The temple of Fido

Culture | How our worship of animals dehumanizes us
by Warren Cole Smith
Posted 3/30/19, 01:55 am

Pets on planes. The stories have become their own sub-genre in journalism.

Consider the 2014 story of US Airways Flight 598, which was en route from Los Angeles to Philadelphia but was diverted to Kansas City because a dog had diarrhea.

“About an hour into the flight, I started smelling this terrible smell,” passenger Steve McCall said. “I look up the aisleway and there’s a dog pooping right in the middle of the aisle. … A couple of people started dry heaving, a couple of people were throwing up.”

McCall told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the crew cleaned up “the stinky mess,” but the dog defecated again about an hour later, prompting the pilot to divert the plane to Kansas City.

In October 2018, police had to escort a woman off a Frontier Airlines flight who had brought on board an “emotional support squirrel.” The incident delayed the flight by two hours.  In January 2018, a woman tried to bring an “emotional support peacock” on to a United flight. In both cases, the airline refused to accommodate the animals, and the stories ended up in a USA Today article about the “craziest” travel stories of 2018.

But frequent travelers know that such stories are less crazy and more the norm than they were just a few years ago.

Why? When did we start treating pets like humans, and when did pet owners—some of whom prefer to call themselves “pet parents”—develop such a militant sense of entitlement about their animals?

MATTHEW SCHMITZ WRESTLED WITH THESE QUESTIONS in a 2017 article for First Things:

“Pets are replacing America’s children. According to the marketing research firm Mintel, two-thirds of American pet owners treat their pets as ‘part of the family.’ One-third say that their pets understand their feelings better than most humans. Half care as much about the health of their pet as about any family member. Forty-four percent of young pet owners see their pets as ‘starter children.’ Seventeen percent of pet owners bought pet costumes last year, and 10 percent bought pet strollers. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Fido in the baby carriage.”

Schmitz’s observation about pet costumes and pet strollers give us a part of the answer: A huge industry now depends on pet owners who spend money on much more than the basics of pet life and health.

The International Business Times reports that spending on pets will reach $96 billion by 2020. For comparison purposes, federal and state governments combined spend about $20 billion a year on the half-million or so children in foster care in this country.

The IBT article says the reasons for all this pet spending include “an increase of pet ownership, the humanization of pets and pet parents demanding premium products and better quality food.” (There’s that phrase again: “pet parents.”) The article drills down into these trends:

“According to the American Pet Products Association, almost 85 million households have a pet and over the last 30 years pet ownership has gone from 56 percent to 68 percent of all households. This increase in ownership drives innovation in the market, resulting in a vast array of new choices and unique items, including specialty treats, bully sticks, vitamins, supplements and electronic training equipment.”

This spending goes far beyond vitamin supplements and chew toys. A new cat brush is designed to be held in a cat owner’s mouth so it appears that the owner is licking his kitty. The brush is supposed to allow the cat owner to imitate the grooming behavior of a kitten’s mother.

In 2011, Americans spent more than $60 million on plastic surgery for pets. One popular surgery is the implantation of “neuticals,” artificial testicles in male dogs who have been neutered. More than 500,000 dogs have had the procedure. And if your dog has a floppy ear, you can put a plastic stay in his ear for about $600—that’s $1,200 for the pair. The PermaStay ear implantation is a relatively new procedure, so only about 3,000 dogs have so far had them implanted.

All of this spending on animals does, of course, produce economic benefits. A $96 billion industry produces tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, retail, veterinary, and service sectors.

However, as Schmitz noted in his article, all this animal idolatry has very real social costs. He said there is evidence that those who are “sentimental about pets” become “unwilling to welcome human life.” Schmitz believes that those who think “It’s better … more comfortable—to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog” end up showing “their indifference to man.”

“The conflict between love of pets and love of children is most obvious in gentrifying neighborhoods, where sterile, secular, dog-loving whites are displacing poor, fecund minorities,” he wrote.

