour used to convey instruction on the Kingdom he was inaugurating.</