Dog Bless America!

Is “The Temple of the Dog” a true religion?  Sure, we can say “anything someone worships IS a religion”, but is that technically considered as such?   In the past, I wrote that the behavior I have observed on various internet forums and in real life may likely indicate a primitive religion.  When one takes the position that an animal is superior to a human being, and does not provide hard scientific proof of the matter, that presents a clear example of deification.  The legal and social leeway presented to dogs and dog owners indicates that many may consider the dog to be a sacred animal.

Opinions aside, if we are presented with a true religion that in turn presents some profound public policy issues and impacts, primarily issues related to separation of Church and State.   What does it mean to the rest of us if our neighbors and community leaders truly consider a dog a sacred animal?   That may depend on the “separation” codified in your jurisdiction, or if your jurisdiction has a state religion.

In the United States the general policy is separation of Church and State.   That more or less means the following:

-          We have no state religion.

-          The state does not direct church policy.

-          The church does not direct state policy.

-          In parallel, citizens have a right to change religion or to not follow any religion.

-          There is an implied freedom from religion.

-          Etc…

An establishment and recognition of a formal “Temple of the Dog” might indicate that harboring a dog is indeed a core civil right, as practitioners generally have a right to their objects of worship:  Holy texts, crucifixes, etc…

However, the above would also present the notion that we “non practitioners” have a core civil right to be free of such things.   Would they be able to demand that others wear a crucifix?  Fast on Saturdays?  Bow towards Mecca 5 times a day?  May I stand in my neighbor’s yard and read the Bible into a bullhorn at 3am?  If my religion requires human sacrificial rites, may I kidnap and kill someone as part of that ceremony?  This separation indicates that participation in a particular religion grants NO passes on bad behavior NOR does that participation empower someone to control the personal lives of others.

Now, there are several dog owners in my community that I believe deserve to be “sacrificed” but somehow I think that would just get me into a lot of trouble.

If a dog is indeed a religious symbol, that may also restrict doggy access to public places and government properties.

Separation of Church and state also indicates that, for the most part, the electorates do not want executives, bureaucrats, law enforcement, and legislators making policy decisions based on religious doctrine.  Essentially, NO, we are not going to force everyone by law to go to church on Sunday.  Rabbis are not allowed to go on shooting sprees at the mall strictly because of who they are and so forth.    This is by no means a perfect mechanism, as the majority of people have some sort of spiritual beliefs and those are going to influence the actions and decisions of those same people.  However, it’s generally understood that government agencies are by definition secular institutions.

A couple of months ago I wrote about the systemic corruption of our AC and law enforcement agencies and how that is a major contribution to the Animal Uncontrol problem.  Essentially, our AC and law enforcement agencies have been taken over and thoroughly corrupted by animal rights and owners rights fanatics.  These people put the interests of individual dogs ahead of human rights, health and safety.   They have a strict “dogs first” policy.  When the interests of an individual dog intersect with the human rights, health and safety, they do whatever they can to make sure the dog wins!

So, why have a “dogs first” policy?  Well, if one considers a dog to be a sacred animal, then that is the only policy one CAN have!  If a dog is barking all night or attacking someone, you CAN’T take action as the incident in question was by definition an Act of Dog!   If you get mauled by a dog when fetching the mail, the state can’t intervene as that was, literally, Dog’s Will!   You must Thank Dog that you were not killed!   It is clear that you must be a horrible person who has sinned terribly to bring the Wrath of Dog down upon you!!  You must repent, and Pray to Dog for forgiveness!  If you will not repent, then Dog Damn you!

On a more serious note, the above presents an interesting policy situation as we very well may have executives, legislators, bureaucrats, and law enforcement (all paid by our taxes) making public health and safety decisions based primarily on religious doctrine.  This clearly violates both the spirit and intent of Separation of Church and State.  It is fundamentally no different than a Pagan Sheriff tolerating human sacrifice based on his/her religious beliefs.  Such a “policy” is objectionable to any civilized person regardless of their belief structure.

Have a great weekend everyone and Dog Bless you all!

Prompt Corrective Action

Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) is a concept originated by legislators of FDIC (bank) rules.  However, it is a good concept that can be applied to any out of control situation.

The basic concept is, when you have a bank that is failing, FDIC regulators take Prompt and Corrective Action to resolve the problem before it grows into a full blown crisis.  This may include taking the bank into receivership (nationalization).

In the abstract, what you want is for ANY relevant authority, public or private, to correct a problem before it becomes a full blown disaster.  If they are not going to do that, why have government and/or authorities in the first place?  I can spend my own tax money just fine!

“Your Quiet Neighbor” made the point the other day that, before we can solve our Animal Uncontrol problems, we first have to simply recognize them for what they are.  I’ll choose uncontrolled, useless barking as the object as YQN has an anti-barking blog!