In 2011, Marshall Brown, a veteran Washington, D.C., political activist, criticized the gentrifiers: “The new people believe more in their dogs than they do in people. They go into their little cafes … they don’t connect at church … they don’t volunteer in the neighborhood school.”

When these comments became public, the outcry against Brown was so great that he lost his job on the staff of a District of Columbia Council campaign.

And in D.C.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Colorado Springs, Colo.—to name but a few of dozens of similarly minded cities—dog parks have displaced parks where children used to play. And in some cases, dog owners are appropriating public land for dog parks. In 2017, also in Washington, a Columbia Heights neighborhood park was taken over by dog owners, forcing out local kids who had used the space for soccer matches.

Dog parks have displaced parks where children used to play.

But perhaps the most interesting example comes from New York City. News broke in April 2018 that a group of “snooty dog owners” in the hipster enclave of TriBeCa had taken over a small public green space back in 2008. The group incorporated as the Dog Owners of Tribeca (DOOT) and installed a lock on a gate to the 4,000-square-foot space, charging $120 a year for the lock’s code. That means that in the past decade DOOT has collected more than $80,000 in fees and has locked out taxpayers who should have had access to the public space. There are so few children in this neighborhood that this coup went unnoticed until last year, when a list of 22 rules (which included “no children under 12”) caught the attention of locals, who complained. The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is now trying to boot DOOT off the property, but—according to an article in the New York Post—“the snooty pooch privateers are biting back,” promising to appeal the decision of the Parks Department.

THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION HAS BECOME the “whipping boy” of all manner of social, cultural, and demographic ills—from falling birthrates to video game and pornography viewing to the slow growth of the economy. Millennials have been dubbed the “Peter Pan Generation” for its allergy to “adulting.” They have been called the generation that experienced “failure to launch.”

Millennials (defined as those born from about 1982 to about 1998, depending on who’s doing the defining) have been maligned so much that Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff offered a defense of them in their best-selling book The Coddling of the American Mind. The authors make plain that “millennials are getting a bad rap these days.” They say millennials behave the way they do because of well-intentioned but badly mistaken parents and teachers, who—armed with the affluence of the late 20th century—no longer had to devote the kind of energy generations past had to devote to providing the basics of life: food, water, clothing, shelter. “Boomer” and “buster” parents turned their attention to protecting what they and their parents had fought so hard to gain. Safety became obsessive concern.

This obsession with safety extended well beyond physical safety to include emotional safety. In sports, winning was not as important as participation. Parents sought safety for their children instead of experiences that might result in failure or temporary hurt, but that in the long run lead to growth and—eventually—full maturity as adult human beings.

Haidt and Lukianoff call this obsession with safety “safetyism,” and say it has backfired:

“Safety is good, of course, and keeping others safe from harm is virtuous, but virtues can become vices when carried to extremes. ‘Safetyism’… has become a sacred value. … When children are raised in a culture of safetyism, which teaches them to stay ‘emotionally safe’ while protecting them from every imaginable danger, it may set up a feedback loop: kids become more fragile and less resilient, which signals to adults that they need more protection, which then makes them even more fragile and less resilient. … The ‘cure’ turns out to be a primary cause of the disease.”

So while this pathology of “safetyism” may not be the fault of the millennials, there’s little doubt that it is a generation profoundly affected by it, and pet culture is a leading manifestation of it. Pets as emotional support animals have proliferated, and one of the purposes of pets for millennials has been to delay or eliminate one of life’s most significant emotional risks: having children.

Shane Morris, writing for The Federalist, echoed Matthew Schmitz, and gave the phenomenon a name: “replacement baby syndrome.” Morris, himself a millennial, cited a Mintel study that found “three-fourths of Americans in their thirties own dogs (for the purposes of this study, all adults 37 years old and younger were considered ‘millennials’), and half own cats. When you compare them with the population in general, only half of whom own dogs and just over a third of whom own cats, the surge is obvious.”

