Can Michael Vick be forgiven?
December 10th, 2007It’s a question Jon Walker tackles.
In other words, God will forgive you for what you have done, but He most likely won’t remove the consequences of what you have done. God forgives fully and unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean we won’t reap what we have sown: The crisis pregnancy remains, the prosecution takes place, the job is lost, or the death occurs.
That this question is even asked reflects the excessive fixation (it borders on idolatry in some cases) our society has with pets, dogs most notably.
That this question is not asked of women who willingly go to a doctor so he can professionally kill her child, but I digress…
If Jesus from the cross, asks His Father to forgive the folks who nailed Him to the cross, why is it so hard to envision Vick’s forgiveness?
Good article.
amen, Laz…..amen……
I agree with C.S. Lewis that any love, other than agape, that becomes a god immediately becomes a demon. I do not understand the moral compass of those who oppose animal testing but support abortion on-demand, and I worry about a society where pets can become a kind of substitute for children.
That said, I trust a person who is kind to animals — especially pets, and especially dogs, whose loyalty and love are often unwavering — far more than one who is indifferent to their welfare. And to one who takes the opportunity of this news story to argue that we as a society are overly fixated on dogs, I would suggest that he look at pictures of those animals who have been brutally maimed by the bloodsport of dogfighting. Better yet, he should go to a shelter and see them in person before becoming indignant about those who are repulsed by Vick’s crime.
Bubba,
So you don’t think American society is overtly fixated on dogs?
If I were to become “indignant about those who are repulsed by Vick’s crime” I’d have to be indignant towards myself for I’m also repulsed.
I believe Vick can be forgiven but only if he truely seeks forgivness. How many times did Darrell Strawberry appear to be sorry and get anothe chance only to screw up over and over.
Laz, I’m not sure that the Vick case is the most appropriate time to speculate whether our society is overly fixated on dogs.
But to answer your question, I can think of numerous things about which our society is even more fixated, and many of these things are far more unhealthy as fixations.
Do I think we’re overly fixated on dogs? Not especially, no.
Bubba,
I cannot think of a better time (other than those times we reflect on the fact that some pets have health insurance while many people do not) to do so.
The outrage at Vick was not tempered with the realization in some cases, that Vick did not take a human life.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in saying that he was portrayed as the vilest and most despicable of creatures.
And why is this the case Laz & Bubba?
Because aborting a human baby was “legalized” in 1973, where dogfighting is illegal in almost every state. While I consider what Vick was guilty of sickening, I consider ending an unborn child’s life as Murder, plain and simple. We are to treat animals humanely and with respect. Humans (including unborn children) are created in the image and likeness of God.
Laz, the fact that a small minority of people didn’t keep Vick’s crime in perspective is proof of absolutely nothing about society at large. A small minority was also very vocal in their defense of Vick, so why aren’t you spouting that as proof that American society is indifferent to the welfare of animals?
You say you can’t think of a better time than the Vick trial to tut-tut our national fixation on dogs, “other than those times we reflect on the fact that some pets have health insurance while many people do not.”
Which times are those? Can I guess that those times are frequent for you? Do you regularly schedule times to reflect on the fact — sorry, the fact — that some pets have health insurance? Or do you just fume every time you see a commercial for Iams?
While I concede that some do obsess over their pets too much, I don’t think it’s a society-wide problem; and while I think that we let our duties and priorities get out of order, that’s hardly a problem unique to modern society, much less modern American society.
It seems to me that you want to complain about our supposed fixation on dogs both in season and out of season: when news and events give you the opportunity to rant, even when taking that opportunity strikes me as inappropriate, as it does with the Vick case; and at all others times, when you choose to reflect that some pet owners dare to spend their own money in ways that don’t meet your approval.
Suppose we were discussing a high-profile criminal case where a celebrity pled guilty to some pretty vicious child abuse. If a person took the opportunity of that case to argue that we obsess over our children, that this case is a good opportunity to criticize that obsession, and that we should criticize that obsession in-season and out as we reflect on the fact that some children have ridiculously expensive birthday parties, I would conclude that — despite his claim to find the abuse case repellant, a claim that I would concede as credbile — the misanthrope hates parents, or children, or both.
Children aren’t equivalent to dogs, of course, but a similar conclusion can be drawn from what you’ve written, Laz. You strike me as a person who hates dog owners, dogs, or both.
Bubba,
If I truly hated dog owners, dogs or both how could I be repulsed (as I am) by what Vick did?
This society’s fixation on dogs, of course, is not the root of the problem but merely a symptom.
The folks who came to Vick’s defense were vilified along with him for their inhumanity and such.
It is not my life goal to focus on this one issue Bubba, but I thought it appropriate to bring it up in a post which deals with the subject, I apologize if this is inappropriate.