Uncontrolled, useless barking is disturbance of the peace and should be treated as such.  Chronic offenses are disorderly conduct and should likewise be treated as such.

Consider the following.  If I were to stand at the curb and yell into a bullhorn at 3am, what would happen to me?

What would happen is, neighbors would call police.  Police would arrive and immediately upon noting the disturbance of the peace, would summarily cite me for same.  If I were to persist in that behavior, I would be arrested on a disorderly conduct charge and taken to jail.  Police would (or at least should) do this because they are peace officers and their primary job is to maintain the peace.  This Prompt Corrective Action restores peace to the neighborhood.

However, in the doggy world that is generally not how things work.  The “barking ordinances” are usually nothing but a free pass given to dog owners.  In my jurisdiction, for a citation to be issued, the dogs would have to bark for over a half hour, multiple households would have to document the incident and file complaints, there would be a hearing, and the potential outcome would be that a judge may determine a violation had been committed.  While all this paperwork is being shuffled and time wasted, the dog owner is free to destroy the quality of life of everyone in the vicinity with noxious “secondhand barking”.  This “policy” is due to the fact that the interests of individual dogs are given a higher priority than the rights of the taxpayers in the vicinity.   PCA in doggy cases is exceedingly rare.

If you are a taxpayer, paying the salaries of politicians and authorities, you should demand PCA in all doggy related cases.   Don’t buy the nonsense that they can’t afford it:  If you shot the dog they would be there in a heartbeat and you would be OWNED.  Furthermore, if they make the fines high enough, the corrective action should pay for itself.

PCA in AC means that authorities promptly take corrective action to resolve the situation BEFORE:

-          People become ill.

-          Victims take matters into their own hands. I.E. shoot or poison the dog.

-          Lethal violence erupts in the community.  Consider my Dangerous Owner’s Part I and Part II essays.

-          The dog’s “misdemeanor” behavior escalates to serious injury or death inflicted upon a human being or another animal.

So, with PCA in effect in doggy cases, how would the situation play out?

Here is how it should play out.  This would be an ongoing policy 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  A dog is barking uncontrollably.  You call police who then notify AC. 

-          If the dog owner is at home, he is cited immediately for disturbance of the peace regardless of any further action.  He will be instructed by police that he must silent his animal right then and there.  If he refuses or is unable to silence the animal immediately, the animal is summarily impounded by AC and the owner arrested for disorderly conduct.

-          If the dog owner is NOT at home, a citation for disturbance of the peace is nailed to his door, and AC will seize and remove the dog from the community immediately. They will force entry onto the premises if necessary.  The dog owner will be instructed in how to retrieve his pet, with instructions to keep it silent in the future.  If a doggy disturbance of the peace is noted again within 24 hours, the owner is again cited for disturbance of the peace and arrested for disorderly conduct.

-          The only exception to the above would be if the dog was somehow barking usefully:  I.E. there was a crime in progress on the property on which the dog is being housed.  Passerby in the street, the wind blowing, and people occupying other properties do NOT constitute an emergency!

Prompt Corrective Action.  It’s why YOU pay taxes.  Don’t you want your money’s worth?  Feel free to print off this post and mail it to your county executives.

In Dog We Trust?

Does the intense love and devotion that some people have for animals rise to the level of a religion?  The other day I wrote about the epic internet flame war that has erupted over the various “Dog Hater” Facebook pages, blogs and websites.  It’s apparent to me that many of these people contemplate dogs, and perhaps dog owners, as deities given that they flat out claim the same to be fundamentally superior to the rest of us.  For what can be greater than Man?  GOD(s).  It is clear to me that at least some dog lovers practice idolatry (worship).  They idolize dogs, dog owners, perhaps even themselves for owning a dog.

Before I go any further, I want to limit the scope of this discussion.  This is a blog about animal control issues and policies NOT religion.  If you want to get into a long discussion about the origin of the universe, you need to do that somewhere else.  That said, the topic of animal worship is of some interest given that it may impact animal control policies going forward.

I had a commenter ask why I put quotes around the word “religion” in a blog post the other day.  Why indeed?  I hadn’t thought about it much until someone else pointed that out to me.  Again, words can be powerful things and sometimes a small nuance can make a big difference.  And, this point is VERY important, particularly if you are going to craft public policy. 

For example, if you were to go to a county planning meeting and make reference to some sort of dog “religion” your proverbial foot may wind up in your mouth.  Individuals and organizations hostile to your policy position may indeed call you out on that, essentially demanding:  “If that’s a religion, where are their churches?  What are their rituals?  Do they have IRS status?  May I review a copy of their scriptures?” etc…  Keep reading as I expand on that in more detail later in this essay.

Animal worship is technically known as “Zoolatry” and was a center-piece in many ancient religions.  However, it is rejected by most modern organized religions.  Here is a Wiki article with more information.

One interesting note from the opening page of the Wiki article:  “Lubbock proposed that animal-worship originated from family names. In societies, families would name themselves and their children after certain animals and eventually came to hold that animal above other animals. Eventually, these opinions turned into deep respect and evolved into fully developed worship of the family animal (Lubbock, 2005, p. 253).”

Interesting phrase “fully developed worship of the family animal”.  Hmmm… where have I seen THAT before?

Now, is the fervent behavior and related belief system we are encountering in our neighborhoods, town halls, and internet forums a true religion?  I used the term “religion” to describe the behavior of the extreme dog lovers I encountered due to the following observations:

-          They have a faith based belief system.

-          They have objects of worship (idols).

-          They attempt to convert others (proselytize) to that faith.

All of the above are proto-typical indicators of a religion.  Thing is, it is ALSO my understanding that those by themselves do not fully qualify a modern religion.  Modern religions should ALSO have at least most of the following:

-          Formal organizational/institutional structure.

-          Formal documents and scriptures.

-          Formal rites, rituals, and ceremonies.

-          Clergy.

-          Formal recognition by the government (i.e. tax exempt status).

-          Buildings and land (churches, sacred sites, etc..).

-          Etc…

It’s also my observation that the western “Temple of the Dog” lacks the above formalities.  They don’t have an organizational structure, they don’t have any formal scriptures, they don’t have any formal ceremonies, they don’t have clergy, they don’t have churches, they are not formally recognized by the government, etc…  

There ARE a handful of organized religious sects that DO formally worship dogs.  Consider the “Dog” section of the previously mentioned Wiki article.  However, I don’t think that is what we are encountering on Facebook and in our neighborhoods:  While formal dog worship exists, it is rare, particularly in western societies.  I seriously doubt that some tiny, obscure Hindu Sect in Nepal is organizing and executing the flood of spam, trolls and the avalanche of “counter hate” we are encountering.  I also seriously doubt those same sects are making death threats and notifying the American CIA of the dog disliker activities!

Again, this is not a religious site.  I’m not an anthropologist or a religious scholar.  Where simple belief systems end and religions begin is debatable.  For example, I believe USPS is going to deliver my mail today… is that a religion?  It isn’t because I do not consider postal workers to be fundamentally superior to the rest of us.   

So, with all of that said, do the activities, beliefs and zeal of the western dog fanatic technically qualify as a religion?  In a very primitive way, I would say that it IS a religion.  However, from a modern public policy viewpoint it IS NOT a religion.  For it to be formally considered as such it needs to organize and institutionalize.  Again, from a public policy viewpoint this distinction is VERY important.

Who know, it may organize into a formal religion at some point in the future…

Temple of the Dog.  Coming to a street corner near YOU!

For Whom The Bell Trolls

For when the Bell TROLLS it TROLLS for thee!  Some recent news of note:  The FaceBook page “I hate dogs” has reached nearly 2000 “Likes”!   If you enjoy provoking people, you should post something even marginally critical about dogs or their owners and you will experience an outpouring of outrage and vitriol the likes you have NEVER seen!  Also consider:  This, and This, and This.

A while back I reported on the up and coming dog hater movement that has swept the internet and is working its way into various social circles.  The intensity of the haters is exceeded only by the intense fanaticism of the hard core dog lover.   You can’t have the Yin without the Yang people!

I admit that following this phenomenon has become a vice of sorts for me.  Watching the dog nuts and the haters claw and tear at each other vastly exceeds the entertainment value (perhaps blood lust) of professional wrestling, ultimate fighting, all with the non-stop intensity of the most graphic war film.  They battle as if the future of the universe itself is at stake!

Here is my rhetorical question for the day:  Why do dog lovers take SUCH intense issue with the notion of others not liking dogs?   There are “hate” pages for cats, horses, rats, snakes, etc… but you don’t see anywhere near the outpouring of intense, foaming-at-the-mouth, apoplectic rage aimed AT those pages.  I like cats, but I am not on the “I hate cats” page making a complete fool of myself on a daily basis!   I respect the fact that not everyone likes cats and that they don’t necessarily need a reason for that.  Indeed, there is something different about the dog lover that you just don’t see anywhere else.  Of course, this makes them an easy target! 

I am not exaggerating.  Dog lovers are mounting a HUGE campaign to get the dog-disliker pages shut down.   This is true to form, given that dog nuts do not respect any of our other rights, i.e. control the noise level in our homes, have a yard free of dog crap, use our public spaces in peace and safety, etc… it is sadly predictable that they would NOT respect anyone else’s right to free speech or expression, either.   This fits neatly with the notion that they feel they are truly an entitlement overclass, and they can take our rights at whim.  Of course, they don’t care about any of the OTHER “hate” pages.  Hate is only bad when it’s directed at dogs or their owners, apparently.

I have identified several arch-types in the “counter hater” movement.  This is by no means an exhaustive list:

-          The Proselytizer.   The Proselytizer firmly believes that dogs are, by far, the most wonderful thing EVER.  Dogs are by definition GODS among us and MUST be considered and treated as such by ALL.   Not content to practice their “religion” on their own, The Proselytizer has a burning, uncontrollable need to convince every other living soul of this absolute truism.   If you do not worship dogs and dog owners with every particle of your being, they will proselytize you to the end of the earth.  Merely “liking” dogs is not good enough!  They will NOT rest until EVERYONE bows down at the altar of the dog!

-          The Thug.   The Thug is similar to the Proselytizer in that they consider dogs are gods among us that must be worshiped by all.  However, Thugs take a different tactic.  They believe that violence and intimidation are the best way to bring the rest of us non-worshipers into the fold.  Thugs will threaten violence, including rape and murder, violence aimed at family members, etc… towards anyone who does not share their POV 100%.   Essentially, they are going to beat, rape, and torture you until you love all dogs unconditionally. Note that many Thugs appear to be Pit Bull owners.

-          The Entitlement Junkie.  The Entitlement Junkie believes that the sole purpose of government, indeed the sole purpose of human civilization, is to protect and promote the interests of dogs and dog owners.  To them, this is STRICTLY a nation OF dogs, BY dogs, and FOR dogs.   Upon realizing that there are people who have priorities outside of the doggy world, they notify State Police, FBI and CIA (no kidding!) of this intolerable blasphemy.  Yes, to them, none of these organizations has anything better to do than go after those who simply do not prefer the company of dogs.  Indeed, every penny of your tax money MUST be directed towards creating a Utopia for dogs and their owners.   Everyone exists to serve THEM.

Now, I agree that any page that promotes illegal activity, such as animal abuse, SHOULD be closed as criminal conspiracies are not protected under the 1^st amendment.  However, it appears that most, if not all, of the illicit activity (threats of violence, abuse of authorities, using pets as weapons, etc…) on these pages is being promoted by the dog lovers themselves.  In addition to attempting to strip the Dislikers of their 1^st amendment protections, they have issued the most dire of threats against the same. 

Moreover, the “lovers” insist that the haters are promoting animal abuse.  Really?  Generally speaking, who commits the most animal abuse?  Is it “haters” who want nothing to do with dogs, and rarely own them, or is it folks who claim to love dogs who then proceed to:  Beat dogs, breed them uncontrollably, dump them in shelters, abandon them, “rescue” them and then house them in horrid conditions, put them in harms way, use them as offensive weapons against their neighbors etc…?

Indeed, 99.9% of atrocities committed against dogs are by individuals within the dog owning community, something by definition the Hater not a part of.  Here is a good question:  Who is responsible for the million Pit Bulls destroyed in USA shelters on a yearly basis… is it:  A)  Pit Bull breeders, B) Pit bull owners, C) Pit bull apologistas, D)  “Haters” or E) a, b, and c?

Correct answer is “E”.  The Million pit bulls destroyed each year are a direct result of irresponsible “line” breeders of pit bulls, idiots and thugs who adopt them and proceed to use them as a weapon, and moronic celebrity and media people who insist that the Pit bull is a “Nanny Dog”!   Dog lovers:  The biggest threat to your community is WITHIN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY. 

This isn’t to say that a Hater may or may not indulge in a little “cleanup” on their own initiative.  They may leave out a hotdog marinated in automotive antifreeze, or on rare occasion shoot a dog.  However, I am confident that, while many of these incidents may not quite meet the legal threshold for force against a dog, these incidents are in response to a dog being used as a weapon against them.  Hey dog lovers:  If you don’t your dogs poisoned, shot, and beaten with shovels YOU MUST KEEP THEM UNDER CONTROL AT ALL TIMES!  You CAN’T expect your neighbors to summarily surrender their rights to you, even when the law demands that they do so.

Back to the original theme of this essay.  If the mere thought of someone disliking dogs, and/or taking issue with your dog’s behavior drives you into a foaming at the mouth rage, you might want to consider exactly WHO is the criminal:  Is it the one who wants to live in peace, or those that want to use force and violence those who don’t share your point of view?

You may also want to consider that, it’s YOUR reaction that these people are seeking.  Why give them the satisfaction?   The "bell" TROLLS for Thee!

Think about it.