Morris concluded, “I can tell everything I need to know about a person by whether he ‘got a dog,’ or ‘adopted a dog.’” Morris reserved special scorn for those who say “buying luxury items like indoor pets is somehow altruistic or noble.” He said it is one of the “oddest habits of the millennial generation” to say they “‘rescued’ their dog or cat, as if they snatched it from a burning building at the peril of their own lives.”

One of the purposes of pets for millennials has been to delay or eliminate one of life’s most significant emotional risks: having children.

Morris continued, “In reality, most of them simply visited the pound and picked the cutest furball they saw. I’ve never met someone who asked shelter workers, ‘Which dog is scheduled to die first?’ and took home whatever mange-riddled chupacabra emerged from the back room. When you go get a dog, you are doing something you want to do. Portraying it as a sacrificial act of virtue is just indulgent.”

PETS AND PET OWNERSHIP HAVE and currently performed a vital role in cultures almost since the beginning of recorded history. Both ancient art and archeology are full of animals. Indeed, animals and humans have shared living space for the past 6,000 years. However, it was not until the 17th century that animals became pets in the current sense. Until then, animals worked, even dogs and cats.

With the migration of Europeans to cities in the 1600s, pets became luxuries of the rich or aspirational accoutrement for the middle class. By the 19th century, pet ownership was big business. In London, thousands of street vendors sold animals, though we must acknowledge that many of these animals were for eating. The first major dog show took place in England in 1859. Kennel clubs, which provided fairness and governance to the shows and to dog breeders, emerged in the 1860s and 1870s. However, even with the elevation of status of animals, they were still, well, animals. Property. Valued property, in many cases. Thieves stole and resold purebred dogs as early as the late 19th century. And some dogs were petnapped and successfully held for ransom.

That’s not to say that people didn’t care about animals. They did, and often passionately and vocally. Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle was a defining moment for worker rights, leading to a wide range of workplace safety rules. Because the book was set in the Chicago slaughterhouses, it also brought attention to the plight of animals. By then, animal welfare leagues had already sprung up in both England and the United States.

But the epistemological shift from a concern over animal welfare to the promotion of “animal rights” came in 1892 with Henry Salt’s Animal Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. This book has become something of a sacred text in the animal rights movement. It drew from abolitionist arguments to make the case for something just short of personhood for animals. Here’s a key passage:

“[The] notion of the life of an animal having “no moral purpose,” belongs to a class of ideas which cannot possibly be accepted by the advanced humanitarian thought of the present day—it is a purely arbitrary assumption, at variance with our best instincts, at variance with our best science, and absolutely fatal (if the subject be clearly thought out) to any full realization of animals’ rights. If we are ever going to do justice to the lower races, we must get rid of the antiquated notion of a ‘great gulf’ fixed between them and mankind, and must recognize the common bond of humanity that unites all living beings in one universal brotherhood.”

Salt is not widely known today, but he was one of the great literary impresarios of early 20th century England, and he championed communism, secularism, and progressivism in more than 20 best-selling books, including a biography of Henry David Thoreau and several books on vegetarianism. He also supported the Fabian Society, a group of British intellectuals who promoted communism, but who also actively promoted eugenics, especially forced sterilization of the lower classes.

The animal rights movement was often championed by those who promoted eugenics, forced sterilization, and—later—abortion. The great wit and Christian thinker G.K. Chesterton was among the first to note this relationship.

“There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals,” he wrote in 1920. “I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions. But I will not … worship an animal.”

He went on to say, “Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of human experience.”

By the 1970s, Chesterton’s observations about history had become a “real truth” again. A group of graduate students at Oxford University, now known as the “Oxford Group,” advocated for animal rights, publishing a 1979 statement that read, in part, “We believe in the evolutionary and moral kinship of all animals and we declare our belief that all sentient creatures have rights to life, liberty, and the quest for happiness.”

