Picture by: PAT MCGRATH / POSTMEDIA NEWS: Pitbulls
account for 3% of dogs, but almost a third of fatal dog attacks. They are bred
for battle. (from the National Post,
January 2, 2015)
The actual words of this passage are clear. If your animal has a ‘habit’ of goring, and
it kills a person (male or female), it is to be killed and so is its owner. The owner's life can be redeemed if such a redemption is acceptable by those suffering the loss. It is its application in today’s world that may
require some careful thinking. What is
this passage saying to us now?
What oxen do we have today? The following come to mind: our personal
vehicles, large pieces of equipment in businesses that we own, and of course,
our animals, be they working animals or pets.
If we are to follow the principles given to us in this
passage, we are personally responsible for the damage that our vehicles cause
to others, whether we are driving or our dependents are. And to protect us from the losses that we can
incur, we purchase insurance. We do,
however, fall short in the case of dealing with drunk drivers, and even
repeated drunken driving by the same driver – even if injury has been caused on
previous occasions. For some reasons, we
seem to allow these people to keep on driving – and unfortunately, drinking.
We are also responsible for any damage caused to others by
our machinery, be it at home (by our lawnmower, our skill saw, or snow blower,
etc.) or at our place of business (by heavy machinery e.g.). Homeowners have insurance for that and
employers are also insured against lawsuits for accidents at work.
There seems to be little opposition to applying penalties
in these two areas, although imprisonment or capital punishment seems to be
reserved for occasions where it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that an
individual acted with ill intent and planned to actually do harm or kill
another individual using such machinery.
The most difficult of the three most common potential
applicable scenarios identified above is that of the ownership of pets. And here we are talking about owning pets
that are potential killers. For example,
pets that are known to have the ability to harm others include members of the
wildcat family (lions, tigers, cougars, etc.), some dogs (pit-bulls, Dobermans,
etc.), and some members of the snake family (boa constrictors, pythons, asps,
etc. come to mind), among other animals.
Of course, there is great argument by many that these animals are only
dangerous when handled without care or handled inappropriately.
Assuming we accept that for the moment, the problem arises
in that there is no guarantee you the owner (who knows how to handle these
so-called pets) will keep them from having access to someone who does not. On the other hand, exposing a gold fish to
such a person is not likely to endanger their life. And therein lies the difference.
The debate still goes on even today and as recently as
January 2, 2015, columnist Barbara Kay wrote about it in Canada’s National Post
(see Pit
Bull Denialism).
The waters of course get even more muddled when an owner
of a pet in this category (i.e. one having the greater likelihood of harming a
person) argues that all guns have the potential of killing or maiming someone
when exposed to the handling of an untrained or unstable individual. True enough.
And therein, lies our dilemma in not knowing how to address these
issues. There’s no consistency and thus
no sense of fairness. What we allow in
one area, others can claim they expect in another. We have lost our moral compass and thus we
argue from the position of what suits us best.
Let me close our own study with this thought.
It is noteworthy to point out that God allows the owner of
an ‘ox’ that has killed a person to go unpunished if the ox has not gored
anyone before. The owner is only killed if
the ‘ox’ has been in the ‘habit’ of goring.
So, even here there is some forgiveness for those who own or are
responsible for the animals (or machinery) that kill the first time. But notice, the animal would be destroyed and
by implication today, any machinery (think vehicle) would be taken away from
the person forever – even the first time.
The bottom line is that God does
not expect us to kill or hurt others or to have possessions or animals that
kill or hurt others. I think we can all
agree on that. With that being the case,
we must all do what we can to prevent, minimize, and eliminate all such
possibilities to the best of our ability.
-- 30 --
[Are you
looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken
is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]
It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment.