Friday, September 19, 2014

Dogs in the Bible, truth from fiction, raising kids

Never let it be said that I am not wrong from time to time. My wife reminds me of my wrongness by pointing out and remembering, I truly believe, every error in thought or action I have committed (of which she is aware) from the moment I met her till just this morning actually. And now that I’m blogging to the public, you point out my errors as well. So be it. I stand corrected.

One of my blog gaffes was exposed by smart guy and friend Don Baker. I’m not being sarcastic here. He really is a smart guy, having founded and then retired as director from a very good organization youth organization in Evanston. In a post about talking to my dog I boldly asserted, or rather my dog Ally (may she rest in peace) boldly asserted, that dogs were not mentioned in the Bible. Don liked the article, as did many. However he gently but firmly told me in no uncertain terms, with references to back it up, that dogs indeed did make it into the holy scriptures.

Don has this search program that allows you to type in anything you please and see if it is mentioned in the Bible. I find it is difficult if not impossible in this age of Google to invent or distort facts. It can be done, but it’s certainly not as easy as it used to be, especially about such widely studied things as the Bible. So Don used this virtual digital gizmo as it were and discovered no less than twenty seven (27) references to dogs in the Bible. Not one of them complimentary. I’m glad Ally didn’t know. Ally was right, and that was her point in the story. Sometimes it’s better to be ignored completely than noted and remembered in a negative light. Sadly, dogs do not enjoy Biblical anonymity. I’m glad Ally died before learning how awful it really is. She never was one much for Google.

The dog references in the Bible, beginning in Exodus and ending in Revelations, are universally bad. Here’s a few favorites, holy dog highlights as it were, to give you a flavor for the low regard in which dogs were held in ancient times.

Psalms 59:6- They return at evening, they howl like a dog, and go around the city.

Psalms 22:16- For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me…

1 Samuel 17:43- The Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?"

Philippians 3:2- Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision. (editor’s note: Would not circumcision be extremely hard to fake?)

Revelation 22:15- Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

Matthew 7:6- Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

(And my personal favorite)

Proverbs 26:11- Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a fool who repeats his folly.

There you have it. According to the Bible, dogs will lie, turn on you, howl, eat their puke, and do evil things. The verses speak for themselves, which may give you a hint as to why Christianity and the Bible are such a hard sell these days. We think a lot more of our dogs now. We love them to the point of believing them good animals with noble hearts even. We love dogs because we think dogs teach us about life itself.

My personal favorite, the dog vomit fool verse, reminds me of a short exchange between my seven year old daughter and I a long time ago. She ran into the house with a horrified look on her face.

“Dad, Sandy just threw up and now he’s eating it! What’s wrong with him? ”

“Honey, it’s just him being a dog. They’re not people. Dogs do that.”

And as we now know from the Bible, dogs have done that same thing for thousands of years.

Moving on to less graphic and earthy topics, I think it’s good to remind you occasionally, as if you didn’t already know, that I make stuff up in these blog posts. Are they are based on things that really happen or have happened to me? Yes. Are the events actually as l experienced them? Only loosely. Are the conversations verbatim? No. This is not journalism. These are stories. Journalists, good ones that is, are constrained by an obligation to write the truth as closely as they can to what they see and understand to be true. I, on the other hand, exercise my prerogative to make stuff up for story purposes.

Did I get lost in a boat in Northern Ontario with a guy who was not pleased at being lost as I wrote about the last two weeks? Yes I did. Did he say those exact words to me, and I to him, which I enclosed with quotation marks as dialogue? Not entirely. For example, in recollecting the incident around a table in a warm kitchen laden down with Walleye fillets, hash browns and cold beer did he describe my directional device as a “candy ass compass?” No he did not. I made that up. I thought it the perfect adjective for that cheap compass that got us home, and to communicate the gentle ribbing he gave me in front of the other guys, as guys will do.

Does that detract from your enjoyment of the story? I hope not. I strive to make these posts better in the future by making up more and better stuff, describing life in ways that are not necessarily factual but damn good. I count on you to suspend your disbelief and go with it. Perhaps laughing, maybe crying at times, but certainly getting emotionally involved with the writing and enjoying it. That’s what I’m going for. I hope to make up a whole book that way. Will it be based on things that really happened in my life? I don’t know how it couldn’t. Will it be non-fiction? A memoir? Not on your life. Too difficult, too painful, and maybe too boring. I’m going, each time I write, for a good story. Just thought you should know.

And as long as I’m talking about various things this week let me close with something from my past life as a formally working person. Child abuse. Contrary to recent news on parenting stemming from all places the NFL, child abuse is fairly easy to recognize. Government, through state agencies, often in partnership with community organizations, now identify, treat, and as a last resort raise abused and neglected children. We use the courts to prosecute, rehabilitate, and in some cases terminate the parental rights of abusive and neglectful parents. Preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect is serious business. Attending to it is in our country’s best interest. Why? Because child abuse and neglect destroys families and creates damaged adults.

State agencies, which is Illinois is DCFS, have codified child abuse and its deadly sister, child neglect. Child abuse in Illinois begins with cuts, welts and bruises and ends with broken bones, skull fractures, and death. Is the use of physical punishment to discipline your child, considered abuse? No. But striking your child in a way that creates cults, welts, and bruises certainly is. What’s the difference? You can see cuts, welts, and bruises. They are evidence of abuse, of physical punishment taken too far. As a society we officially draw the line right there.

Which speaks not at all to the argument as to whether physical or corporal punishment is necessary to effectively parent children. Parenting children is one of our most important roles as human beings. And it is hard work. It requires us grown-ups to be confident, decisive, fair, consistent, diligent and yet loving. How many of us are up to that task day in and day out? To be an effective parent you must set limits and boundaries and provide consequences when your children exceed them. As a parent you have an obligation to teach your children right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate, kind from mean. You can’t simply be their friend. You must be their guide to both living well and being good, and at times that will require you to deliver hard lessons.

However, we do not have to hit our kids to deliver those lessons. I believe hitting children only reinforces the belief that interpersonal violence, administered by the strong over the weak, the big over the little, is ultimate power. You are required as a parent to clearly express disapproval of bad behavior, create consequences for it that matter, and risk causing your children temporary pain, which is contrary to the loving care you typically display to them. But it does not have to be physical pain. There are a host of effective alternatives to whipping children.

All that said, there are parents who will continue to use physical punishment to discipline their children. It’s not the end of the world nor is it against the law. What is against the law begins with cuts welts and bruises. If you choose to punish your children physically spank them with your open hand. Do not take their pants down. Don’t hit them with objects. If you do so, cuts welts and bruises will not be an issue. Should a four year old boy child be hit with a narrow branch of a tree until welts are raised on his bare skin and he bleeds? That is an easy question to answer. Most of us, Michael Vick notwithstanding, wouldn’t treat a dog that way. And if Charles Barkley is correct and 90% of Southern black parents “whoop” their children in that fashion they should stop. It’s too much. They are traumatizing their children and perpetuating needless violence against other humans. Child abuse is defined and easily recognized. There is no national debate of which I’m aware on this topic. End of story.

No comments:

Post a Comment