The group, which ultimately formed the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, also called for an end to “speciesism,” the notion that it was wrong to treat members of one species as morally different from members of another species. So, for example, if it wrong to kill another human being for food, then it is equally wrong to kill a cow or a pig for food. By 1985, “speciesism” had become an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, described as “discrimination against … animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind’s superiority.”

However, the consequence of this line of thinking was that as animal rights were elevated, human rights tended to be degraded. Most members of the Oxford Group, for example, came to advocate for abortion. Peter Singer received his doctorate from Oxford before the Oxford Group was fully organized, but his 1975 book Animal Liberation was an inspiration for the group. Indeed, some call it the “bible” of the movement. Singer later became famous for promoting infanticide, writing that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

The consequence of this line of thinking was that as animal rights were elevated, human rights tended to be degraded.

GIVEN THIS HISTORY, it is perhaps no surprise that, according to Matthew Schmitz, “the Friends of Columbia Heights Dog Park was founded by a Planned Parenthood ‘clinic escort.’” It is also no surprise that using such language as “adoption” and “puppy parents” has become so common. In fact, if the Animal Liberation Front had its way, the use of the word “pet” would be completely eliminated from our language. It prefers the phrase “animal companion.” ALF’s credo says the group “carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.” The credo goes on to say, “Because ALF actions may be against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small groups or individually, and do not have any centralized organization or coordination.”

This kind of activism, plus incidents such as the “emotional support peacock” described above, is creating a bit of a cultural backlash. Airlines are cracking down on pet owners, making sure they are in compliance with the rules. Ironically, among those complaining the most about all the animals on planes are the owners of real service dogs, such as Seeing Eye dogs or trained service dogs who travel with combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

“It’s becoming a big problem,” Marcie Davis told The New York Times. Davis is an advocate for service dogs, and is in fact the founder of International Assistance Dog Week. But, she said, “I’ve seen people bring on pets and try to pass them off as an emotional support or service dog. It’s not appropriate and it’s not safe.”

Despite such cautions, and aided by a decade of economic growth, the veneration of pets—er, animal companions—seems to be growing unabated. The survey firm Nielsen says annual household spending on pet food among pet owners increased 36 percent between 2007 and 2017.

And the category of greatest growth? So called “human-grade” snacks, including Rachael Ray’s Nutrish brand, which uses high-end ingredients and even sells gluten-free meals for pets.

Because, apparently, some humans don’t like for their animal companions to eat alone.

Warren Cole Smith

Warren is the host of WORLD Radio’s Listening In. He previously served as WORLD's vice president and associate publisher. He currently serves as president of MinistryWatch and has written or co-written several books, including Restoring All Things: God's Audacious Plan to Change the World Through Everyday People. Warren resides in Charlotte, N.C. Follow him on Twitter @WarrenColeSmith.

Read more from this writer

Comments

You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • Midwest preacher
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 06:33 am

    Yes!!  I am so tired of seeing animals in places they simply do not belong.  Where would we draw the line if we allow dogs with intestinal problems on planes.  I am sure there are exceptions and in some cases the animal would be "necessary" but we have gone way too far. The thought of hungry children in the same town as pampered pets ought to tip anyone off to the seriousness of the problem.  Mr. Smith you and I are probably going to get a lot of flack for this but it must be said.  Just think of the carbon footprint of the pampered pet industry.   

  •  Becky F's picture
    Becky F
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 10:03 am

    We own a dog. We bought it from a breeder so that my husband could have a hunting partner. So technically speaking, the dog is a work animal first and a pet second. But as a member of the millennial generation, the rebel in me wishes we didn't have a dog just so that I wouldn't be lumped in with the majority group. We already don't fit in with many millennials, though, because we have four children (that all came before the dog, and while we were in our twenties). I know some people who can't have kids, so they have a lot of pets which they treat as if they were their children, which makes sense for them. But I also dislike this worship of animals. It is good to love what God has created, but animals are not equal to people. Thank you for this piece.

  • BjW
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 10:24 am

    Isn't it interesting that Evil can take a good thing such as pets or smart phones and turn it into a snare that traps people from caring for people? Volunteering, caring for grandparents, mentoring, tutoring, teaching Sunday School...

    Animal worship? WELL SAID! I just read that we need to reduce meat consumption and food waste by eating meat once every 10 days and buying food from local farmers because of the harm to the climate. Well, what is the carbon footprint of all these companion animals? (I know I will get hate mail, but I put many horse owners in this category.) Then there are the misguided vegans who are harming their cats with vegan diets, tho God created them as carnivors.

    Jesus discipled companion people. I never read in the Bible that he had time or money for a pet.

     

  • CJ
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 10:37 am

    I have two millennial grandchildren. I know for certain that the eldest does not want marriage or children. It would not surprise me if her brother feels the same after the trauma they endured when their parents divorced. This article has drawn a direct correlation between being over-protected as children and growing up to not want children. That may be true of wealthier families featured in the article but most Americans are not in that class. I believe there is a stronger correlation between those who suffered through a painful divorce as children and consequently, as adults, have no confidence in marriage and do not want to inflict the pain of divorce on another generation. 

  • JennyBeth
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 12:40 pm

    When I was recently reading up on airline travel with a young child, it made me so mad that people were commenting how it's not fair that parents can have a baby in their lap but pet owners can't have a dog in their lap, because after all the dog is less disruptive than a crying baby. It's all about personal convenience and not the value of human beings.

    Another thought on millennials having more pets and fewer children, though ... money! I broke down in tears a month after having my baby when the $5000ish in copay bills rolled in, our health insurance skyrocketed so much my husband was literally making take-home pay that was less than minimum wage, I lost half my income for other reasons, and we still had $85,000 in student debt. That's a pretty normal financial situation for many millenials, even working multiple jobs, so it's no wonder my peers are reluctant to have children!

  • NEWS2ME
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 01:32 pm

    We have one child. She is grown up now. We also have cats. Cats seem to be living longer now. Our daughter has learned that it's not all fun and games to have pets. They are funny and sometimes loving, but we don't all travel together because of the pets. Someone has to stay home and take care of the pets. (We never traveled that much anyway.) And because of all the trouble of looking for decent pet food, vet. costs and worry, our daughter has decided not to have any pets. We have done our part to help homeless cats and dogs, but we have decided we need to move on. And besides we are too old. 

    As far as the human grade pet food goes, it's not so humans can eat with the pet, it's to assure the human that the food they are giving their pet is good stuff. I have researched pet food for many years because of sick pets maybe not getting the right nutrition. People should be able to buy food that will help their pets stay healthy, so they won't have to spend money on a vet. 

  •  phillipW's picture
    phillipW
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 01:34 pm

    This is a great and though provoking article, touching on a subject that you won't see discussed in any other journalistic circles.  This article is one of the many reasons why I subscribe to World.

    The correlation between elevating pets to worship status, and abortion/infanticide is definitely what sticks out to me.  When you devalue human life something has to fill the void.  Pet worship is definitely one of many "idols" that our current culture is trending towards, as we continue to eliminate God from all aspects of our lives.

  • TravisJN
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 01:55 pm

    How long until the Animal Companion Right to Vote Act is introduced?

  •  Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 02:14 pm

    Genesis 9:5-6 says, "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image" (ESV).

    Note how God requires a reckoning from every beast and from man for shedding man's blood, but not beast's blood.  So God treats man as more significant than beasts.

  • Joann Phillips
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 02:34 pm

    Mr. Smith: Excellent article.  I really appreciate the history of the 'animal rights movement,' as they call themselves.  When the poor, especially the elderly, are eating pet food and pets are eating 'human-grade' and gluten free food we have lost our way.  There is a value to having pets and animals trained to visit with the lonely or those who have little human companionship.  But they don't take away the need for human companionship or our responsibility to be there for others. 

