Go to previous post:

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
Top pick.

Our Admirable Sponsors

September 21, 2003

Schism among the Anglicans. Charles Hoffacker has the scoop.
Conservatives in many provinces are insisting that the church return to what they term “the biblical teaching on dogs.” Others, especially in Britain and North America, insist that there is nothing unchristian about showing dogs love and respect as creatures of God.

Both sides admit that there are relatively few references in the Bible to dogs, and that most are negative. Many of these verses use the image “dead dog” as a term of opprobrium. Others speak of dogs licking up somebody92s blood or eating their mortal remains. […]

Conservatives see these texts as establishing conclusively that dogs are nasty, and that Christians should have little or nothing to do with them. […] Progressives, on the other hand, see the negative references in Scripture as culturally determined, and base their case for respecting dogs on a creation theology that sees every living creature as good. In some places they are building churches or installing stained glass windows honoring St. Bernard. A trend in their scholarship identifies the Wolf of Gubbio, which St. Francis tamed as not a wolf, but a German shepherd.

[07:22 PM]
Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on Schism among the Anglicans.:

Robert L ::: (view all by) ::: September 21, 2003, 09:05 PM:

Like I always say, I love dogs; it's just some dog owners I have problems with.
BTW, this sentence threw me:
President Cheney has reacted by proposing a federal leash law.
Did I miss something on the news?

Avram ::: (view all by) ::: September 21, 2003, 09:44 PM:

Did you know that in public schools, as early as pre-school, children are shown pictures of dogs, and indoctrinated into thinking of dog-ownership as just another pet-ownership choice? How much longer will we allow our culture to be degraded by the pro-dog liberal secularists and their anti-Bible agenda?!

Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: September 21, 2003, 10:57 PM:

Robert, you didn't miss anything on the news. It's an implied comparison.

Andrew Brown ::: (view all by) ::: September 21, 2003, 11:35 PM:

the only thing wrong with this comparison is tht Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, though he was known to take dogs for long walks and even throw them sticks in his previous jobs, has no intention of opening, or even attending, any dog shows in his present post. He is known to believe that unity with dog-haters is a more important Christian virtue than getting your sores licked by slobbery quadrupeds.

Lis Carey ::: (view all by) ::: September 21, 2003, 11:49 PM:

One might be moved to ask, if Christian unity is, or should be, the overriding virtue in this controversy, why don't the dog-haters share that value? And should other Christians be taking note of the fact that the dog-haters don't share it?

Mary Kay ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 02:59 AM:

Until I read the comments, I thought this was something serious. This says something unfortunate. But whether about me or the society in which I live, I leave as an exercise for the reader.


Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 09:21 AM:

And when it comes to rabies, don't medicine and morality say the same thing? Free your communities of all potential rabies carriers, especially dogs, but also bats, raccoons, and all other mammalian wildlife.

Rabies is God's punishment against dog owners, and communities who tolerate them. As for the young children who get this disease after being bitten, does not the Good Book say "the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons"? Besides, there's no justification for considering children "innocent;" we are all born with Original Sin, after all.

The Good Book also says "give not that which is holy unto the dogs." What, I ask, is more holy than your own family? No one would cast pearls before swine (the next bit); how can they allow their children to go to the dogs?

(I'll stop now; I'm scaring myself.)

Andrew Brown ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 09:37 AM:

IN a further, non-satirical development, a prominent English evangelical has compared defenders of gay rights with advocates of gas chambers for Muslims and Jews. Presumably, that makes actual, practising gays the equivalent of concentration camp guards. A friend of mine, who was present at this event on Saturday, says he was cheered by his audience, among them three bishops, two of whom privately assured my friend afterwards that the speaker (whom they have known for years) was 'mad'. But of course gentlemen don't let the insanity of other gentlemen worry them.

I've known Holloway for years myself, and I don't think that insanity distinguishes him nearly as much as nastiness.

Chris Quinones ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 12:41 PM:

Avram, sweetie, I love you, but dogs rule.

This isn't a dealbreaker, is it, after all these years? Hon?

Just call me a dupe of the caniphile agenda.

Lois Fundis ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 12:53 PM:

progressives question the validity of the meeting [of bishops] since it will include no dogs, only primates.


Chuck ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 05:20 PM:

Did I miss something on the news?

No, but you may have missed the first line of the piece, which is directly beneath the author's credit and easy to miss; it says, "The year is 2010."

The year is 2010, and a President Cheney would presumably be following a two-term W. in that timeline. This adds a whole other sub-level of scariness.

Zizka ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 07:39 PM:

God chose to made dogs in such a way that they are able to lick themselves in places where it is impossible for us to lick ourselves. A lot of the hatred of dogs comes from envy. Each species is beautiful in its own way; for example, we have the opposable thumb, and they don't.

Robert L ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 08:33 PM:

Avram, that should be "anicat agenda. Since, of course, cats rule. Dogs follow.

Jon H ::: (view all by) ::: September 22, 2003, 10:35 PM:

It was all over when the elementary schools started teaching "Heather Has Two Doggies".

Jon Sobel ::: (view all by) ::: September 23, 2003, 09:57 AM:

This must have something to do with the dog-and-religion related feud between Mel Gibson and Frank Rich. (The latest is in Rich's column in this past Sunday's NY Times Arts section.)

Jeremy Osner ::: (view all by) ::: September 23, 2003, 01:59 PM:

Modern Fidos must be disciplined.

Allen Brill ::: (view all by) ::: September 23, 2003, 03:45 PM:

I needed a good laugh after what the Pittsburgh papers had on the role that Howard Ahmanson is playing in promoting schism.

Arthur D. Hlavaty ::: (view all by) ::: September 23, 2003, 04:46 PM:

No forgiveness for the sons of bitches! Remember Jezebel!

rea ::: (view all by) ::: September 24, 2003, 02:39 PM:

No discussion of this topic would be complete without addressing Sen. Santorum's widely published remarks expressing fear that increased affection for dogs will inevitably lead to tolerance of heterosexual marriages

nakadie ::: (view all by) ::: September 25, 2003, 10:41 AM:

I don't hate dogs but I do think they're dirty and the people who own them have hair all over their clothes. I don't want to eat anything a dog owner brings in to the office. I don't want to kiss a dog owner since their dog may have licked them in the mouth. I love to look at other people's dogs, but don't want them in my life. Does this make me a conservative?

Nakadie ::: (view all by) ::: September 25, 2003, 10:43 AM:

What has two legs and bleeds profusely?

Half a cat.