Your analogy is moot because as you pointed out children are not dogs, but apparently, as noted before, within our society there appears to be some confusion…
Laz, the fact that children and dogs are not equivalent doesn’t make an analogy moot. It just means that the analogy has limits, but almost by definition all analogies have such limits. If an analogy was an absolutely perfect representation of the thing being discussed, it wouldn’t be an analogy.
A person can certainly hate dogs and/or dog owners even if he’s repulsed by cruelty to dogs. For the fourth consecutive comment, you have written more in criticism of dog owners than you have of those who brutally abuse dogs, and more in criticism of those who have criticized Vick than those who have defended him.
I believe you when you say you’re repulsed by what Vick did, but I don’t see you calling his behavior symptomatic of some greater sociological problem. No, you don’t say that of the systematic abuse of dogs — raising them to be vicious, subjecting them to inhumane conditions before and during the bloody dogfight itself, and then killing them in a barbaric manner if they weren’t successful enough at killing other dogs.
No, you reserve your condemnation for health insurance for pets.
Repulsed as you may be about Vick’s behavior, you get positively incensed about the behavior of those who may go too far in treating their pets well, and you do so without a trace of apparent awareness of just how unseemly this criticism is.
You go out of your way to make ridiculous arguments in defense of your criticism of pet owners — going so far as to dismiss an analogy because it is, well, an analogy — but you mention your repulsion at Vick’s crimes as almost a parenthetical, as a passing thought given only to justify your criticism of pet owners.
You note your repulsion only to enable your more passionately felt criticism of those who provide their pets more care than you think necessary.
You strike me as a person who hates dog owners, dogs, or both.
This is not a logical conclusion, Bubba. We could just as easily say that you stike me as a person who loves dogs and dog owners too much.
I would say the issue here is balance. Like Laz said, yes what Vick did is sick and wrong, and he should be punished, but he did not hurt any people. It is important to keep that in mind. One of the ways you could tell that protesters were going too far is when their signs said things like “Let’s make Vick fight for his life.” Torture to animals is bad, but the rule isn’t an eye for an eye when dealing with animals.
In addition, my outrage doesn’t stem from the abortion issue so much, but the money that is spent on pets every year. The APPMA reports that Americans spent $38.4 billion on pets in 2006. To put that in perspective, it has been estimated that for about $20 billion, we could end what is called extrreme poverty on the planet. Extreme poverty is defined as the poverty that kills, those people who have death croutching at their doorstep and could die any day from lack of food, clean water, or simple medicine.
I did a blog on this a few years ago.
It isn;t about being anti-dog or anti-pet, but about balance.
Here is the blog.
*Sigh
Nick, if I thought that Laz’s apparent dislike of dogs or dog-owners could be logically argued, I would have made a logical argument for it, instead of merely expressing my impression of Laz based on what he’s written.
And, I agree that balance is important; I made that clear in the very first comment here. I agree that some of the protesters went too far in attacking Vick, but there seems to be little balance from you or Laz in also noting that some of Vick’s defenders went too far.
–
As an aside, I think it’s a crock to suggest that $20 billion can eliminate extreme poverty from the planet, when such poverty hasn’t been caused by a lack of aid, but by an absence of the institutional pillars of western civilization, including free markets and the rule of law.
But you say American pet owners spend $38.4 billion on pets each year? Let’s put that in real perspective. Our GDP is $13 TRILLION. That means we spend three-tenths of one percent of our national wealth on our pets. That’s not a horrible number.
In general, the implication that Americans are spending money on our pets that could be used to eradicate poverty around the world is just stupid. To use the Vick case as a springboard to make this argument is unseemly.
And you wrote, “my outrage doesn’t stem from the abortion issue so much, but the money that is spent on pets every year.”
After writing something like this, you should not be surprised that some people think that your level of outrage is out of balance.
…but there seems to be little balance from you or Laz in also noting that some of Vick’s defenders went too far.
You may have a point here. I’m sure his defenders went too far as well. I’m just not aware of it. In the media coverage I saw the focus was on the ones calling for Vick’s head, but I’m sure there was extremeism on the other side as well.
I think it’s a crock to suggest that $20 billion can eliminate extreme poverty from the planet
Well,bubba, smarter people than you and me would say otherwise. Sorry you disagree.
I’m trying to find the reference for you, but I’m having trouble. i’ll keep looking.
In general, the implication that Americans are spending money on our pets that could be used to eradicate poverty around the world is just stupid.
So you think that consumerism and materialism, the kind that elevates an animal to the same level or above a starting child is fine, and that to suggest we feed the child before the animal is stupid?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are not far from arguing this. Be careful, Bubba.
And you wrote, “my outrage doesn’t stem from the abortion issue so much, but the money that is spent on pets every year.”
After writing something like this, you should not be surprised that some people think that your level of outrage is out of balance.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this more clearly. About 1.2 million aborions happen every year in America. By comparison, every year 6 million children under 5 die due to malnutrition. Let me be clear, I am against abortion, and would love to see it ended, but to focus on abortion and neglect world wide social justice issues seems much more out of balance to me.
Nick, I took a look at your blog entry, and I found some of its points uncompelling. For one thing, it betrays a serious lack of knowledge about the Bible to write, “Jesus seldom talks about judgment and Hell in his ministry.”
For another, I’m a huge U2 fan, but it’s jarring to see someone invoke the multi-millionaire Bono in an argument that a middle class family is indulging in positively sinful conspicuous consumption by daring to have a dog and a cat.
It’s good that you admit no causal relationship between pet ownership and personal debt, but to bring up the subject of debt as a major point in your criticism of pet ownership is silly.
And you offer what you think are outrageous statistics, among them the following:
63% of US households own a pet
45% own more than one
You then write, “I hope these statistics alarm you,” and I cannot grasp what in the world is alarming about these numbers. And, I cannot grasp why you would insist you’re not “anti-pet” when you write that widespread pet ownership is, by itself, alarming.
–
Personally, I don’t sell my own intelligence short, and I believe that far too many people downplay the common sense and genuine wisdom that is found in the average middle-class American. Like Bill Buckley, I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
But even granting that people who are actually smarter than me believe, implausibly, that extreme poverty can be eliminated with a single lump-sum payment of $20 billion — or three dollars for every man, woman, and child on Earth — it doesn’t mean they’re right. Marxism stands as a brutal testimony that countless intellectuals can support truly idiotic ideas.
Again, the problem of extreme poverty is not something that can be eradicated by writing a check; it’s a problem whose roots lie in the absence of institutions like the free market and the rule of law.
–
But, to answer your question, I do believe that consumerism is wrong, I do believe that the love for a pet can be taken to extremes, and I do believe that each of us has a duty to feed the poor. I just don’t think that duty means that, if there is even one hungry child on this planet, it’s somehow immoral to own a dog. Christianity doesn’t require universal asceticism to that degree.
And those who suggest otherwise are in no position to preach to anyone about balance.
For one thing, it betrays a serious lack of knowledge about the Bible to write, “Jesus seldom talks about judgment and Hell in his ministry.”
He only talks about it handful of times, and about other things a lot more. I take that as seldom.
multi-millionaire Bono in an argument that a middle class family is indulging in positively sinful conspicuous consumption by daring to have a dog and a cat.
To be clear, being a multi millionaire is not wrong. what you do with it is the question. Bono has been a pioneer in giving and as an advocate in the social justice arena.
Secondly, I do quote Bono in the article, but it is clearly in regards to the larger context of social justice, not about pets, although that is the sping board of the article.
…but to bring up the subject of debt as a major point in your criticism of pet ownership is silly.
I will admit that my point on debt may be a little out of place in that arguement. I think the debt by families in this country is rediculous, and it is simply a glaring symptom of our consumerism, and that is what I was touching on. The debt issue should have probably been a seperate article though.
…and I cannot grasp what in the world is alarming about these numbers
My point there was just the sheer “normalness” (I’m not sure that is a word) of the practice. Throughout history, pets have generally only been owned by the rich. The idea of pet hood among normal, common people is very new, i would guess only a couple hundred years old. In addition, even if you except the idea of pet hood, the way we treat our animals in this day in age, the lavishness of their lives, compared to other countries or other times is alarming. I’m sorry you don’t see it, but that is true. we are blinded by our modern way of life in the context of the larger history.
…it doesn’t mean they’re right.
Fair point, but it also doesn’t mean they are wrong.
Again, the problem of extreme poverty is not something that can be eradicated by writing a check; it’s a problem whose roots lie in the absence of institutions like the free market and the rule of law.
We are in complete agreement here, and that is why groups are starting to rise up and fight against the “systems” of oppression that impoverish people.
I just don’t think that duty means that, if there is even one hungry child on this planet, it’s somehow immoral to own a dog.
I agree. That is not what I have said. As I said with my first point, balance is needed. If there was balance in this area, if 20,000 children didn’t die of malnutrition and lack of access to clean water yesterday, I would be less vocal about this issue. We need balance.
It would, of course, be extreme to say if any child is hungry, any money spent on anything else is sinful. I’m not calling for that; I’m calling for balance.
I think a good pracice to bring balance is for a family who has a pet, figure up what your pet costs you a year, and increase your yearly giving to social justice causes by that amount. Find a good organization like IJM or World Vision. That would be good balance. Until we are doing that, we don’t have balance in this area.
I think the Gospels are quite clear that Jesus taught about Hell and judgment numerous times, and I would be happy to cite the passages at another time.
For now, I think it would be helpful for you to admit honestly, Nick, that you really are “anti-pet” — as you think we ought to be alarmed at the ubiquity of pet ownership, and you advocate some sort of Social Justice Offset for pet ownership, introducing another modern analogue to papal indulgences alongside carbon offsets.
Maybe you just rankle at pet ownership as a manifestation of individual freedom or the prosperity that comes with it. Regardless, you find the mere fact of pet ownership as something that alarms you and that necessitates some sort of penance; that’s a pretty good indication of being opposed to pets, albeit perhaps the soft-spoken opposition of a moral busybody who thinks he knows best for the rest of us.
Which brings us back to this:
I think a good pracice to bring balance is for a family who has a pet, figure up what your pet costs you a year, and increase your yearly giving to social justice causes by that amount. Find a good organization like IJM or World Vision. That would be good balance. Until we are doing that, we don’t have balance in this area.
The Bible is clear on our duty to give to the poor, but it’s equally clear about the virtue of humilty. You show no humility in displaying such an easy willingness to tell others how to live, and to tell others that they are immoral if they dare to deviate from your half-baked scheme.
You frankly remind me of the desire Orwell criticized,
the desire to usher in society where the intellectual can at last get his hands on the whip, and the overindulgence of our dogs and cats is not such a horrendous problem that we should turn to the genteel totalitarian who wants to control all our lives for the sake of his ideas about justice.
Okay, Bubba, let’s have a look at the accusations you have hurled at me in just this last post:
You have accused me of:
-advocating papal indulgence-like requirements.
-Being uincomfortable at individual freedom
-Being “a moral busybody who thinks he knows best for the rest of us.”
-Being proud, or at least not humble
-Bossines, and telling others how to live
-Being guilty of “schemes”, that are half-baked, no less
-Being a “genteel totalitarian who wants to control all our lives for the sake of his ideas about justice.”
Wow. I must have struck a nerve.
Most of these accusations are not worth responding to, and it is quite clear to any who read this how rediculous they are.
I guess the one charge that I would like to defend myself on is the idea of telling others what to do. I don’t think this is my style. I tend to question, to be a voice, to look at what is wrong with society and call for change, but not to call people evil and tell them what to do. I hope I have not done that. To be clear, pointing out that an idea is rediculous to me, or offering an example of one way to help bring balance to an important issue is not telling people what to do, nor is it totalitarianism.
Lastly, Bubba, name calling and personal attacks are generally not the proper etiquette in online dialogues, and certainly not in Christian conversations.
Thanks.
In light of Bubba’s last comment, I suppose I would have been better to copy Laz, and just offer up a…
*Sigh
That sigh says it all, Laz.
Nick, you argued that, until our spending increases — increases, and not just spending totals — in “social justice causes” matches our spending on our pets, “we don’t have balance in this area.”
There was no hint that you saw this matching of social justice spending increases to pet expenses as only one of any number of ways an individual could live a moral life; that it was merely “an example of one way to help bring balance to an important issue.”
In response to what you had written, I do think that making sure your Alpo receipts matches the increases in your World Vision giving does seem like comparable to papal indulgences. It treats having a pet as a sin for which comparable giving to — if you’ll pardon the phrase — one of your pet causes purchases absolution.
And, this approach does seem totalitarian: not in the sense of being mandated by a government, but in the sense of dictating every decision of our lives. Christianity should inform every part of our lives, but it is not totalitarian in the sense that it dictates our every action. I tend to believe Augustine showed a lot of wisdom when he taught that the moral life is guided by the rule of “love, and do what you will.” There is a great deal of liberty, freedom, and flexibility in Christianity, that is in contrast both to the idea that pet ownership requires a very specific offset, and even with the idea that pet ownership is wrong in the first place.
All that said, the weight of my criticism comes from the clear implication that you were offering this idea of offsets as the only way to have a balanced, moral life.
If you had been more clear that this was just one approach that you could see as viable, I would not have reacted nearly as strongly. I think my reaction was justified to what you had written; if what you wrote was not an accurate reflection of what you believe, that’s hardly my fault.
I hate cats.
Bubba,
So you interpreted me saying that making social justice giving match pet costs was “a good practice” as me saying that it is what is needed to cover the sin of owning a pet?
You are assuming I said A LOT that I didn’t say.
By the way, I think that brushing you teeth, and running, and reading Tim’s blog are all “good practices” too, but does that mean they are necessary for salvation?
“Until we are doing that, we don’t have balance in this area.”
Gee, what ever could have given me the idea that you were insisting that pet offsets were mandatory for a moral and balanced existence?
I’m sorry, Bubba. I should have refused to continue this conversation awhile ago. It is clear that you are not interested in having a restectful conversation, but are interested in name calling and cynicism.
I’m done.
Bubba, Nick, please be friends again…
(Cineaste, a crazy mad argument you weren’t involved in, I think that’s a first for me! Haha.)
some might say housing pets or saving them from shelters is indeed a social cause.