    Thank you for your work.

  • Heidi in Kansas
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 05:47 pm

    Wow, very enlightening, very likely to offend people! I had no idea that the idea of "animal rights" was more than a century old. I do agree that it's gone way too far. People feed their pets better than they feed themselves! But I understand, I had a dog that I loved very much, and when we had to put him down because of bone cancer, I cried buckets, because I had tried so hard to save him. I have not gotten a replacement dog yet; still cannot handle the thought of all the work for no lasting effect. Waiting for grandchildren!

  • Laura W
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 07:56 pm

    Just don't make the mistake of lumping all millenials in together and thinking this describes all of them. Although we do have a reputation for wanting to be considered special snowflakes, we are still distinct human beings, and some of us don't fit any of the common (and generally unflattering) stereotypes about of our generation.

  • AH
    Posted: Sat, 03/30/2019 08:44 pm

    I am a millennial dog owner, and I groom dogs for a living. I absolutely love my dogs yet I agree with this article on many levels. My peers are choosing pets over having a family. I see how they prefer to have less responsibility by choosing non human companions. The sad part is that pets also aren't near as rewarding. Children should always come before animals. A child of 2 years old can do things for a dog that a dog can't do for itself. I get a knot in my stomach when people think that dogs on an airplane are less disruptive than a baby. My client dogs walk into our shop and pee on the floor every single day. Babies are definitely less gross (or at least contained) than most pets are!

  • Big Jim
    Posted: Sun, 03/31/2019 02:35 am

    I've noticed these phenomena for a number of decades but I'm not sure I've heard it put so cogently as Mr. Smith's article. Way back when we had a wry saying "Save the whales and kill the babies", as the two seemed to go hand in hand with that crowd. Now, we look bemusedly at the young couples walking their dogs and comment "they have dogs now and not babies." It is a sad state of affairs.

  • Steve Shive
    Posted: Sun, 03/31/2019 06:07 am

    This article is fun to read, well researched and informative, and prescient with where we are at in Western civilization. I do cringe a bit at the Millennial data and statistics, realizing this stereotype has many examples from that generation that have not fallen prey to those of their cohort. Fortunately Cole also points out that is just illustrative of the bigger picture. I do agree with the insights gained by looking at this somewhat arbitrary societal grouping. 

    I love seeing the GK Chesteron quotes. These quotes is from a 1920 book of essays entitled "The Uses of Diversity." The essay. "Seriousness" has this:

    There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious.  I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses.  But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros.  I will not worship the beast with the little horn.  I will not adore the Golden Calf; still less will I adore the Fatted Calf.  On the contrary, I will eat him.  There is some sort of joke about eating an animal, or even about an animal eating you.  Let us hope we shall perceive it at the proper moment, if it ever occurs.  But I will not worship an animal.  That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why.

    [New paragraph - which shows the the thoughts are connected in GK Chesteron's mind]

    Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice…

    [I do wonder about the sentence that starts a new paragraph about 1/2 of the way down, "PETS AND PET OWNERSHIP HAVE and currently performed a vital role in cultures almost since the beginning of recorded history. " Something seems to be missing.]

