Don’t Eat Dogs

Last updated on: July 27, 2014 at 5:00 pm by David Mills

Don’t Eat Dogs 2014-07-27T13:22:47-04:00 David Mills

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

First, my friend and then-colleague Barbara McClay explained Why You Shouldn’t Eat Dogs. We accord dogs “a place we do not grant to the other animals,” she wrote.

That respect isn’t irrational, because it is founded in the uniqueness of the relationship. You could say the relationship itself could have been formed just as easily with some other animal — pigs, for instance. That might be true, but it’s irrelevant. Denying the existence of the relationship would be the irrational thing to do here. The relationship is a fact, and like all relationships, it comes with duties and privileges. So don’t eat dogs.

To put it another way: Speaking of dogs as our friends is not a figure of speech. We are friends with dogs (there’s even a book about it). We are not friends, in this sense, with any other animal. Even horses, with which we do have close relationships, are directed by us in a much firmer way than we direct dogs.

Eating a dog is a betrayal of that friendship. So don’t eat dogs.

Now my Patheos colleague Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, responding to another article on the subject by Michael Brendan Doherty writing in The Week, has added his own thoughts, in which he opens the door to violating that rule Barbara so well explained. In A Dog’s Breakfast, he begins with an explanation of “the transcendent dignity of human beings as image-bearers of God.” Though lacking this transcedent dignity,

for the Christian, animals and other beings are not valueless. While humans bear God’s image in a special and transcendent way, all of God’s good Creation bears his image, and is therefore worthy of respect. And this is particularly true of the higher animals who, by virtue of man-fellowship, have acquired man-like qualities.

. . . But I think ultimately the best argument for respect for animals is precisely that it’s supererogatory. No, you are not under an obligation to have a particular respect for animals; but precisely because there’s no such obligation, it glorifies God that you do it anyway, as long as such respect is not disordered (e.g. you spend more on your pet than you give to the poor…). Dogs are not moral subjects, and this must be kept in mind, but respect for them is part of the rejoicing in God’s good Creation that all Christians are called to.

As a result, if he finds himself in a culture that eats dogs, eat dog he might.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 26, 2014

Deneen on the Catholic Neo-Conservative Division

Next Post

July 28, 2014 But You Can Eat Cats

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion & life American Life Anglican Affairs Apologetics Art and artistry Beer Capitalism's downside Catholic converts Catholic issues Catholicism & public life Catholicism in general Christianity & culture Christianity & the Jews Conservatism Conservative problems Death Do unto others Dogs Ecumenical friendship Evangelicalism Evil in the world Family Friendship Heroes How we should live Islam It's a funny old world Jews Judaism Israel Judaism justice Liberalism Life issues Marriage Mary Mass Media Modern culture good & bad Modern life as it is lived Modern Religion Mormonism People Personal reflections Politicians Protestantism Race Rand & Randiansm Secularisms Sexualities Society justice equality freedom The papacy & the pope Uncategorized Worship Writing & Language

Select a Month January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book of the Bible ends with "Let everything that has breath praise the Lord"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalms Proverbs Revelation Isaiah