  • SamIamHis
    Posted: Sun, 03/31/2019 10:21 pm

    Growing up there were never pets in our household.  My parents didn't think that we needed animals as there were enough kids.  When I married my husband, he had grown up with dogs so we bought a German Shepherd puppy from a farm for $50.  For me it was one of the most amazing experiences of my life and I truly came to love that girl for her loyalty and her goofy personality.  It did bother me some that I loved this animal as much as I did and I brought this concern before the Lord.  I did not want to behave wrongly toward this pet in His sight.  Shortly after I began praying about this concern, I found myself reading through the rebuke of Nathan to King David which he related in story form.  Though the rich man had many ewes in his flock, he took the only ewe of the poor man and slaughtered it to prepare for a meal for his guest.  The moral of the story was the correlation of David to Uriah and his taking of Bathsheba.  The ewe that belonged to the poor man was described in a way I had never really noted before.  He had bought it, raised it and it grew up with him and his children.  It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms.  It was like a daughter to him.  God's word clearly described the nature of a family pet.  It held a special places within that family and there was absolute clarity in this story for me.  God gets me.  He gets all of us.  In his great kindness toward us he gave us domesticated animals because He knew of our need for companionship and what incredible things pets can do within the family structure.  

    With all that God has created for us, He did not have to give us pets as well.  But He did because He loves us and does not withhold good things from us.  Sadly, as with all things God created, what He made for good has been twisted into a perversion for some people.  In this age that perversion is growing rapidly.  We do well to remember not to turn anything he created into an idol but worship the Creator alone.

  • RS
    Posted: Wed, 04/03/2019 01:00 am

    I think mention of William Wilberforce would have been helpful. His advocacy stopping cruelty to animals via RSPCA was another side to note that animals were made to please us and extremes exist in both sides of human nature when it comes to our pets. 

  • Warren Smith
    Posted: Wed, 04/03/2019 04:56 pm

    Robert:  I normally don't respond to my comments.  I feel that I had my chance to make whatever case I had to make in the original article and I need to let the comments speak for themselves.  But I do want to acknowledge that you raise a great point.  Wilberforce's efforts to prevent animal cruelty were a key part of his agenda to "restore manners."  I plan a column on the subject in the near future.  Thanks for this good word.  I would only add that it is NOT contradictory to be opposed both to animal cruelty and animal idolatry.   --Warren

  • AlanE
    Posted: Fri, 04/05/2019 08:54 pm

    A very well done article and I don't have but one thing to add to the comments. With respect to the Matthew Schmitz quote, "One-third say that their pets understand their feelings better than most humans." Those pets probably confirm their owner's feelings better than most humans. That may be a more accurate way of phrasing it than understanding their owner's feelings.

  • Strawberry Roan
    Posted: Wed, 04/10/2019 09:58 am

    Warren's article also sheds light on the skepticism that the general public has about farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers do an excellent job of raising the livestock that we need for food and so many other items. Yet they are criticized by the general public for how they treat their animals, even though the public has little knowledge on how to raise livestock. Because we put human traits (think anthropormorphism) on animals, we assume that they should be treated like humans are treated. 

  • Narissara
    Posted: Fri, 04/12/2019 12:15 pm

    Another way this dehumanizes us is in how professional pet trainers and so-called parenting experts alike promote methods that are effective for animals as being ideal for child-rearing as well. Clicker training is one such method many people are probably familiar with.  

    The theory is that animals and children alike respond so well to “positive reinforcement” (rewards) that there is never any need for “negative reinforcement” (punishment).  There are a lot of flaws with the theory.  Clicker training does work, but negative reinforcement is sometimes necessary because punishment often gets quicker results.  Positive reinforcement usually requires repetition to take hold.  Both animals and children need to be taught immediately about the dangers of playing in traffic.  How many times do you let either run into the street before they learn it could get them killed?   

    Besides, positive and negative reinforcement are just external conditioning and the world doesn’t always operate the way an animal thinks it should.  As soon as its actions stop producing the reward it’s expecting, it will start acting out or, conversely, when there are no consequences, it will find new ways of getting into mischief.  

    The same is no less true of children, and I can’t help but wonder how much this kind of training has contributed to the sense of entitlement so prevalent in our society, along with protests that even deserved punishment is unfair.  Ultimately, it makes people raised this way blind to their sinful state and their need for a Savior.  Jesus was unfairly punished for our sake, so we could have an eternal reward we didn’t earn.  

ADVERTISEMENT